Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Glenn Beck Interviews Ron Paul

I am very suspicious of Glenn Beck. I have seen him change his views on many topics and one wonders in which direction he will move his views next. As he admits out in this interview,at one time he thought many of Ron Paul's ideas were nuts, not so much anymore.

In this interview, he says nice things about Dr. Paul in the introduction and treats him with respect.

As to whether this is some kind of genuine transformation for Beck or a passing phase, who really knows? But, it is another venue through which he can get his message out.


  1. No, it is not a "genuine transformation" for Beck. His "sincerity" with all the Bible-thumping he's been doing is just not believable, and I believe that he has been exploiting the Israel controversies for his own gain.

    Were Beck sincere in his association with the Tea Party movement, he would not have smeared and shot down one of Texas's major Tea Partiers, Debra Medina. But his relationship with Rick Perry showed that Beck is a political animal and an opportunist, and not principled, nor sincere.




  2. Wenzel -

    I don't know about Beck and the comment above is certainly illuminating, but the idea that changing your mind about something or having conflicted ideas about things or growing intellectually makes someone suspect is deeply mistaken.

    We are always learning new things and enriching our ideas.

    Two years ago, I though the purely anarchist capitalist vision would work. Now, after seeing first hand the level and depth of corruption out there, I am not so sure. I go back and forth on that issue constantly, depending on the area I am thinking about.

    I would submit to you that that is the hall mark of sincere thinking.

    None of us can know everything. We are all always learning, experiencing epiphanies, growing up intellectually and emotionally, reading new research, coming across better arguments or evidence.

    How can our ideas not change, if not on the larger picture, certainly on the details?

    On many major issues, I remain agnostic to this day.

    That is PRECISELY why libertarianism is best.

    If we all knew for certain what everything was about, we could just brand the opposition "evil" and declare a holy war...oh wait, some of us already doing that, right?

  3. You may recall that Glenn had G. Edward Griffin on his show speaking negatively about the Fed. The following Saturday, Beck had a "come to Jesus" meeting with his backers. Those backers are very closely tied to the global central banking cartel including the Rothschilds and the Fed. I know one of the people that, as an agent of this cartel, provided information and wrote segments for Beck's show.

    At that meeting Beck told his backers he was going to go on without them; without their research support or their financial support. The very next week, Glenn announced that he was leaving the Fox Network.

    The past smear attacks on Medina and Ron Paul were examples of Beck taking orders from his backers. I think the past two or three months Beck has shown a level of independence that did not exist before. This may very well be a legitimate transformation.

    It is still wise to be a bit suspicious of his motives, but his motives have changed, as they are now HIS motives and not those of the central banking cartel.

  4. I've always wondered how GB went from calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists to interviewing this guy.

    He does says some true things, but so does the Huffington Post to at times. I don't trust him either.

  5. Beck the transparent Fox entity does not look comfortable with Dr. Paul. Beck figures his mental capabilities rise above the ever resolute Dr. Paul. Even he, can't figure the enigmatic gentleman out. Dr. Paul's mental capabilities shine well above any shoeshine boy that the elite throw against him. The man is stable and frankly, to me, uncorrupted. Beck and his ilk just cannot get beyond this. Dr. Paul is amazing and has the most lucid mind in America today, under pressure.

  6. @Lila

    There is something to be said for thoughtful change in opinion, but Beck seems to change his opinions more often than most people change their underwear.

  7. @Wenzel,

    When the MSM declares someone a figure of fun, there's usually more to the story.

  8. I continue to maintain that anyone against the Fed and global cartel is for us. Save and loose your venom on those who stand up for the banksters. Don't waste time and energy on Beck.

  9. A longer version of the show with the Ron Paul interview is featured at http://www.zerohedge.com/article/glenn-beck-only-four-outcomes
    Beck may very well be hunting around to find common ground among voters from different backgrounds (Christian Right, Ron Paul followers, Constitutionalists, etc.) for his own political aspirations. But one thing watching his show is that he brings a variety of perspectives through his 'lectures' and interviews, etc. that increases exposure to some ideas that are worth contemplating. Plus, he can be very funny and entertaining at times, if nothing else!

  10. Seriously Wenzel, love the site but don't become a conspiracy theorist on everything Ron Paul. GB has been interviewing many of the GOP candidates and has openly been honest about his changes. Ron Paul supporters are sort of like pre-famous Metallica fans. They wanted to keep them in their back pocket and then bitched when they made a video. Don't promote Ron Paul being an exclusive candidate to only a select few that has some mysterious intellect for things in society. He needs all the growing mainstream fan base he can get.

  11. Beck is a lunatic that has found out a way to make money by constantly shifting opinion and passing it off like it's something he cares about.

  12. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwinJune 28, 2011 at 10:28 AM

    Covering up the truth about 11 SEP 01
    is considered a key security issue
    for the State of Israel.

    Glenn Beck

  13. An nice interview until: we have 30 seconds left, what about Israel? Thought Dr, Paul handled that very well though.

  14. Robert and others are correct: Glenn Beck has been too schizophrenic to trust. His recent actions appear far more like going with the flow for ratings rather than genuine. That assessment could be wrong (only Beck knows for sure), but it would take years of seeing him more consistant before I'd trust him. Whenever Ron Paul interviews with him, it would be wise to anticipate a back-stabbing. It didn't happen this time (that's great), but I wouldn't let my guard down.

  15. Lila, you said, "Two years ago, I though the purely anarchist capitalist vision would work. Now, after seeing first hand the level and depth of corruption out there, I am not so sure. I go back and forth on that issue constantly, depending on the area I am thinking about."

    First, it's not about "what works." It's about what's right. If the government is a gang of murderous thieves, then it should be opposed on moral grounds, even if there's no conceivable way to free ourselves of this gang's clutches. Murder will probably always exist, but that's no reason not to oppose it!

    Second, all of the corruption you point out exists with government in place and exists in areas that are heavily regulated by the government and are in bed with the government. You might argue that the corruption would be even worse without government, but that's the same as arguing that without drug laws, more people would be using drugs and there would be even more violence. In fact, the drug laws themselves cause the violence. As you should know, the only regulation that "works" is the natural regulation that exists free of government interference -- unfettered capitalism. In such an environment, the private-sector villains of your articles would be forced to serve their customers or would go out of business. If they committed fraud -- which I assume is the corruption to which you are referring -- then the defrauded would take them to court, and what's more, even if the defrauded failed to exact justice, the bad publicity would harm their businesses and ultimately ruin them.

  16. I don't know whether Glenn Beck is a tool of shadowy, malevolent figures behind the global banking empire, and in fact, I can't know this because I am not a mind reader.

    What I do know is that Glenn Beck comes across as a highly confused pseudo-conservative who, having been exposed to some libertarian ideas, muddles through an incongruous world view that mashes together incompatible philosophies.

    In this segment, Beck sounded downright Marxian in his condemnation of nineteenth-century industrialists, illustrating that though he has been exposed to some libertarian thought, he has certainly never encountered the many works that refute the robber-baron myth.

    I take Glenn Beck at his word and don't waste time in a fruitless and ultimately unprovable effort to discern his surreptitious motives. His words are scary enough, for they mix some superficial libertarianism with standard conservatism in a way that discredits the philosophy of freedom.

  17. @Nathan

    You misunderstand.

    I didn't say it's all about what "works" - although in my opinion what is right will also work and a contempt for practical application is misguided. Conservatives call that

    What I mean is that a libertarian society (as to political framework) needs to have a public culture that upholds noble or aspiring standards of behavior.

    In other words, a debased public culture and libertarian political structures don't mix. I can defend that position quite thoroughly but won't in a comment.

    In my judgement, tyranny is inevitable, barring some extraordinary change of course.

    In fact, I consider what we have in the US today tyranny - albeit a "soft" tyranny.
    By soft, I don't mean that the tyranny is "softened" but that it is disguised.

    The complete subversion of language is a symptom.

    Personally, I think a THEO- cracy would be an improvement on what we have now, which is a PORNO-cracy.

    By that I mean not just literal porn, but the whole addictive relationship to whatever is momentary, violent, sensational, and a cheap thrill -

    There is little substance.

    We are a society enslaved by base drives and compulsions, and our thinking is no more than rationalization after the fact of this repellent pathology.

  18. @Nathan
    Beck may be confused. I don't know. But using Marxist analysis or insights is not the proof of it. Rothbard sounds just like Marx at times, in his analysis of imperialism.

  19. The concept that immorality can be be FIXED by a State style government, which is merely the public acceptance of a group with a monopoly of criminal behavior, is always going to give problems.