48 votes

The Segment In Which Glenn Beck Realizes He's Part Of The Problem, Not The Solution

Excerpt from Glenn Beck's special on the Federal Reserve. Lmao, I can't believe he kept a straight face!

http://youtu.be/t1_Gq09t3rg




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Jesus

did not come to set up a system of government at all. in fact quite the opposite.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

It is not my intent

to argue about religion. But if you say that Jesus was in favor of an individualistic free society, that would be a stretch.

Assuming Bible is correct:

1. Jesus obviously did not understand how money changers operated at the Temple. That is why he became angry. Simple people at the time could not understand why one day conversion rate was different from another. Today, socialist-progressives think about Wall Street speculation (the most important instrument in a free society to form prices) as Popes and peasants thought 200 years ago.

2. If Jesus were honest and told the Apostles that he would not be back for another 2,000 years, the latter would had probably switched to another rabbi.

You are so far off base.

The entirety of Jesus method is about free will.

You are making the mistake of confusing voluntaryism with socialism.

Socialism is a COMPULSORY form of government COLLECTIVISM.

Using FREE WILL in a FREE SOCIETY to donate money or engage in altruism is hardly socialism. It's voluntaryism.

I thought

my post (thumbed down by Libertarian religious collectivists) explained how Jesus used "free will" and "voluntaryism" to deal with money changers at the Temple.

To post stupidity but you did

1. Really Jesus didn't understand the money changers .. Yeah Jesus is an Idiot .. GO FUCK yourself

2. Now Jesus isn't Honest .. This is a GO FUCK yourself again

Please explain how Jesus and God wanted a Government run by Force

You are tripping

First, you curse, then come around to say "please explain."

At least you can understand how Buddhist libertarians can be offended by religious muslims, right?

Okay, here is the answer: Often direct force does not need to be applied to many. You burn a few witches and tell the others to fear hell. Same way, gov jails a few folks and tell the others to pay taxes.

Wow can't wait to join that

Wow can't wait to join that Utopia. The Victorian age of America is calling, they want you to write a book telling them how taking control of other people's lives and freedom will lead them to Zion.

Southern Agrarian

Sophistry.

Be specific or go away.

Glenn Beck's $50 million contract

The weakness

of G. Edward Griffin is that he believes that wise central planners can really do good management and control of masses. If that were true, socialism would be possible.

In reality, capitalists, bankers, investers, businessmen, politicians, and wise central planners do NOT have group or "class" interest. They are swayed away by the same ideas as we are. In corporatism, tyranny of the government always has the upper hand and the rich know that. The rich brownnose big gov tyranny in order to save themselves from competitors (who would use the gov tyranny help to wipe them out, otherwise.)

No clue what you're talking about

You say, "G. Edward Griffin... believes that wise central planners can really do good management and control of masses"

Huh? That is the total opposite of what he has advocated for decades. See "The Creed of Freedom" by G. Edward Griffin and his anti-collectivism series The Future is Calling and this video where he discussed Individualism vs Collectivism and why we must reject the latter and embrace the former.

Griffin ("The Future is Calling"):

Collectivists say, "We must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other hand, have been to school. We’ve read books. We are informed. We are smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes . So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall decide on behalf of soci ety and we shall enforce our decisions by law so no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind."

By contrast, individualists say, "We also think we are right and that the masses seldom do what we think they s hould do, but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, could compel us to act as they decree, and that would be the end of our freedom."

Griffin ("Creed"):

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

[...]

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

Regarding the money issue in particular: "The proposal is that we should take the power to create money-out-of-nothing away from big, bad bankers and turn it over to nice, trustworthy politicians. In my view, it is naïve to think that politicians are more trustworthy than bankers. The problem with money created out of nothing is not who does it but that it is done at all." -G Edward Griffin

Let me rephrase

I totally agree with G. Edward Griffin about intellectuals and many rich who support collectivism. I also agree that certain elements want total NWO control. Griffin did a great job educating us. That is the positive role of Alex Jones as well.

My point is that further reducing the dynamics into "the power of 5-6 megabanks" or "20 rich families" is bogus. If those bankers or families hire technocrats to manage, then technocrats will secretly push their own agenda (as CIA and trade unions, hired by gov, push thiers.) The move to a collectivist NWO is fed by those who create ideas accepted by the majority. Today, as Ludwig von Mises and others pointed out, it is regular intellectuals (starting from school teachers to astronomers) who long for collectivism.

Okay...

Fortunately Griffin doesn't reduce "the dynamics into 'the power of 5-6 megabanks' or '20 rich families. is bogus." Stop putting bogus words in his mouth and conflating him with Alex Jones. Griffin has written extensively on the power structure and how it operates, including The Creature From Jekyll Island, which is like 600+ pages and endorsed by Ron Paul.

You say, "Today, as Ludwig von Mises and others pointed out, it is regular intellectuals (starting from school teachers to astronomers) who long for collectivism."

Besides the fact that it seems like you're just name dropping Mises for credibility, Griffin, in the very video in the OP of this thread, explains how powerful, wealthy collectivists take control of the "power centers" of society and thereby lead the masses (teachers, astromers, etc). From the Future is Calling:

The primary method of conquest is to infiltrate and capture control of the power centers of society. (Power centers are those organizations and institutions that wield influence over political action and public opinion.) Once the power centers are
controlled, the nation will follow. People be lieve that organizations respond to the will of their membership, not realizing that they respond, instead, to the will of their leadership

He also frequently talks of "pressure from above and below". He constantly explains that the name of the game is getting average people to demand collectivism (i.e. totalitarianism or their own enslavement). You either have not studied his work or you're just being pugnacious.

I just use my limited

power of reasoning to produce my own arguments. Others will decide. "Our" Libertarian collective is simply happy to use thumbs up and thumbs down, few provide their own reasoning.

Your (and Mr. Griffin's) arguments would ring the bell of thruth if the majority of todays Americans were against collectivism. But the majority IS for collectivism - in one form or another. The reason why that had happened was explained by many economists including von Mises.

I too used my limited power

I too used my limited power of reasoning to apply reasoning on reasoning and voted you down, because you are being pretentious.

Southern Agrarian

The only arguments you're producing

Are straw man arguments against Griffin based on your gross misrepresentation of his views (often twisting them 180 degrees). Once again, Griffin clearly knows that most Americans favor collectivism in one way or another. His entire essay The Future is Calling explains his fact, explains "the reason why that had happened", the folly of collectivism, and how we anti-collectivists can "recapture the ship" so to speak.

Whenever you finishing making straw man arguments against Griffin, tell us more about your views on how "Glenn Beck is a Positive force", Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, and their students need to be "re-educated" by reading Ayn Rand, how Rothbard failed to study Ayn Rand "properly", etc. Again your evoking of Ludwig von Mises, fraudulently pretending to pit him against Griffin, is a sham. Both are giants and both are much, much closer to each other than you are indicating, and probably much closer to each other (and to Woods, Rockwell) than they are to you, and certainly Glenn Beck.

Thank you Humanic

... I'm glad to see that there are more people here who realize that Liberty First either misunderstands everything or is a divisive troll. Personally, I believe the latter, but don't entirely rule out the former.

Victor, feel like you, bro

I know - thinking and reasoning is dangerous for a collective who is afraid to be divided.

You are not focused

You should understand that my LEVEL of arguments is not for general public to pursuade to be Libertarians. It is for Libertarians to settle on the correct details of the othewise correct idea. If you re-read my posts again, you may understand my focus. I argue about details, not about Mr. Griffins, Mr. Rothbard, Mr. Rockwell, Mr. Woods correct overall view on general Libertarian ideas.

Mr. Griffin's gynamics and, thus, the blame is popular, but not correct. Although Griffin's facts and outcome are correct. THINK: One would NOT expect anything rather than tyranny (NWO or another form) when majority favors collectivism.

Your grammar is atrocious and

Your, grammar, is, atrocious, and, painful, to read. Go away.

Southern Agrarian

True

Your argument is indeed strong. My computer optimizer program had removed the spell checker. But don't you want me to improve my typing skills?

Wow Mr. Griffin explained it

Wow Mr. Griffin explained it so well! It's not about money anymore with these guys, it's all about power and control man. I guess they see a different goal in mind then just wealth.
They want the whole world and everything in it!

juan maldonado

Griffin must have listen to.

To George Carlin and Ron Paul.They explained it years ago.It Riles the powers to be when someone is a free thinker.Even Pink Floyd sang about it. We don't need no thought control.The video on The Illusion of Choice is great to watch too.Even the Moody Blues song In the Beginning.It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave and keep on thinking free.

G is original gangster

Search youtube and you'll discover he's been on point since early '80s. He ends up being important, IMO, because he speaks gently, plainly and with discernment. I have to admit that I've never spent any time vetting him, but have never detected a speck of deceit in the man. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. This is interview from '84: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnf0I2dQ0i0

--
//><\

Haha

O.G. Edward Griffin