About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, June 8 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
His show today was great! 

In all these years I had no idea the KGB had a hit out on Rand.  I'm not surprized, though.




Post 1

Wednesday, June 9 - 3:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Truly good news.  I will catch it online.




Post 2

Wednesday, June 9 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> In all these years I had no idea the KGB had a hit out on Rand. I'm not surprized, though.

Hi Teresa, even though they used that phrase of the show, what Maltsev explained immediately it meant that anyone who read any of three authors: Rand, Hayek, or Orwell would be sent to Siberia.



Post 3

Thursday, June 10 - 5:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are you sure, Phil?

I'm could swear I heard that Russian guy (who was great, by the way) say the KGB had permission to go after the three thinkers, including Rand. I'm sure that's what he said. It was toward the end of his interview on the show. Damnit, I've deleted the show, so I can't confirm it.





Post 4

Tuesday, June 15 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pretty sure. I know it was either Maltsev or Beck who made the point that reading those three thinkers would get you sent to Siberia.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, June 15 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Really great session today with Yaron Brook and many, many references to Atlas Shrugged, and even to Anthem.

WiJG?

Sam





Post 6

Tuesday, June 15 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The show today was okay. I probably expected way too much. So much was crammed into that 45 minutes for any real ideas to shine. Yaron did a very fine job, as always, with the few minutes he had.  I wish he'd relax, though.  Peikoff would'a had his arm flung over the chair next to him, with wide open body language, and oozing confidence.  

After it was over, I thought, "okay, now Beck can get back to pushing Christianity, I guess."  The show had that kind of temporary feel to it.   It was good, though.


Vince Flynn is outrageously hot, IMO :c>  Wow.





Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, June 19 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Until this week, I had only watched snippets of Glenn Beck and he grated on me in part because he didn't present ideas in the style to which I was accustomed from Objectivist lectures and college classrooms. Plus it was often the breaking news, 'politics of the day' type of thing so I quickly tuned him out. The only entire shows of his I've seen are now this week:

1) the 'Hayek" show and 2) the "fiction writers, including Rand" show.

My preference for how ideas should be presented to me is that of an intellectual, an 'egghead', someone comfortable with long chains of reasoning, scholarly discourse, a 'linear' presentation. And if it takes an hour to develop one or two aspects, that's cool. I'm used to it. But it's only about 1% [I'm guessing] of the population who prefers that or appreciates that. Beck has an audience of millions. He reaches the other 99% in cognitive style.

Beck varies his material and knows how to lay a foundation and build on it:

And what he does, the 'multi-media' or alternation of formats thing, makes a great deal of sense. He mixes in photos, video clips, written material on a blackboard, talking with guests, and audience questions. That keeps it lively for most people. Actually, not just for most people but to some extent for me as well: For a while I used to watch Charlie Rose and the Sunday talk shows and the News Hour. But I got bored with the unvarying 'talking heads' format. And even when they are debating, you get tired of seeing the same people (e.g., Brooks and Shields) over and over. Sitting in the same chairs. Just talking. And eventually, repeating themselves.

In one of the shows this week, he built up to Rand and Atlas by showing photos of rioting and shooting in the streets of St. Petersburg and how she lived with the horror and death all around her. Then Beck mocked the critics who said she exaggerated the evils of communism or didn't know what she was talking about. Very effective! Much more so than an exclusively abstract statement of the kind Oists like too much.

In the Hayek show, he started with historical background, the rise of the Nazi dictatorship, inflation, chaos. And against that he presents the importance of "The Road to Serfdom" abstractly. Again, much more effective for the average audience,the man on the street, than just plunging in. And, no, it's not appealing to stupidity or dumbing down.

In the fiction writers show (himself, Flynn, Rand and Atlas), he laid the groundwork for a show on fiction, which many would otherwise view as non-serious. How did he do this? By explaining how often fiction writers are the ones to predict (as in the case of nine-eleven with Tom Clancy and others, as in the parallels between today's advance of big government and the scenario in Atlas Shrugged), the ones with imagination who can see where things are going, writers bold enough to tell the grim truth.

Just giving a small amount of time to Brook and Atlas actually is not a bad idea, because he will then be able to repeat this. Wave the book, mention it again in multiple shows. Less likely to work repeatedly if he'd already devoted the whole show to this.

Conclusion: Not preferable type of show for me, who knows a lot of these ideas and who wants to cut to the choice immediately. But very effective for those he wants to bring in, newbies and average people.

Oist "eggheads" don't have a million person audience. They could learn how to bring people along, make them slowly more intellectual, willing to rush out and buy books from Glenn Beck. [And I hope people would not lose this point by talking instead about the fact he's religious.]
(Edited by Philip Coates on 6/19, 10:37am)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, June 19 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm actually more nervous about how he'll present Communism than I was with his Rand show.

I fear he'll focus only on personality cults (Stalin! Mao!), and just ignore the concept's definition. The power to recognize the evil of Communism lies in grasping the definition of that concept, not in pounding away at the names of  people who forward(ed) Communist policies.

Beck is fond of saying that "progressives aren't Communists." 
I completely and passionately disagree with him on that score. 




Post 9

Saturday, June 19 - 12:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm actually stunned at the success that Beck has had at presenting complex and often dry concepts in economics, constitutional law, history and political philosophy - we are talking about ideas that need to be built up, show after show, requiring the audience to follow him and to pay attention and to remember what went before. And he is doing it! And weaving the different elements together - the economics, the political players, the political theories, the history, current events... etc. And he frames his arguments with the words from the mouths of the players - in the form of quotes (even spoken by them via video clips).

Phil is right... His style works. And, it is this very style that grates on many of us intellectuals that has made this success possible. Under Beck's style, whether it is his clowning, or sarcasm, or using blackboards, or video clips, or being repetitious, are ideas. That is what is making him popular and what is the real power of his show - he is saying that these ideas matter, and as a tribute the the American viewers which I think Rand would appreciate, the people get it.



Post 10

Saturday, June 19 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teressa,

I've seen him condemn all of the following at one point or another when referring to communism:
- the concept of central planning,
- the immoral position of the state owning the people,
- communism as slavery
- the idea of 'from those according to their ability, to those according to their need'
- and he has said that progressivism will eventually lead to either communism or Nazism.

Sometimes his 'methodology' appears to be covering history, other times economics, other times current politics... and he mixes them all up to use one to support another - weaving them together with different principles.

I think that the two major distinctions Beck makes between communists and progressives are as follows:
One has to do with the Fabian Socialists (late 1800's till now). They were pragmatic in their goal. They wanted to take all countries to a socialist state, but they believed that a revolution was only rarely the effective way to go. Instead the believed in 'evolving' the state by growing it steadily but slowly until it was possible to force through the final steps in achieving full control without having a revolution. They would "progress" towards socialism instead of revolting. He is saying that that progressives and communists both want the same thing as an end goal, but the disagree about how to get from here to there.

Second, he sees some conservatives as progressives. Like Bush. And some progressives are Marxists, some Maoists. He believes that they all believe in big government and they would end up creating a Nazi or Communist state if left unopposed. Progressives of the left and of the right keep moving towards big government, but neither can really control the final outcome. And Communism as we have understood it, and Nazism as we have know it are both primarily European (in their actual manifestations) and what kind of bizarre tyranny would evolve if Obama policies were to go unchecked is really not clear.



Post 11

Saturday, June 19 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Making the distinction between progressivism and revolution is marginally interesting, but superfluous, as the result is exactly the same. Focusing on the process and the personalities is a mistake, in my view.  Beck's audience isn't stupid. They'll understand the academics. 

I think the subject is either over his head, or he'll dumb it down to levels that won't resemble the Communism we loath. He won't even use the concept "self ownership," which is entirely basic to the argument.  Beck won't use it because he doesn't believe in it.  He's terrified of human nature at it's core, thus, he'll focus on the process and personality cults, and no one will be any more able to identify power lusting collectivist ideas than they were before. 

Falling for "hope and change" is exactly what he should battle, but I'm afraid that's not what we'll get.   
 





Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, June 19 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Technically, Progressives are not Communists. I don't know Beck's reasons - I don't watch his show - but he is right, if possibly for the wrong reasons.

Progressivism is a form of moderate Fascism, not Communism. True, both the latter are statist, as is Progressivism, but there are differences.

Few Progressives want to outright nationalize the means of production. They prefer the Nazi method of nationalizing the producers. They don't want to eliminate the forms of capitalism, they want to control its mechanisms.

In this sense, Progressives are actually morally lower than those who advocate either of the more extreme forms of statism, because they are less honest in their methods, while sharing the same goals.

They are also much more dangerous in America because they are careful to appear 'moderate' and mainstream, as they continue the Gramscian march through the institutions. Witness the frequent apologetics in favor of Obama, whom they often say is 'centrist'.

P.S. George Bush is not and never was a conservative as that term has come to be used in the past 25 30 years. Like Progressivism, so-called 'compassionate conservatism' was an attempt to cash in on the conservative movement by co-opting it. It was modern liberalism (i.e. Progressivism) in sheep's clothing, and not very well disguised at that.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/19, 7:59pm)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/19, 10:04pm)




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.