Beck returns to tired one-world government fearmongering

by DAWUSS (October 30, 2009 8:05 pm ET)

1

And what is wrong with a one-world government?

Reply Report Abuse

by bilbo_dies (October 30, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
5 1

I don't know, I am wondering why I have to choose between my childrens future or saving the planet.

Reply Report Abuse
- by tuersm3856 (October 30, 2009 10:36 pm ET)
  2
  
  ...unfortunately, there are some con men out there who take our legitimate concern for the environment and use it as an excuse to destroy the middle class with ridiculous taxes and regulation.
  
  I guess the choice is actually pretty obvious: a clean, stable environment and ample economic opportunity for our children through REAL grassroots environmentalism...OR...a two class system with corporations at the top doing whatever they please because they've bought up all the governments of the Earth, and us at the bottom living in a new Dark Ages as serfs to the international eco-police corporate dictatorship.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by mescal (October 31, 2009 2:15 am ET)
    4
    
    Uhhh... the second choice that you've listed, sadly, is pretty close to what we've got now, tuersm... and with only a NATIONAL government. And you do realize, don't you, that corporations are driven strictly by the profit motive, and that it's always been far more profitable for them to pollute, rather than to clean up after themselves? They make no money undoing the environmental damage that they've done. In fact, IT CUTS INTO THEIR SACRED PROFITS! Multinational corporations are the CAUSE of our present environmental problems. They don't seek to control the world in order to bring about some Utopian brotherhood of tree-huggers. They seek to control the world IN ORDER TO FURTHER ENRICH THEMSELVES!
    
    Government... as always... is our SOLE means of restraining them.
    
    Reply Report Abuse

by tuersm3856 (October 30, 2009 10:26 pm ET)
4

What if we're all citizens of one government over Earth? Even if it were set up with good intentions, what happens if another Hitler comes about and is able to take control of this world government? Who would stop him from exterminating BILLIONS of people? But I guess to some people out there, that would be a good thing.

Reply Report Abuse
- by eweston8542983 (October 30, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
  3
  
  You would guess wrong, but thats what you get sometimes with an ingrown ideologically based fantasy life.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by tuersm3856 (October 31, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
    3
    
    Do a Google search for "population reduction quotes" and see who's talking about wiping out 80-99% of the world population...it's quite an eye-opener, and no coincidence that these same people are big advocates of a "one world government" (as a means to this horrifying end).
    
    All of these think-tanks, policy groups, international councils, NGOs, government bodies with all of their policy papers, situation reports, essays, speeches, books, legislation...all talking about global government as a means to regulate and reduce the world's population to a "sustainable" (easily enslaved) level. THEY SAY IT THEMSELVES! Fantasy? I thought so too, until I actually read some of this psychopathic nonsense.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by eweston8542983 (October 31, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
      1
      
      The human population and its future has given rise to much speculation, wishful thinking, worst case senarios, horrible ideas, and no little fear mongering.
      
      Seemingly the only way that a polulation pressure has actually been reduced is in countries whose population does not face death on a continual basis. Advanced countries with comfortable levels of exsistence.
      
      One of the quotes I saw was from Chenny and Wolfowitz(sp). I'm sure there are many from their side of the political debate that I didn't see.
      
      Some of those quotes go back to the 19th century. The focus of more current one's disregards the incredible space availible above our atmosphere.
      
      A theoretical One World Government does not automatically disenfranchise the majority of the population that it contains. It could easily identify where resources are missused. As has been mentioned here on occasion, privatisation of profits, socialization of costs. The possiblity of this easy way for the rich and powerful to sqeeze more out of the rest of the population might go away. This is the fear that pushes much of the corporate minds to push to resist any such efforts towards accountability and a world government.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by vysotsky (October 31, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      1
      
      I appreciate that you're genuinely concerned about this, but I just don't see the evidence for this level of concern. There are plenty of ridiculously awful statements made every day, and there are plenty of very reasonable statements made every day, and statistically we should expect that plenty of people have made both kinds of statements over time. And the famous people who have done so are especially easy to find in online searches. If you want to discuss a specific example, be my guest, but I should say in advance that anyone who is for exterminating or enslavement of a population is horribly mistaken, misguided, and just plain wrong.
      
      But for every person who advocates an outrageous reduction in human population by violence or coercion, there many more sane and rational people who think that universal access to voluntary birth control and sex education might not be a bad idea. How this relates inherently to the wide spectrum of positions about global environmental policies beyond a basic concern about the human race's continued and healthy existence escapes me.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by tuersm3856 (October 31, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
        1 1
        
        I think world government is a bit too lofty of an idea for our species at this point in our history. I like the idea of worldwide unity...who wouldn't? Unfortunately, there's some trash that needs to be taken out before we can even start talking about a New World Order for humanity.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mescal (October 31, 2009 7:38 pm ET)
        2
        
        For instance?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by RedRightHand (October 31, 2009 8:35 am ET)
  3
  
  What if I walk outside tomorrow and I get rained on? What if my local elected official turns out to be a mob boss and gives all his legitimate businessmen the honest contracts? What if an asteroid destroys our space shuttle? What if a warmongering criminal with a disdain for the basis of our laws were to be elected by an uninformed electorate?
  
  I would guess this one-world government isn't a "dictatorship for life" drawn by lots, that there might be actual consideration for the people whom the government governs.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by christopher howard (October 31, 2009 9:12 am ET)
  5
  
  "Who would stop him from exterminating BILLIONS of people? But I guess to some people out there, that would be a good thing."
  
  "Some people"? Come on, you can do better than that. Who do you mean?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by vysotsky (October 31, 2009 10:11 am ET)
    2
    
    Hear, hear. There's no need to be shy, tuersm3856 -- let's call out these dastardly, progressive, shifty, secretive, internationalist, elites who have spread out across the globe and control political power and Hollywood!
    
    (So strange. I feel like I've heard those qualities assigned to the antagonists in an older conspiracy theory about people trying to take over the globe and must be stopped. Eh, probably just my imagination.)
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by tuersm3856 (October 31, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
      5
      
      Yeah, you're right. That kind of horror could never happen. What was I thinking? I know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the past century alone, but it'll be different this time! They promise!
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by vysotsky (October 31, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
        3
        
        Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly: if you think that "some people" would find the extermination of billions of people "a good thing", who do you think those people are? If you think it could be anybody, then you're essentially arguing that such violence is innate in humanity and it doesn't matter if people are organized by one government or one thousand.
        
        On the other hand, the particular brand of "One World Government" fear mongering that Glenn Beck and Alex Jones present casts secretive itnernationalist financial and cultural elites as the enemy of humanity. I'm suggesting that there's a fairly obvious historical precedent for this menacing stereotype, especially among political movements that were paranoid about losing national sovereignty.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by jjamele2880 (November 01, 2009 8:30 am ET)
        1
        
        "unfortunately there's some trash to be taken out before we can even begin talking about a New World Order for humanity..."-- tuersm3856
        
        And yet you bring up the fear that a One World Government could lead to the extermination of billions of people...
        
        Who are the "trash" you are talking about? I accuse you of projecting. You would not have used the world "unfortunately" if you were actually AGAINST one world government. So in fact, you've been throwing stuff against the wall here to see what will stick. You are in favor of One World Government because you think it Might lead to mass extermination. So tell us- who makes up this "trash" that needs to be "taken out" before your dream comes true?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by vysotsky (October 31, 2009 9:50 am ET)
  2
  
  Exactly. I mean, when Hitler actually did come to power, the fact that the world was composed of separate nation-states that could keep one another in check through militarily means was what kept the situation from spiraling out of control into a Second World Wa... er... ok, maybe that's a bad example?
  
  In all seriousness, the term "One World Government" is scary because it is so totally vague in its implications except for the part about its big scary global scale. So specifically, what kind of government is it? What are its powers and responsibilities? Is this a government that came into existence through successive acts of conquest or by peaceful agreements? Is citizenship in this government exclusive of all other citizenships? Have all borders been abolished? Are we talking about a federal system? Monarchy? Or in the case that Beck seems concerned about, are we simply talking about a political structure suited to deal with international environmental policies?
  
  "what happens if another Hitler comes about and is able to take control of this world government? Who would stop him from exterminating BILLIONS of people?"
  
  One could argue that having separate nation states is allowed for Hitler's rise to power and World War II in the first place. One could also argue that being a part of a single state did nothing to prevent revolution and civil war in countless historical cases. With no specific details about this hypothetical One World Government, of course no one could speculate about what checks and balances might be available to stop a leader from instituting a genocidal program. Nor could anyone speculate about the potential advantages of a global political body.
  
  It's appropriate that Beck's discussion came on the eve of Halloween, because his unspecified One World Government is a ghost story. There's a reason that Alex Jones and Art Bell and George Noory and Glenn Beck all talk about the same One World Government: they're all entertainers trying to tell a good ghost story. Keep in mind that Beck's favorite radio performance of all time is the original War of the Worlds, a radio drama that famously scared people by sounding like actual news. (Remind you of anything?) It's the reason he calls his production company Mercury after the truly talented Orson Wells' Mercury Theater. Keep in mind that Beck's favorite kind of broadcasting is the spooky paranoid kind, and that includes his discussions of big scary global governments coming to take away your S.U.V. or whatever the threat of the week is.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by epkklk851 (October 31, 2009 9:56 am ET)
    4
    
    Actually, you've raised a very good point. We do need to keep this in mind. Orson Welles didn't intend to set people off, but he accomplished it. Becky is trying to duplicate the feat by preaching to his audience. Let's keep hoping he remains unsuccessful.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by mescal (October 31, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
      3
      
      The truth be told, Epkklk, Welles later admitted that he DID intend to set people off with his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. He realized that the publicity that this public panic would generate would likely open up lucrative new opportunities for him... such as Hollywood.
      
      It's no coincident that Dreck's production company is called Mercury Radio Arts. It is doughboy's nod to the master of shock-value publicity, because that is where he learned the art. It is also where the similarities stop.
      
      Welles, unlike Dreck, was a proud leftist of the New deal variety. He was a avid FDR supporter. He devoted much of his immense talent to warning the public of the dangers to be found in following rapacious demagogues and slick grifters. He paid a dear price for his beliefs, as his career sputtered along, making brilliant (though largely unseen) movies on tiny budgets. He, also, was hardly J. Edger Hoover's favorite filmmaker. Hoover would have just loved to have given Welles the Chaplin treatment.
      
      And where Welles monumentally p!ssed off William Randolph Hearst... his era's own behemoth media baron... doughboy has permanently embossed his own lip prints on the drooping, wrinkled derriere of Rupert Murdoch.
      
      And where Welles... through his cinematic masterpiece Citizen Kane... demonstrated the vapidity of a life devoted to greedily and soullesly amassing money and power, doughboy has seen this as a blueprint for his own success. Glenn Dreck aspires to BE Kane.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by jjamele2880 (November 01, 2009 8:36 am ET)
        2
        
        "Citizen Kane" was not about a man greedily and soullessly amassing money and power- the Kane character didn't give a damn about money OR power. What he wanted was love, which he never got from his mother and which he spent his life fruitlessly searching for, because he believed it was an object, or that it should be handed to him on a silver platter because he bought the right person trinkets. Of course, the problem was that HE didn't know how to give love back, and couldn't understand why other people needed the same thing he did.
        
        Maybe that's Glenn Beck, and Olbermann's "Lonesome Rhodes" label is correct- he's an intensely insecure individual who desperately longs to be loved and is terrified that someday he will wake up and find that people are no longer listening to him. Beck probably doesn't get that Kane is a tragic figure, and that no sane person should long to be like him.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mescal (November 01, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
        2
        
        jjamele
        
        I think that we're saying the same thing. Kane SUBSTITUTED an accumulation of material objects for the love that he lacked. He sought to fill that gaping hole at the center of his being with paintings, and statues, and gargantuan estates, and a media empire that allowed him to manipulate the general public. He was egoism run completely amok in his cold desperation to satisfy the unmet needs of a little boy.
        
        And you're right: this void at his core kept him from becoming a complete human being. He was incapable of loving others, but just wished to bask in their adoring gazes. He couldn't understand when they expressed their own needs to him. His one true principle was himself.
        
        Kane represents so many of the major players in the right wing echo chamber. You can see reflections of this same sociopathic malady in not only Glenn Dreck, but in Rush, and Hannity, and O'Lielly, and Quinn, and Kristol, and even in the Savage Weiner. These are all damaged, incomplete people who can easily stand up and lie, and then to shrug off the sufferings and the deaths of tens of thousands of people that these lies contributed to, just as long as their ratings remain high and the cash keeps pouring into their bank accounts. Their own needs and desires are the only ones that they are capable of recognizing. Their own egos are their only reality.
        
        This is what STILL makes Citizen Kane a great film.
        
        It is as subversive today as the day it was released.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by epkklk851 (November 02, 2009 9:18 am ET)
        1
        
        You both raised some really great points. I think the image of Beck as Kane or Lonesome Rhodes is a good one. He is very insecure, he is incomplete, that is why he needs to keep selling himself. I know he claims to have ADD, but could he be bi-polar? A lot of bi-polars self-medicate on drugs and alcohol. He is also deeply angry and resentful, and I think he is still furious with his mother for abandoning him. If you notice, his cruelist jibes are always at middle-aged and older women, including his latest scream fit at Cathy from Massachusetts. He is a sad and sick little man, and I don't think his fall from grace will be pretty. I wonder what Orson would say and do with all of this? I remember watching him on Merv Griffin in my teens. I was really quite taken with the man. It was years later before I saw "Citizen Kane."
        
        Reply Report Abuse
  - by tuersm3856 (October 31, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
    2 1
    
    I thought the United States had checks and balances...until I experienced the Bush presidency. The US was very close, in my opinion (maybe still is) of descending into a fascist police state dictatorship.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by vysotsky (October 31, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
      2
      
      I understand and sympathize, though I don't know that I'd start characterizing the United States as descending towards becoming "a fascist police state dictatorship" just yet, and I certainly wouldn't start drawing comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany. But yes, the United States has suffered a dramatic failure of its internal checks on power in my opinion.
      
      On the other hand, the existence of many other nation-states didn't exactly prevent the U.S. from invading and occupying Iraq on false pretenses, so again, I don't see how a hypothetical unified global government would necessarily pose a greater or lesser threat of such abuses of power simply by virtue of being a "One World Government."
      
      Reply Report Abuse

by The_Cat (October 30, 2009 8:25 pm ET)

4 1

Being a staunch nationalist, the idea of one world government does concern me. But, I must admit I also find it very hard to believe that we are anywhere near that point yet. The UN is sort of a one world co-op, which I can get behind. It's a way for every country to get together to deal with an agressor, or with a major local catastrophe. That aside, I think Mr. Beck is a bigger danger to America than any mythical one world government.

Reply Report Abuse

by christopher howard (October 31, 2009 9:16 am ET)
4

We've had international agreements and institutions since the second half of the 19th Century. They are vital instruments of peace, diplomacy and commerce. Unfortunately there have also been hyper nationalists who see any international cooperation as a threat to aggressive nationalist interests.

Reply Report Abuse

by Marker (October 30, 2009 8:28 pm ET)

3

"Tired" is right. Beck is a whackaloon's whackaloon.

Reply Report Abuse

by IRONY 101 (October 30, 2009 8:34 pm ET)

2 1

Beck's show is more and more like that of a slick televangelist sermonizing a flock of naive devotees. The only difference is that Beck doesn't have to ask his audience to send him "faith offerings" because FOX already pays him handsomely to perform his act. Glenn Beck obviously knows no shame. I still think he's crazy...but I also think he's a relentless and very devious self-promoter.

Reply Report Abuse

by srichardson (October 30, 2009 8:36 pm ET)

1 1

You'd think Beck and other conservative christians wouldn't complain so much about a one world government. It's what the bible predicts around the time of Jesus' return. What, is Beck scared to meet his Maker?

Reply Report Abuse

by jjamele2880 (October 30, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
3 2

These guys have entire careers which are centered around being terrified of something, 24/7. Medicare. Welfare. Social Security. The League of Nations. The United Nations. The Department of Education. The Interstate Highway System. Fluoride in the water. The US Post Office. Amtrak. The Progressive Tax System. If it doesn't wet their pants, it wetted the pants of their fathers and grandfathers. And they spend their pathetic lives feeding the paranoid fantasies of their eager listeners. Disgusting.

Reply Report Abuse
- by MickD (October 31, 2009 10:32 am ET)
  2
  
  Whenever I encounter a staunch Foxite person or family (I know of a 19-year old whose sole goal is to be a Fox anchorperson, I wish I were kidding) I immediately think, afraid. They are afraid of their own shadows, the boogeyman, whatever. They cannot enjoy anything because they think "others" will take it away from them.
  
  Halloween should be Fox's official holiday. Happy Halloween, anyway.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by srichardson (October 31, 2009 11:37 am ET)
    1
    
    They cannot enjoy anything bc they think others will take it away. That is so true. I was thinking about the healthcare debate this morning and my exact thoughts were that conservatives are so scared of people taking away what is rightfully theirs they go to extremes to keep what they have. They are so worried that one person will receive healthcare benefits that doesn't deserve it, they prefer to deny care to those who do. It really must be a miserable life always looking over your shoulder, worried about the boogeymen out to get you.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by Conchobhar (October 31, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
    1
    
    Thanks, Mick. Or, as other Micks might say, Séanhur Samhain
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by rikntx (October 31, 2009 11:59 am ET)
  
  A very good point. I have often asked "conservatives" why they seem to relish being afraid. Usually a blank stare is the only answer recieved.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by dnbrn (October 30, 2009 9:05 pm ET)

The blackboard thing is so over-done. How long did it take for everyone to be over Dan Smoot? Anyone else old enough to remember him?...an advocate of the John Birch Society with a weekly TV program in the late '50s-early '60s.

Reply Report Abuse

by rwmacdonald2091 (October 31, 2009 7:06 am ET)

2

Well here it is Friday. Didn't old Glennie tell us last week he was going to reveal something about Obama this week, that was going to "take him down".

Maybe he was to busy trying on journalist costumes for Halloween.

Reply Report Abuse

by jbraskin4786 (October 31, 2009 9:24 am ET)

1

I'd like to see Beck show some courage for a change, and run for office to see what support he really has beyond Roger Ailes.

Reply Report Abuse

by Boxer1979 (October 31, 2009 4:41 pm ET)

1

Beck returns to tired one-world government fearmongering

What he has nothing new to say! Come on Becky! You can do it! <sarcasm>

Reply Report Abuse

by New Frontier (October 31, 2009 6:42 pm ET)

1

Who would cross Glenn Beck's Bridge of Death must answer these questions!

1. Is the science settled?
2. Are we headed for one world government?
3. If we save the Earth, do we destroy our children's future?

and...

4. What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Reply Report Abuse

by mescal (October 31, 2009 7:37 pm ET)
2

African or European?

Reply Report Abuse

by Conchobhar (November 01, 2009 9:39 am ET)
1

1. Science is always seeking, rarely settled.
2. Many of those railing against the concept are actually working toward it, according to Jeff Sharlett's expose of the C Street house and the cult that runs it, THE FAMILY; The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. It's just that the one-world government would be a theocracy ruled by Jesus (through, of course, them.)
3. If we don't save the earth, do we destroy our children's future?

4. What...? I don't know that! Aaaagh!!!

Reply Report Abuse

by buddtee (November 01, 2009 11:10 am ET)

1

I knew it wouldn't be long until he started with his New World Order craziness.
Any day now ,he'll be using his chalk board to connect Obama to the free masons and then he will connect the Free Mason to the Illuminati and Illuminati to Fema and then Fema to the New World Order and the N,W.O. back to the Health care reform bill in particularly the public option and finaly finally to the N,W,O and santism . I can see all now Bill O saying "is the evil public option is secretly and devious way to get the nations poor to sign the book of death or is it the book of life I not sure ". Today on the Glen Beck show he will point out Ties to the Obama administration and the N.W.O .
1 Anti Christ and the New World Order .
2 Fema is the private army of the Illuminati
3 Obama and Hillary will bring fourth a offspring that will be the dreaded Anti Christ .
4 The Obama czars are a shadow government/ and maybe posed to take charge.
5. Is the N.W.O the change that Obama and his liberal cohort actually want.
Beck next show will be title is? The fist seal is broken. Is ? The end enviable . Should we all prepare for the end days and th e battle with the anti Christ . .
Later that that day .On the new side of Fox
The lead stories will be .
Is the First seal is broken like many evangelic s believe and we are now living in the end of days
.Fox new will report more on this frightening story as it develops .

Reply Report Abuse

by mescal (November 01, 2009 8:36 pm ET)
1

Wonderful post, Buddtee.

Not to nitpick, but I do have to take exception with point #3. These Endworlders do not think that Obama and Hillery will bring forth an offspring that will be the dreaded Antichrist. They believe that Obama already IS the Antichrist.

Other than that... man, I'm in total awe of your post.

Reply Report Abuse

Beck returns to tired one-world government fearmongering

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

Beck returns to tired one-world government fearmongering

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Connect & Share