Glenn Beck calls Geert Wilders a fascist, endorses ban on his entering UK

I can't believe that what I just wrote is lost! My session timed out and I lost my message! Uggggh!

ALright, without going into details, an endorsement deal with one of our jocks got "mysteriously" screwed up. There was a lot of rivalry between stations and it could get nasty at times. The client in question turned on us after striking some kind of special deal "across town." The biz is sleazy and was even more so then (early 80's). He wasn't a real big deal then, just another morning guy. I knew him casually/professionally. I'd see him out sometimes and we'd say hello and all. One time my then-boyfriend and I sat at he same table with him at an awards dinner where people from other stations (and mine) were just ruthlessly slammed. There were a lot of drinks, so maybe that had something to do with it. But I thought it was really tacky, and I just developed a general dislike for the guy. That feeling has grown.

My own opinion, for what it's worth: It's a schtick. It's just an act that pays very well. He lucked out, like Howard (Stern) did. Right place, right time, right connections.

Beck is no great scholar or holder of any superior knowledge.

Beck is a moderately bright guy, but it only takes watching his show or listening to his talk radio program a few times to realize he is superficial and an intellectual light weight who lacks depth. Clearly he (and Krauthammer, and Kristol) take their postures regarding Wilders from their employer. I am not surprised at Beck, but I am severely disappointed to see Krauthammer and Kristol toe the line, especially Krauthammer. I thought these guys at least had some integrity.

Rupert Murdoch will be 79 years old in two days, so he's not going to be around much longer. Presumably either his oldest son Lachlan or the younger James will inherit the business. It's his sons we should be watching, their connections to Saudi Arabia in particular. So, lets set up a Google Alert on these guys and Al-Weed Bin Talal and see what we snare.

Eastview, you wrote: "I am not surprised at Beck, but I am severely disappointed to see Krauthammer and Kristol toe the line, especially Krauthammer. I thought these guys at least had some integrity...."

Where can I find what you've been reading from Krauthammer and Kristol? What is are they saying?

Eastview, you wrote: "I am not surprised at Beck, but I am severely disappointed to see Krauthammer and Kristol toe the line, especially Krauthammer. I thought these guys at least had some integrity."

What are Krauthammer and Kristol saying about Islam?

I went to a tea party meeting last night. If the tea party movement is only about taxes and government spending (admittedly important issue), in the "long term," the movement will not succeed.

We have a local candidate, running for US Congress, who has received significant contributions from the former president of an Islamic association with ties to extremists here in our state. Many of these tea party activists are supporting this man.

Many of these tea party activists are supporting this man.

Almost a cultish support, IMO.

In general, Tea Partiers don't have clue as to the threat of Islam. However, some of them will listen to my concerns in that regard.

Now that Beck has come down on the side against Beck, I'm going to have another uphill slog.

Although....

Wasn't there something recently about Beck starting to support the theory of global warming? If so, there's a chink in his armor -- with some, at least.

"Wasn't there something recently about Beck starting to support the theory of global warming? If so, there's a chink in his armor -- with some, at least."

I gave up cable TV years back because I found I was not watching enough television to make it worthwhile. I have missed Fox, though O'Reilly's Talking Points can be seen on line http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/ and there are other videos available.

I recently found a radio station that features Beck in the morning. Yes, he is giving some sort of 'conditional' support to this global warming theory that it is partially man-caused. I am highly skeptical that it is man-caused, though I am no climatologist.

DougW, you wrote: "The comments on this are worse than the actual clip merits. Glenn was not overtly against Wilders, he seemed to be in an informing mode."

You may be right. It seems to me however, Beck set down a marker for the future. Unless someone of stature like D. Horowitz will chastise Beck into offering a retraction, I do not expect much courage or honesty about Islam out of Glenn Beck. Wilders represents such an critical historic precedent on open discourse about Islam, I cannot give Beck the benefit of the doubt (as you are) that he is merely in an informing mode. The Wilder's issue is too important; it is too grave. Beck - especially post 9/11 - should know this.

Eastview, I agree. I am very disappointed that Beck would attack Geert. Beck should either properly defend his statements (which he can't) or apologize to Geert. I am also disappointed with Kristol and Krauthammer. I will be attending an event where Beck is speaker in the not to distant future. If I get the chance (though slim) to speak to him, I will say something to him about this.

Your suggestion that he is a smart but superficial person is probably correct. He is a veteran media savy guy and if he was a deep thinker, he would probably not be successful.

I have heard him speak of his opinion of Muslims in general and he takes the line that most Muslims are good but a few are bad. Unfortunately the majority of American people say the same thing about Muslims and resent anyone that says otherwise. Just look at the reaction to Michael Savage.

American people (except athiests) generally do not want to believe that any established religion is bad. It takes determined study to discover that Islam is and always has been an evil religion at it's core or that there is very little light between moderate Muslims and militant Muslims. Glenn Beck should invite Robert Spencer or Geert Wilders, himself, on his show to respond.

I have friends that are tea partiers and they feel endeared to Muslims (they lovingly consider me a racist when I disagree). Probably, Glenn Beck follows that line of faulty reasoning but he went way over the top with his denunciation of Geert Wilders. With the exception of Michael Savage, the people we see and hear on radio and TV will probably change their viewpoint only after the majority of the public changes their viewpoint.

Attn. Glenn Beck...you owe Geert Wilders an apology for calling him a facist because you disagree with him about Muslims. Geert Wilders is a true European patriot in the finest sense of the word.

Constitutionalist: You are right on target about Beck being Mormon.

Here are a couple of great books with facts:

"Mormonism Unmasked" by Dr. Philip Roberts

"Unveiling Islam" by Ergun Mehmet Caner and his brother Emir Fethi Caner. The Caner brothers grew up Sunni Muslim, converted to Christianity.

LouManati, in one reviewer of this book "Mormonism Unmasked" you recommend wrote: " From those Mormons I have engaged in conversation on the matter, they are already aware that there are contradictions between LDS writings and those in the Bible, and even between LDS writings of Joseph Smith at one point in time and another."

This is problematic. I wonder what are the contradictions between LDS writings and those found in the Bible? Are there contradictions between LDS writings and the "Old Testament" or is it the New Testament he is talking about?

To be fair, there are contradictions between the writings in the New Testament and the Old Testament law of Moses; significant contradictions.

wildjew, I was repeating what Wellington mentioned in his 4:02 PM comment following the story http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/glenn-beck-calls-geert-wilders-a-fascist-endorses-ban-on-his-entering-uk.html . I haven't seen the actual clip myself.

Correction wildjew. The Wellington comment about Krauthammer and Kristol was at March 8, 4:02PM in the story http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/an-exchange-with-ibrahim-hooper.html#comments .

My apologies.

No problem Eastview. I will probably aggravate Mr. Spencer yet again with this comment, as I have aggravated him in the past.

This is my problem with my fellow Jews, especially conservative Jews. Jews like Krauthammer, Kristol, Horowitz, Geller, Perle, Wolfowitz, Podhoretz and on and on and on, have disappointed me.

I'm sorry Robert. I expect better from my fellow Jews than to support a former self-professed Christian president who declared war on Israel in behalf of Islam.

I've seen and read too many encomiums to former president Bush (and the GOP, the party with which I am registered) from conservative American and Israeli Jews, even after he declared his intention to establish a Muslim-terror state in the Holy Land.

Good advice, Jamie. In fact, I've also suggested that Barcode read "The Truth About Muhammad", as well. But since he's only here to defend muslims and islam, then I seriously doubt that he'll ever take the time to read either recommendation -- and all the while claiming that he isn't a muslim, too! Yeah, we know better.

Hubby watches Beck every single day ..so we have this show on our DVR. Darn!

That doesn't help does it ....

Wellington, Think you are right. Drudge just reported that Murdock is planning to open HQ in Dubai.

Go back to your bridge. The Billy Goats Gruff can't teach without you.

Here to learn my ass. You fool no one.

Awww....
What a shame. Gosh...that brings a tear to my eye. Poor guy. He'd lose all his best workers! (His best workers are muslims doncha know!)

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

ethoman, in what way do you view Wilders as a "Nationalist fascist" when he welcomes Jews in Holland?

What on earth has gotten into Beck?

60 million per annum, that's what he makes. That's what's got into him.

Don't forget: Rupert Murdoch is owned by Al Waleed.

And who really pulls the strings behind Fox?

Jihad Watch reader sheik yer'mami's train of thought as demonstrated by his words quoted above are, I think, common among Jihad Watchers in general (which includes all people who declaim against Islam).

What on earth has gotten into Beck?

Note the sense of bafflement here, as though it goes against the grain of a conservative pundit like Beck to toe the PC MC line, and thus it becomes well nigh inexplicable when we see it in no uncertain terms, as we do here with Beck's denunciation of Wilders (and about two years ago when Beck insisted that the Koran is a "book of peace").

sheik yer'mami's train of thought proceeds, building on this explanatory vacuum which his bafflement arouses. Logic abhors a vacuum, and this one's a doozy, so it must be explained:

60 million per annum, that's what he makes. That's what's got into him.

What sheik yer'mami is saying here, essentially, is that Beck is evil. He is knowingly enabling a deadly enemy of his own society, just for money. If that isn't a definition of evil, I don't know what is.

The final remarks of sheik yer'mami expand on this:

Don't forget: Rupert Murdoch is owned by Al Waleed.
And who really pulls the strings behind Fox?

Not only is Beck evil, Rupert Murdoch is evil, the board of directors of FOX are evil, and countless others in high managerial positions at FOX are evil, knowingly selling the lives of their fellow citizens threatened by a deadly enemy of unprecedented proportions.

Obviously, this is not the optimal way to solve the problem of the explanatory vacuum. Unless one has a penchant for conspirary theories.

am not surprised at Beck, but I am severely disappointed to see Krauthammer and Kristol toe the line, especially Krauthammer. I thought these guys at least had some integrity.

And then we have the subtler incomprehension of another type of Jihad Watch reader, as exemplified by the observation quoted above, made by Eastview.

Is Eastview saying that intelligent news analysts Krauthammer and Kristol choose to support evil because they "don't have integrity"? That seems unlikely. In fact, it is more accurate to say that it is precisely Krauthammer and Kristol's integrity which explains their defense of Islam! I.e., through a complex psycho-sociological process of a shift in worldview which the West has undergone over the past 50-odd years, to have integrity has become synonymous with "not being bigoted" against a perceived Ethnic People. Muslims are a designated Ethnic People (or better yet, a wonderfully diverse rainbow of various Ethnic Peoples) and their unifying culture, Islam, is therefore immune from substantive criticism. But what about all those bad features of Islam we keep seeing? Simple, for those whose moral intelligence has been formed by PC MC: All aspects of Islam that seem to be vulnerable to substantive criticism must pertain not to Islam, and not to the majority of Muslims, but rather to some attempts by a minority of "extremists" (and their Islamophobic enablers) at twisting, perverting, hijacking the normatively good and wonderful unifying culture of Muslims around the world. The alternative explanation, to which mountains of data point, is unthinkable, therefore it must not be thought. PC MC provides an elaborate and complex mechanism of interlocking logical and axiomatic parts to help the person continue to avoid thinking the unthinkable. And PC MC is on the side of the Angels -- i.e., Those Who Have Grown Up and Advanced, Beyond Their Fallible Forebears, to Eschew "Bigotry".

To think this way has become the Way To Think for all those, on the Left, in the Center and on the Right who desire to be on board with the moral progress of the modern West. To think otherwise is to be "bigoted", if not downright "racist" and "fascist". We Enlightened Moderns know that, as clear as the sun on a sunny day. If some of Us Enlightened Moderns happen to be on the conservative side of the aisle and disagree with our colleagues on the Left about this, that and the other peripheral issue of the day, nevertheless we all agree that being "bigoted" is bad, and that anyone who shows the slightest inclination to go there must be condemned and ostracized as a persona non grata.

Re: my post about sheik yer'mami above, and the problem of the explanatory vacuum, I notice another JW reader, Caped Crusader, more vividly replicating yer'mami's train of thought.

Caped Crusader similarly moves from being "stunned" by Beck's vilification of Wilders, to imputing that greed has motivated Beck to knowingly sell his country out to the deadliest enemy in history. This would make Beck evil. Such a conclusion is impermissible (without smoking gun evidence, that is).

This box that many JW readers are in, where they can't explain the pro-Islam attitudes among people without either branding those people as a) Leftists or b) Traitors motivated by Greed, stems from a sorely simplistic view of the modern West and its sociopolitical culture. The problem we face among our own dhimmi enablers of Islam is not that those dhimmi enablers are evil, but precisely that they are good intelligent people. How can goodness and intelligence lead to a pro-Islam attitude? That's the kind of question that needs to be explored. The most plausible conclusion is that the West's worldview, and conception of ethics, has shifted in the past 50-odd years, and a major part of this shift has strengthened and solidified an anxious antipathy against all forms of "bigotry" against perceived Ethnic Peoples.

Along comes a world-wide Ethnic People, Muslims (or better yet, a wonderfully diverse rainbow of Ethnic Peoples), who are being increasingly criticized and targeted (never mind that it is their own actions that have made this necessary), and the good and intelligent modern man (whether on the Left, Right or Center) has little choice but to side with the Muslims and their unifying culture, Islam, against the "bigots" -- "bigots" here defined tendentiously as anyone substantially critical of Islam and/or of Muslims who support Islam.

The alternative for the good and intelligent modern man is unthinkable, so he does not think it. And PC MC provides him with a rich, elaborate, complex mechanism of logic and axioms by which to continue to avoid the mountain of data that would lead any rational person to think the unthinkable.

You missed my point, I've been banned from using the internet at work, so I had to type fast ... as if that matters. The point I was trying to make is that Geert is actaully our last best hope at avoiding fascism. Maybe read it again, sorry for the confusion, but thanks for bringing it up ... don't want to be like Beck here. For the record in my opinion Geert, and the men and women like him (like the people here) are our last best hope to save us from fascists.

"I found that he never endorsed a ban on Wilders in the UK, so I'm not sure where that is coming from??."

Beck doesn't come right out and say that he endorsed the ban on Geert -- but if you listen carefully, then you can hear it in his tone and facial expressions. Watch it again, and then pay close attention to this statement:

"Last year he was banned from the UK. They said his presence could threaten community harmony and therefore public saftey."

See what I mean?!

Mackie, Beck does not get into trouble with me when he refers to Communists on the left and fascists on the right.

The jury is still out for me whether fascism is a thing of the political left or the right. It seems it is an extreme ideology that draws from both the left and the right. It's a parasite that attaches itself to the trunk of a healthy political movement if people are not vigilant. I've seen a few fascists on the political right during my years of political activism; that is if we consider xenophobia, racism, extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, the forcible suppression of opposition, etc., part and parcel of fascism.

What troubles me is that Glenn Beck finds fascist tendencies in Geert Wilders. I would like to know how Beck defines fascism. Does Beck think Wilders is a racist?

I thought I read that Beck did indeed support the UK's ban on Wilders; which is part of what has caused folks to question Beck's consistency, in light of the fact Beck also interviewed Wilders.

Did Beck come out against England's ban on Wilders?

Your Ethnic Peoples explanation for why so many are loathe to criticize Islam has merit, Hesperado, but I think there is hesitation as well because folks in the West are just not inclined to consider the possibility that a major religion of the world could be evil, the ethnic composition of it believers notwithstanding. As Wordsworth observed, there's rarely one cause for anything.

Champ wrote, quoting Beck: "Last year he was banned from the UK. They said his presence could threaten community harmony and therefore public safety."

See what I mean?!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Exactly. I called a bright local radio host this afternoon on this issue. He surprisingly opined "I'm not sure if Geert Wilders is a fascist or not...." the important thing being how this upcoming trial comes out.

How can an intelligent man not be sure?

I now notice, from another JW reader, wildjew, another way out of the explanatory vacuum -- that vacuum caused by the seemingly inexplicable fact of a Conservative Pundit taking a pro-Islam stand of one sort or another.

According to the logic here, it is impossible for a Conservative Pundit by nature to take any pro-Islam stand. Therefore, when we see it happen, we naturally seek an explanation for it.

The most common explanation is that they are motivated by Greed, knowingly selling out to the deadliest enemy which their own society faces. But this would make them evil. That seems highly unlikely, and would require irrefutable evidence, not circumstantial evidence.

Another explanation is Ignorance. These intelligent analysts just don't know what makes Islam bad. If only someone could get past their entourage and slip them a copy of Spencer's book, or some kind of booklet containing information about Islam, then the scales would fall from their eyes and they would see, like we Jihad Watchers do. This too seems unlikely, since the information is all around us, readily available, and if we Jihad Watchers can become Islamorealistically literate, so too should they. Ignorance cannot be an excuse, nor an explanation.

The other explanation offered by wildjew is Fear. According to this explanation, these Conservative Pundits (to which, by the way, we can add the vast majority of Conservative politicians, artists and writers in the West) are not ignorant of Islam -- they know like we do that it is evil, unjust and dangerous -- nor are they selling out for money: rather, they are just afraid. Now, some are divided on this, but I tend to distinguish the evil of Greed-motivated treason, from the sin of cowardice that tends to serve to endanger one's fellow citizens. Certainly, the latter reflects poorly on the moral character of the person, but it is not as blatantly evil in terms of supporting the enemy knowingly, as is the Greed.

There have been other ways out of the explanatory vacuum over the years (and Hugh Fitzgerald used to have a habit of trotting out a menagerie or Follies of them in the form of what I called his Esdrujula Elves) but, as I wrote in that essay, all resemble the above three in their shared conceit "as though the entire stupendously sprawling problem of the Western inability to recognize the problem of Islam were reducible to mere character flaws."

The more plausible way to account for this cognitive dissonance is to put it another way:

1) A paradigm shift in worldview has occurred in the past 50-odd years throughout the West.

2) One major feature of this paradigm shift is the strengthening and solidification of a moral principle based upon an anxious antipathy to "bigotry" against ethnic peoples.

3) Consequently, being "against bigotry" has become one major sign of one's moral integrity, moral intelligence, and participating in the ongoing moral progress of the West, surpassing the fallibility of our forebears as we continue to advance into the future.

4) Muslims are perceived to be an Ethnic People (or better yet, a wondrously diverse rainbow of Ethnic Peoples) by all those who are True Believers in the Paradigm Shift (and I'd say they constitute a majority of people in the West).

5) If Muslims seem to be doing more and more bad things around the world, and if their unifying culture, Islam, seems to have dangerously and centrally extremist and supremacists features, then a normally rational person would be moved along a train of thought that is critical of Islam, and of Muslims who support Islam. According to the Paradigm Shift and its Moral Code, however, we cannot criticize an Ethnic People and their culture in any substantial way. But never fear, the Paradigm Shift has engendered over the years an elaborate mechanism of interlocking axioms and logic by which to fend off the temptation, naturally aroused by the increasing mountain of data about Islam and Muslims, to criticize Islam and the Muslims who support it. One of its axoimatic mechanisms is to counter any example one could bring up of Muslim malfeasance with the TMOEWATI (the "Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Twisting Islam" explanation), which delimits the problem to a tiny minority, thus saving the vast majority of Muslims, and saving their guiding unifying culture, Islam.

I am not a Mormon or religious at all, but I have nothing against the Mormon faith. Mormons don't kill or subjugate those who don't accept their teachings. Besides, Mormons have made very patriotic Americans and we all have to band together, whatever one's religious belief or lack thereof, against Islam's many nefarious anti-Western and anti-American designs. As for Romney, if he's the Republican candidate for President in 2012, he's got my vote. I can only hope there are very few out there who wouldn't vote for him because he's a Mormon.

But I do believe that many of them [Mormons], like Mitt Romney, do understand the true nature of Islam and are not afraid to speak out on the subject.

Mitt Romney, eh? You mean the Mitt Romney who is on record saying this --

I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam.html

Hesperado, in addition to Fear, I would add denial and self-delusion. Fear is a strong motivating emotion or quality, whose close-relative is self-delusion.

As you wrote, "According to this explanation, these Conservative Pundits (to which, by the way, we can add the vast majority of Conservative politicians, artists and writers in the West) are not ignorant of Islam -- they know (at least they know at a gut level - W.J.) like we do that it is evil, unjust and dangerous -- nor are they selling out for money....."

Right. Who owns a man like Rush Limbaugh, for example, other than the fear of having to alter his way of life?

".....rather, they are just afraid."

They are simply afraid. Again, I forced myself to watch a gruesome video - posted by a reader on Frontpagemag this morning; on this very topic; Wilders - of a beheading of a Christian in Somalia or somewhere in Muslim north Africa. It was graphic, horrific; bloody. How can a public figure not consider the consequences should he or she fall into the hands of these savages?

Hesperado wrote: "....the Mitt Romney who is on record saying this --

'I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future'....."

I am not, nor have I ever been impressed by Mitt Romney.

"But never fear, the Paradigm Shift has engendered over the years an elaborate mechanism of interlocking axioms and logic by which to fend off the temptation, naturally aroused by the increasing mountain of data about Islam and Muslims, to criticize Islam and the Muslims who support it. One of its axoimatic mechanisms is to counter any example one could bring up of Muslim malfeasance with the TMOEWATI (the "Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Twisting Islam" explanation), which delimits the problem to a tiny minority, thus saving the vast majority of Muslims, and saving their guiding unifying culture, Islam."

Humourous, yet true, Hesp. I especially like your "TMOEWATI". It reminds me of a similar acronym: TEOTWAWKI.

Wellington,

Your Ethnic Peoples explanation for why so many are loathe to criticize Islam has merit, Hesperado, but I think there is hesitation as well because folks in the West are just not inclined to consider the possibility that a major religion of the world could be evil, the ethnic composition of it believers notwithstanding. As Wordsworth observed, there's rarely one cause for anything.

I didn't say it was the only explanation; but it certainly explains the remarkable degree of traction in the resistance to rationality throughout the West as the mountains of data against Islam and Muslims keep mounting. Were the worldwide people not perceived to be ethnic, but white and Western-derived, there would still be some resistance due to the simple problem of indicting so many people; but there is enormous extra resistance here that requires explanation, and it is provided by the West's irrationally excessive culture of anti-"bigotry" against ethnic peoples.

And if we eliminate one of the causes (the magnitude of an Entire People), and had a situation where two small religious groups were the subject -- one white Western, the other composed of 98% perceived ethnics -- if the former were responsible for bombings, suicide attacks, machine-gunnings of innocent people in crowds, beheadings, supremacist language, hateful homophobia and misogyny, etc., you can bet your bippy it wouldn't take long for the West to crack down on them. If the latter were, however, it would take longer and would be riddled with difficulties, a procedural minefield through which our law enforcement agencies and personnel would have to step gingerly for fear of doing anything that might be deemed "racist".

champ,

I didn't know your acronym, so I had to Google it. There are over 61,000 results for searching for TEOTWAWKI. Then I tried a search for TMOEWATI -- zero results (in about one hour, though, this thread will show up on Google!)

"He [Beck] is an ignorant jackass."

Yeah - and a Fascist. You're a Fascist, Beck. Go join your lovely Mohammedan friends, you ignorant jackass Fascist.

"It's [Jihadism] is by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam." - Mitt Romney

Nope, not voting for ignorant Romney.

Sorry! ...yeah it's "the end of the world as we know it".

My bad ....

I think another way around the "Paradigm Shift" is to analyse the historical record. Since the fall of colonialism there has been this neo-rise of democratic Islamic movements. A whole string of them like I said before in Pakistan/India, Bosnia, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. If you research it you will find a record of debate in the historical record on a local level that was completely missed by the larger world to draw upon. You will also find a long history of genocide, and ethnic cleansing associated with these "Islamic Declarations". There isn't even any need to call anyone evil, or right or wrong. Just look at the record, and then look at the religious/political social stratification already occuring around us. All of this plays back over and over for at least 50 years, which is a contemporary analysis. The playbook is already written, and it isn't subtle in the least.

Really no disagreement with you here, Hesperado. I was only "filling things in." In addition to PC/MC rot (which pretty much explains why there is excessive and unjustified sympathy for "people of color") and significant hesitation to criticize a major faith precisely because it is a major faith, there is also that factor which appears so many times in the historical record respecting why people don't grasp what they should grasp much earlier than they did. This factor, of course, is ignorance, a powerful mover of events. What a triple whammy------false sympathy, an erroneous assumption and a lack of knowledge.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. There's a fourth element in all this and it's indifference. Many folks just can't be bothered by things outside their immediate purview. Ah, man never learns, does he?

Hesperado, my point about Krauthammer and Kristol is related to their being part of Fox, and the speculation that Fox seems to have made a policy decision to paint Wilders as dangerously close to being a fascist. How else to explain the uniformity of the Fox pundits in the way they have discussed Wilders?

In the case of Krauthammer, I have always respected him as being one of the better conservative pundits who is capable of analyzing situations dispassionately and independently, and usually accurately according to my lights. That he would so characterize Wilders in the worst possible way just seemed out of character, and suggested to me that he was influenced by Fox policy in how he would spin this story. And, yes, to allow himself to be manipulated, if this is in fact what happened, would, in my opinion, be a reflection on his integrity. The question I don't have an answer to is what Krauthammer's actual opinions are about the kinds of things we discuss here, as compared to what he expressed.

(BTW, in one of your posts on a story from a few days back you gave a link to an essay on Tu Quoque that didn't work. Did you by any chance fix that? I couldn't find the story on your site.)

Glenn Beck calls Geert Wilders a fascist, endorses ban on his entering UK
.................

I saw that show—very depressing segment. Actually, Beck is—by mainstream media standards—pretty consistant at condemning "radical" Islam.

I believe he heard that Wilders' was "right-wing" and "fascist", and didn't look into it further—despite the fact that he himself has interviewed the man. This is all too common.

Wellington wrote:

For anyone interested in contacting Glenn Beck, his e-mail is me@glennbeck.com. I have already written to him and received an automated response. I would suggest, if I might, that any missive sent should be firm, informed and polite.
.................

That's what I'm going to do. I think Beck just needs some better information. I agree with Hesperado—I don't think there's a big conspiracy here, mostly just reflexive PC/MC—which is rife throughout the West, and cuts across the political spectrum at this point.

"Are 112 comments a record for jihadwatch?" - Kaixo

Not even close. In one story just a few weeks ago (the "Jim Foster" story), there were upwards of 250, I think. There have been other stories in the past that have garnered more than 200 comments.

You are back? Again, don't tell me what to do! Who do you think you are?!

Yes, I can say that I believe, as many do, that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. So, get the burr out of your bonnet - you're acting like an "offended" Mohammedan, you know that? What irony! Bug off.

"He obviously is confused about Fascism and Communism, they are sibling ideologies. Jonah Goldberg pointed that out in Liberal Fascism."

IceStar, you are aware, are you not, that Goldberg simply cribs (apparently without attribution) Hayek? I think we should all be better read on the "Austrian economists" like Hayek and von Mises. I bought several of their important works recently and am now reading them.

jdow sez:

"Let me think a little.

Is Wilders a small government advocate or yet another progressive large government advocate?

If he is a large government advocate in the limits that leaves him either communist or fascist or something equally as totalitarian but somewhere between fascist or communist."

jdow, what do you think Islam is, if not the ultimate in "big government"? If there is no private sphere, if everything is political (Sharia), Islam is totalitarian pure and simple. Thus, either Beck is woefully ignorant (which cannot be squared with what he said in the past about Wilders) or he is amoral (common enough with alcoholics who have spent their lives lying), or he is stupid (which he is not).

This really is a slam-dunk.

"I noticed that Beck stayed clear of Islamic issues a while back and I figure it's because he belongs to a cult himself (the Mormons) and doesn't want the issue coming up.

How did Beck come to be a Mormon?
According to his own description, they were shopping round for a church after he got sober etc. and his daughter liked the "feel" of the church and voila! they were Mormons.

Not exactly a good way to discern theological Truth is it?"

Wow, how come "Kaixo" didn't attack you? You lucked out!

"Has anyone ever considered the REAL reason he will not condemn Islam? Could it be perhaps that he is a Mormon? One should look at the striking similarities between "Joseph Smith" [the founder of the Moromon's] and Muhammad. It's uncanny."

C'mon, constitutionalist, I'm no Mormon, but the Mormons did not fly planes into buildings on 9/11, and they have not perpetrated perhaps a billion murders of "infidels."

Eastview,

For my Tu Quoque essay, try this link:

http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/05/logical-fallacy-of-tu-quoque-and-ego.html

You wrote:

...my point about Krauthammer and Kristol is related to their being part of Fox, and the speculation that Fox seems to have made a policy decision to paint Wilders as dangerously close to being a fascist.

How else to explain the uniformity of the Fox pundits in the way they have discussed Wilders?

If you underestimate the near-universal hold that PC MC has on people, you will be forced to seek alternative explanations. To me, I would be surprised if Krauthammer or Kristol supported Geert Wilders (which perforce would include his stand, however less-than-desirably-coherent it is, on Islam). I would be surprised, because I already assume that most intelligent, good, decent analysts throughout the West are PC MC about Islam (even if many of them might be politically INcorrect about many other issues). What most JW readers still don't seem to get is that you don't have to be a liberal gnome with warts to be PC MC. That is the problem with PC MC: intelligent, good and decent people accept and support the worldview of PC MC with regard to Islam as a given, and that is mainly because of the ethical progress of anti-"bigotry", shared by those on the Left, Center and Right (as I discussed in other comments above). It's sort of like smoking. After two or three decades of concerted propaganda campaigning and educational efforts, nearly everyone in North America is now against smoking (with the exception of certain teenagers, Hollywood actors, and assorted low-lifes; oh and Obama too). The anti-smoking dogma cuts across political parties and class distinctions. Nearly everyone now accepts it as a given, as simply the truth. Indeed, the anti-smoking campaign has drawn some of its substance from PC MC, which probably explains its remarkable success -- see my essay "Ant-Smoking / Anti-Islam":

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-smoking-no-islam.html)

In the case of Krauthammer, I have always respected him as being one of the better conservative pundits who is capable of analyzing situations dispassionately and independently, and usually accurately according to my lights. That he would so characterize Wilders in the worst possible way just seemed out of character...

A person can be conservative about nearly every other non-Islam-related issue, and can be intelligent and astute about all those other issues, but when Islam comes up, PC MC kicks in (one sees this time and time again). I suspect Krauthammer was this way about Islam before he joined FOX.

Kaixo

I feel sorry for you. Perhaps someday you will learn to be a discerning human being. Maybe not.

You are behaving like an offended Mohammedan. Stop being so judgmental, mental. Now I really can't stand Mormons, if you're an example. And that has NOTHING to do with defending ourselves from Islam.

Check out InDigNation's comment above. Guess you "feel sorry" for him, too! lol

Why don't you lay off me and attack InDigNation for awhile? After all, he called you a "cult." Or, do I only get the honor?

Hesperado, you are an erudite fellow, but you omit one important point about Beck: he has obviously changed his public views in a short period of time. Nowadays, he likens Wilders to Le Pen. So how does a constant (your take on the new "morality" in the past 50 years) explain a variable?

Hi champ,

Actually, I was just thinking about you and hoping you would arrive.

And here you are!

Thanks - can you believe the nerve?

Also, as you saw, 2 other posters made a comment about Mormonism - yet somehow *I* get all of KooKoo's vitriol! Guess I'm just lucky! lol

"Also, as you saw, 2 other posters made a comment about Mormonism - yet somehow *I* get all of KooKoo's vitriol! Guess I'm just lucky! lol"

Incorrect. I have commented, but not to you, as there is no point in repeating the same point multiple times.

"Also, as you saw, 2 other posters made a comment about Mormonism - yet somehow *I* get all of KooKoo's vitriol! Guess I'm just lucky! lol" - darcy

Incorrect. I have commented, but not to you, as there is no point in repeating the same point multiple times. - skzion

What? Your comments were not critical of mormonism, as the others' were. Therefore, kookoo had no bone to pick with you.

I got attacked by kookoo, but not InDigNation and constitutionalist. That's not fair! Why not pour some of your venom on them, too, kookoo? Just curious.

skZion,

On November 23, 2007, Jihad Watch had this article:

Glenn Beck: "I have read the Koran and can tell you that I unequivocally believe that Islam is a religion of peace"

[Spencer noted:] So says Glenn Beck in his bestselling new book, An Inconvenient Book.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/glenn-beck-i-have-read-the-koran-and-can-tell-you-that-i-unequivocally-believe-that-islam-is-a-relig.html

That thread, by the way, had 178 comments.

One of the commenters, "awake", noted:

Awhile back, Glenn made an unfounded statement that he believed, conservatively, that approximately 10% of the world's Muslims are "radicals". He had no more evidence back then, then he does now stating that at LEAST 90% of the world's Muslims are peaceful. His revised statement implies that the number of radicals in his baseless estimation is less than 10% and could go all the way to 1%.

Currently, [i.e., as of 2007]Beck employs Zuhdi Jasser as a spokesman to point to "radical" Islam, which Jasser cleverly refers to the jihadists as practicing "Islamism", while trying to maintain a complete separation of "Islamism" from Islam and its canonical texts.

If you can show me that Glenn Beck wasn't a dope about Islam before 2007, then I will concede that he has "obviously changed his public views in a short period of time". Otherwise, I will just assume he is a carbon-based life form who walks on two legs -- i.e., that he, like most everybody else, reflexively swallows and regurgitates the PC MC paradigm about Islam now, and always has, and that his "conservatism" about other issues does not immunize him from his sophomoric conformism on this issue.

I'm glad you showed up, InDigNation!

It's definitely an "angry Mormon," no doubt about it. Felt like I was fighting back against a Mohammedan troll!

Best Wishes to you.

wakingwest, why don't you let Mr. Beck know why you will no longer be watching him, and send this little tidbit written by a Muslim with your e-mail:

"Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad. "

-Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, ‘Jihad in Islam’

Islam is a "religion of peace" Mr. Beck? Please. Grow a brain or at least stop lying that you've read the Q.

Thank you for the link Hesperado. And keep pounding away on this PC MC theme. Your stuff is subtle and not always the easiest to work through (in some ways akin to peeling back the logic and structure of a mathematical proof - this is a compliment, BTW), but with effort I find that an "aha" moment eventually occurs when the logic gels and everything suddenly snaps into focus, usually followed by a sudden rush of implied corollaries. (Well, if this is true, then it would also imply this, which would further mean...etc.). Good stuff.

Ah, but Hesperado, Beck had an interview with Wilders about a year ago, and there was no fascist meme whatsoever. As I recall, he also thought it was a great thing that Wilders was going to UK.

Actually, no need to "recall." In this video a year back, Beck was comparing Wilders's message to that of Churchill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I8jw4v7TMk&feature=player_embedded

You don't see a discrepancy?

"Thanks - can you believe the nerve?"

You're welcome, darcy! ...and no, I can't believe his nerve; especially since Kaixo brought up the subject in the first place by making this false assertion:

"For instance, there is absolutely no resemblance between the founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, and Muhammad."

What, does he think that he can come on here making false statements, and then have them go unchallenged? No! Besides, you didn't even address your comment to him, and yet he rudely replies by calling you out -- adding ad hominems on top of it. Again, sorry he was such a jerk.

skZion,

As I am currently unable to see video on my computer, I read the transcript of that interview here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499408,00.html

(Let me know if it included everything pertinent.)

I don't read anything there in Beck's words that indicate he was anti-Islam; in fact, he even says at one point:

BECK: ... I disagree with you on Islam. I know Muslims that are good people.

WILDERS: Yes. I have nothing against Muslims. It's the ideology.

BECK: Yes, right — as it's used for control purposes.

WILDERS: Exactly.

Now, first of all, we can safely assume that when Wilders says "exactly" at the end of that little exchange, Wilders may or may not mean something different than what Beck means by "the ideology" being bad insofar as it is "used for control purposes". I.e., when Beck hears "the ideology" we can safely assume he understands the "Islamism" which extremists use to do their dastardly deeds, not Islam itself. And thus when Beck says "as it's used for control purposes" he is not referring to Islam nor to the vast majority of good Muslims, but to the TMOEWAHTRP (Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Hijacking the Religion of Peace).

Thus, what has happened in the intervening year is that Beck has been learning more about Wilders -- learning, i.e., the wrong kind of information from the wrong sources whom he in his cheerful obtuseness no doubt trusts -- such that by now, Beck has concluded that Wilders isn't the harmless politician with whom he just had a disagreement over terms, but someone who has a sinister agenda to move from his condemnation of Islam to wanting to do bad things to all those good Muslims. The only change here has been in Beck realizing he was mistaken about Wilders, and thus the inexorable consequence of that, for a mind deformed by PC MC, is to reject Wilders. And, as I have argued elsewhere, he's probably right about Wilders.

In fact, this recent rejection of Wilders by Beck, Krauthammer and Kristor demonstrates that point I made rather forcefully: Wilders doesn't seem to be mollifying the PC-MC-formed crowd (even the supposedly reliably "conservative" ones) by sweetening his message with "I am only against Islam, not against Muslims". Perhaps he might as well go whole hog.

My recent e-mail to Beck was returned 'Failure to deliver" so I'm assuming I'm banned.I tried several test to be sure.

I'm not sure if it was my terse but ultimately polite e-mail that said I was finished with his show and Geert Wilders deserved an apology or maybe the links I included?

Or the 5 e-mails over a 6 week period asking him why he wasn't paying attention to all the mid-air shenanigans being perpetrated by belligerent and odd-acting muslims aboard 4 or 5 inter-continental flights prior to the failed attack by the "crotch bomber".

My guess is, he can't stand criticism. I'm sorry to admit that I have in the past stood up for this man, chastised the sponsors who threatened him and supported him on line. I will no longer waste my time.

FYI My comment was sent to news@glennbeck.com

Eastview, you wrote: "In the case of Krauthammer, I have always respected him as being one of the better conservative pundits who is capable of analyzing situations dispassionately and independently, and usually accurately according to my lights. That he would so characterize Wilders in the worst possible way just seemed out of character....."

No it is not. It is not out of character for Krauthammer to characterize Wilders in the worst possible way. Dr. Krauthammer lacks integrity. I am surprised so many regulars here are shocked by Kristol's and Krauthammer's bad behavior.

Hesperado

Au contraire, the Mormons are quite social. We don't have a mean bone in our bodies! We love everyone, even the grumpy old folks who sometimes post on this site!

We definitely don't do bombings, head slicings, honor killings, or other such nasty things! We just send out (goofy, at times!) young missionaries who are polite and deferential to a fault! If you're not interested, just tell them to buzz off!

You would be surprised how many Basques have fallen for the Mormon shtick!

Ah, well, time to go. Toodle oo! Agur!

Maybe this goes a bit farther to explain Beck's rapidly "normalizing" view of our Islamic brothers:
“News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch announced on Tuesday (Mar 9) that the Gulf emirate of Abu Dhabi is to become the headquarters of his global media empire in the Middle East.

Addressing some 400 delegates at the opening of the Abu Dhabi Media Summit, Murdoch said his corporation had started out as a small Australian firm to become a US-based international company that employs 64,000 people.

“I have every confidence that Arab companies can do the same and more. I also believe that Abu Dhabi can lead the way.”

Murdoch said News Corp would headquarter its Middle Eastern global online advertising operations in Abu Dhabi, and move a number of satellite television channels to the capital of the United Arab Emirates from Hong Kong.

“We will (also) establish a production office here for one of our documentary film-making companies,” he said.

“When we look to the future, News Corporation is betting on the creative potential of the more than 335 million people who make up the Arab world,” he added.

Organized by the Abu Dhabi government, the three-day summit is expected to address the potential of the emerging media markets in the Middle East, India and China.

Mohammed Khalaf al-Mazruei, who heads the Abu Dhabi Media Company, told delegates that “the Middle East is experiencing radical change,” and that its media should “accompany this revolution.”

News Corp has already established strong links with the region, last month agreeing to invest 70 million dollars in the Rotana Group, which is controlled by Saudi tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, after buying a 9.0 percent stake in the firm.

Alwaleed’s Kingdom holding company also owns around 7.0 percent of News Corp’s class B common stock.

champ - don't bother with KooKoo.

Know what I mean? Now he's behaving as the "wolf in sheep's clothing" that he is. Just wait. The pompous ass will return. Pay no attention to all the exclamation marks.

Darcy, Spot on. You've been doing all the heavy lifting.

Alphabeta, thanks for the interesting story regarding Fox. I guess any Jews seeking to be amongst the new hires will be out once their DNA is checked by the Muslims. And how will Catholics attend mass in a sharia state? This is all very interesting...

Kaixo,

I didn't say Mormons were dangerous. In fact, in a previous post, I complimented Mormons on having evolved past their former dangerously anti-social ways. That's why I generously assumed you too had done so.

Hesperado

I appreciate what you posted! You assume rightly about me! I definitely am not a "wingnut" of any sort, although perhaps my wife would deign to disagree,(sometimes!)

I, personally, am quite tolerant of others' beliefs, except when it comes to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Communism, Fascism and Islam, all of which did or do mandate the submission of all and sundry to their ideology or god, by force and coercion if required...

kookoo

Fuck off.

If indeed you represent mormonism - it sucks. No wonder most consider it a loony cult invented by a false prophet.

Hey darcy ...

Clearly 'kookoo' needs to try and get the upperhand with women, either through his first approach: intimidation ..or his latest schtick: condescension.

He went from trying to intimidate you by calling you out and then calling your reasoning abilities into question, and now this patronizing bullshit.

-------------------------------------------------------

BTW, assclown, I am a woman.

Perhaps you employ these abusive tactics with women in your personal life: intimidation and patronization. But they will not work here. Please stop. Thank you.

Mormon? Moron is more like it.

Pot, eh? Hmm, WWJT? ...tsk tsk!

Hey are you any relation to Jim Foster? ..or Yvdirtrider?

I do have you pegged right, and your above reaction proves it -- 100%.

Chill out? I don't think so .....