I have decided I don't want to expend the energy to decide whether or not Glenn Beck is honest or a shill. It does not matter. I know Elias is fairly certain Beck is a shill. Could be.
Ragnar, I'd like to tweak my previous reflections on Glenn Beck. And I would like to admit that, after three years as a regular listener, during which time I studied the man's personal style, approach, and predispositions, I've not been a "regular" listener in recent months, listening only when it is convenient for my schedule here. I have said in the past that he is a "shill", and until he shows better, I'm still going to suppose that he is. I'm not
saying he is, I'm saying that I "suppose" that he is. In other words, I'm not saying he is a shill, but I'm giving a cautionary notice that the man could be. Why would I suppose Glenn Beck could be a shill?
Simple. The man knows more than he'll admit, and the very things he continues to omit from his discourse are the very things which the American listening audience needs direly to hear, to see, to come to understand. Glenn Beck gives his audience a lot of good, true, and needed consciousness, and he does it in an interesting and captivating style, which I like about him. He is full of talent, which I also admire and respect. Chief among his talents is his amazing knack for reaching the middle-class heart-strings of American families, motherhood, and community relationships.
My problem with him, which I'll be glad to alter if and when he decides to become fully honest with his audience, is that he gives the audience
most of the story, without giving the audience the
rest of the story, and the parts of the story he is withholding are crucial at this point in American history. Glenn Beck himself knows in his heart what I'm talking about here, and I'll try to show that below.
I say it doesn't matter because he goes fairly in depth into the topics he covers. In depth enough to be conversation starters. A lot of people listen to him, watch him, call him. He is nudging people awake. That's worth a bunch no matter his motive.
I agree with you, Ragnar. What Beck dishes out to the public in many instances is very healthy consciousness and is good for Americans. But Beck is involved in the cover-up of 9/11 and is also in denial about the history of banking in this country. Both of those issues need to be addressed by Mr. Beck in an honest, candid, and forthright way. But instead of addressing those issues he attacks we who do address those issues. He has said more than once, on-air, that "9/11 Truthers are the most dangerous people in America". His treatment of Dave von Kleist, having invited von Kleist to be a guest on his TV show, was deplorable, even offensive. Anyone can see that segment by buying a copy of Dave von Kleist's latest film, "
9/11 Ripple Effect". Von Kleist put the segment on that film. View it and be the judge for yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ripple+Effect%22%2C+Dave+Von+Kleist&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=Work up a good all purpose discourse and call until you get through. I say all purpose because then it doesn't matter when you get through, you can explain some principle. Especially whatever one it is that causes him to be off the mark on the things where he is off the mark.
You know, Bro, I'd love to call his show sometime, but we only get a recorded-or-"time delayed" edition of the show here in Boze-Angeles. The show's already happened when we hear it. So, instead, I'd try to write a letter to him, but I'm discouraged by my fear that his staff would not bring my email to his attention - and that fear may or may not be well-founded, but I'm sure that the man is hyper-busy leading his quite amazing life - father, radio show host, husband, TV show host, and caring member of his community. Pretty busy dude. So I imagine that his daily intake of email from across the nation precludes his ever seeing my letter.
But if I were to write such a letter to Glenn Beck, it might go something like this -
Dear Mr. Beck,
Regular listener for about three years. Occasional listener now. Have no TV set, so can't view your shows on TV. Wish I had that option. I'm writing to thank you for all the good consciousness you disperse into the public mind, and appreciate your talent for reaching such a wide, generally awakening, audience.
But I'm also writing to ask for an explanation. I want to understand how it is that you see so much value in personal liberty as espoused by the founders and the 19th Century libertarian philosophers in America, such as Thoreau and Spooner, yet cannot see the template of that vision of freedom when times are transposed into present-day circumstances? I ask that question of you because of two chief reasons.
1 - Your spite toward we patriots who question the government's story about what hit this nation on September 11, 2001; and your denial that this Federal government would dare use black operations supported by media operations to influence the perception of the American people.
2 - Your allusions to Quigley and Skousen. I will give you an entry from my diary by way of elucidation.
Quoting my diary here: The first time I heard Glenn Beck mention Quigley was in 2006, and at that time Glenn Beck seemed to discount Quigley on the grounds that Quigley was after all a mentor of Bill Clinton's when Clinton was a student at Georgetown University. (It was Quigley and Senator Fulbright who recommended Clinton for a Rhodes Scholarship.) Glenn Beck felt, or, at least, seemed to me to feel, that because Quigley was a mentor to Bill Clinton Quigley was not credible. That was back in 2006.
But on October 30, 2007, Glenn Beck had a rather evolved and transformed perception of Quigley's
Tragedy And Hope, as well he should. Better late than never. On this date Glenn Beck suggested earnestly that his listeners read Quigley and take note of the powers which Quigley reveals. He also stated that Americans should read the U. S. Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers.... Glenn Beck again admitted that Carroll Quigley has stated in
Tragedy And Hope that there was a conspiracy but that the conspiracy, in recent decades, has become an open plan. Glenn Beck noted that Quigley indicated that "globalists" and "corporations" were involved in that conspiracy-turned-open-plan. This mention by Glenn Beck of Carroll Quigley's observations and revelations regarding the conspiracy was the fourth or fifth time I've heard Glenn Beck use the name of Carroll Quigley. I'll note here that Beck has also mentioned the name of W. Cleon Skousen more than once. Skousen was fairly prolific, and worked in the vein of Barry Goldwater's perspective on the globalizing socialist bankers. Skousen wrote the finest review of Quigley's
Tragedy And Hope. Skousen published that review as a book and entitled it
The Naked Capitalist. Glenn Beck knows about that book, and has mentioned it by name on his national radio show....
(end diary quote)
Mr. Beck, my question ... is simple - Why on earth would you be talking to your listening audience about Quigley and Skousen? Why?
And if you know about Quigley and Skousen, why do you deny the operation of the conspiracy they exposed? Why do you not speak to your audience about that? Anyone who reads
Tragedy And Hope and then reads Skousen's
The Naked Capitalist has to know how the mechanism of government can be diverted in its mission by a handful of powerful men, and turned against the very people who authorize that mechanism with their consent to be governed. The spiritual, moral, and practical daily reality is that our lives and freedoms are turning into a fearful misery and a complacency toward self-slavery because the mechanism of governance has been hijacked by globalizing socialist bankers and turned against us. The American middle-class is being plundered and their wealth stolen by stealth. The force the people created would now devour the people. Quigley shows us how it was done, and names who carried it across the first half of the 20th Century, tracing the history of it with impeccable insight. You obviously know this. And Skousen exposes the hidden messages in Quigley's book in a very remarkable and fully substantiated critique of Quigley - in other words, Skousen pins the tail on the donkey when it comes to socialist/fascist totalitarian control over governed populations. My comment is that socialist/fascist totalitarian government at the world level employs black operations which are chiefly orchestrated by elements which have been converted into compartmentalized accessories within complicit Intelligence community agencies and central banking practices (financial leverage of political events affecting public perception - e.g., the banking crisis of September 11, 2008).
Mr. Beck, as Allen Dulles once put it,
"The American people don't read." You and I both know that most Americans read very little, and most of what gets read is totally irrelevant to an understanding of what's going down in today's world. So the truths revealed by Quigley and Skousen shall remain largely unknown to most of your listening audience. I'm inviting you to consider in your heart the notion of doing a show on
The Naked Capitalist for the benefit of your listening audience and America. You and I would both fear for your career if you did this, I'm sure. But you have created a public image of yourself, held in millions of American minds which represent millions of American souls, as a man of conscience, a man who loves his country, and a man who is not afraid to do the right thing. That's the image (in part) of yourself as created in the perceptions of your listening audience. If you're real, tell us about Quigley and Skousen. Your radio show reaches millions. Their books only reach thousands. Wouldn't the right thing be to share the truth about hidden powers with Americans, with your listening audience, at this time, come what may?
Salute!
Elias
The Mental Militia Forums
Author
Logged
What does this mean?
