The Egypt Mess and Beyond

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Egypt Mess and Beyond

It's been a while since I have posted something from Glenn Beck.

I even took a break from watching the show. Some of his analyses of what's going on in the world would get me upset and I would lose productivity in my Internet marketing project. I would start spending my time on things I cannot change (at my present size) instead of growing my business (and thus get big enough to make a difference).

So I stepped back.

Then these riots in Tunisia and Egypt started and, on the news, I kept hearing a bunch of stuff that didn't make any sense. The more I heard, the less sense I could make of it. The way this stuff unfolded is so orchestrated it's not funny. Any child can see it. People don't suddenly blow up while an organized control of it all miraculously appears out of nowhere. But everyone has been treating this as if it were spontaneous.

Here on OL, I even got entangled in a discussion about why I know Islam hating and bigotry will not save the world. I tried to look some stuff up for these discussions, but what I was witnessing in the news was just as bad and boneheaded as the Islam-hating stuff.

So I thought what the hell. Let's see what Glenn has to say about this.

Here is his show from yesterday. I swear, it was like taking a bath.

Finally someone in the mainstream comes out and says that people in third world countries don't hate the USA for its wealth, or freedom, or any of the other subterfuges that are traditionally advanced by our leaders and philosophers. They hate us because we practice the following NON-principle:

"The enemy of our enemy is our friend."

In other words, we proudly proclaim freedom, the American way of life, the glories of individualism, capitalism, and so forth. Then we get in bed with some of the most brutal dictators on earth.

The people who hate us the most are those who want freedom so bad they can taste it--and the very people who say they can deliver it (us) are bald-faced hypocrites. The USA government trains the secret police of their dictators, gives these monsters millions and billions of dollars to spend as they will, arms them to the teeth, pulls out some trade advantages for USA companies, and then sits back and does nothing as the dictators brutalize and torture their own citizens.

I have seen this up close in Brazil back when I was there. And I have seen Brazilians back then hate the USA for precisely that reason.

This doesn't mean that other brutal organizations like many left-wing groups, or the Muslim Brotherhood and their pals in the Middle East, and so forth are not brutal. They're there, too. And they love our hypocrisy. It gives them an edge when things get hot. It helps them grab power. But they kill, main and torture at will, too.

The proper stance of the USA is to stand for freedom and individual rights, period. Which one should we take, the bloody dictator or the bloody Islamist? Or, in other places, which one should we take, the bloody dictator or the bloody leftist?

The only proper, decent, moral response is NEITHER. You tell them both to go to hell.

The USA has traditionally taken and supported the bloody dictator. The people who suffer at the hands of that dictator--who lose family members and friends to brutal murder and torture and lose their property to confiscation to boot--hate us for it. Hate us bitterly. I know I would if I lost my family like that.

It's time to stop covering this crap up with rationalizations.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot stand for freedom and prop up murdering torturing bastards. It's a credibility thing--and, more importantly, it's a moral thing.

God, it's good to hear someone with Beck's audience say it out loud.

Here is yesterday's show where he did just that:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gARNuJxFuXs" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uPggcsod75Y" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

Michael

[pippi]

You can't have it both ways. You cannot stand for freedom and prop up murdering torturing bastards. It's a credibility thing--and, more importantly, it's a moral thing.

EXCELLENT!

Thanks Michael, what a fantastic post.

[Selene]

Yep. Here is not an exhaustive list and it is only since 1946, but it is a role of dishonor and the US supported them all as far as I know.

Batista...

Sukarno...

Papa Duc Duvalier

Baby Duc

Aristide

Mubarak

Ben Ali

Armas

Odria

Jimenez

Pinilla

Stroesser

Barrientos

Burnham

Banzar

Borderberry

Pinochet

Alvarez

Musharef

Diem

Suharto

Chun Doo Huan

Tito

Papadopoulos

Caetano

[Robert Campbell]

All on the alleged principle that they were "our bastards"...

[pippi]

Edit: I need to finish watching the videos.

Edited February 2, 2011 by pippi

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pippi,

Choose the lesser of two evils to do what?

Stay the spread of communism?

Stay the spread of Islamism?

Believe me, where people are really, really pissed at a dictator, they will embrace the communists and/or the Islamists rather than keep putting up with atrocities. And the USA is starting to see that in practice.

Thankfully, this stuff is more complicated than one cause and one effect. So there is still some wiggle-room.

But, boy, did our government know how to stack the deck against itself in the third world.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's today's show:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fiRK0Q_7oxA" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

I'll probably put up the rest of this week, too, as it happens. Glenn has announced that this week is devoted to looking into this stuff.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

All on the alleged principle that they were "our bastards"...

Go back a few more years and add Stalin.

--Brant

[Selene]

All on the alleged principle that they were "our bastards"...

Go back a few more years and add Stalin.

--Brant

Brant:

I just stuck to my lifetime - 1946 on.

If we go before 1946, the list probably gets even uglier. You could add ole Adolf to your Stalin list and I do not even want to look at the Wilson years, that bastard threw the Suffragettes into the Tombs in NY City in the 1912-1920 time period. I shudder to think of what he supported in terms of foreign policy.

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Yep. Here is not an exhaustive list and it is only since 1946, but it is a role of dishonor and the US supported them all as far as I know.

Batista...

Sukarno...

Papa Duc Duvalier

Baby Duc

Aristide

Mubarak

Ben Ali

Armas

Odria

Jimenez

Pinilla

Stroesser

Barrientos

Burnham

Banzar

Borderberry

Pinochet

Alvarez

Musharef

Diem

Suharto

Chun Doo Huan

Tito

Papadopoulos

Caetano

Somoza

Trujillo

D'Aubisson

Videla

King Fahd

Reza Pahlavi

Ferdinand Marcos

Mobutu

Efrain Rios Mont

etc, etc etc.

[Brant Gaede]

It's really about relations between countries. Individuals don't count. By individuals I mean you and me. The U.S. also had it going with many SOBs of lesser rank--in Western Europe, for instance, just anywhere you'd like to look, btw. If the U.S. doesn't stick up for its own citizens it's going to stick up for other citizens, here, there, everywhere?

--Brant

let the state fulminate--just get out of its fulminating ways!

[william.scherk]

Then these riots in Tunisia and Egypt started and, on the news, I kept hearing a bunch of stuff that didn't make any sense. The more I heard, the less sense I could make of it. The way this stuff unfolded is so orchestrated it's not funny. Any child can see it. People don't suddenly blow up while an organized control of it all miraculously appears out of nowhere. But everyone has been treating this as if it were spontaneous.

I watched the first video until I heard the following nonsense, and then just could not take any more.

Please tell us, Michael, that you do not buy the whole package from Beck.

"I believe that I can make a case in the end that there are three powers that you will see really emerge. One, a Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe. Two, China, that will control Asia, the southern half of Africa, part of the Middle East, Australia, maybe New Zealand, and God only knows what else. And Russia, which will control all of the old former Soviet Union bloc, plus maybe the Netherlands. I'm not really sure. But their strong arm is coming. That leaves us and South America. What happens to us?"

Plus maybe the Netherlands? You're not really sure, Glenn? Holy jeezus fuck.

[Richard Wiig]

Not everyone.

But everyone has been treating this as if it were spontaneous.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

You are making a very common mistake I see others do with Beck when they are not that familiar with him.

When someone is a dot-connector, part of the job is thinking outside the box. And anyone who thinks outside the box gets stuff wrong at times. Glenn gets it wrong sometimes and he admits it readily. I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

But when he's right, he's right. Let's use 20-20 hindsight and look at his track record.

The pattern I see over and over is usually this: Glenn makes a statement like you just bashed. People bash it with a groan like you just did. Time passes and it gradually comes to pass. The very people who bashed it talk about it as a serious problem that needs addressing--while bashing Glenn's latest statement.

I'm so used to seeing that, I no longer pay attention to the Beck-bashing. If you want a list, I can provide one. But all you have to do is watch some of the videos in this section, then look at the mainstream reaction and compare it to back then and now.

His track record of predictions far, far outweighs anyone else I know. And anyone with that kind of track records who says, over and over:

1. I hope I'm wrong, and

2. Don't believe me, do your own research,

makes a much stronger case for my attention than a bash and a groan. Just watch any show and you will hear this. He is even adding something to it. He just said in one of the above shows that, although he provides research at his own site for convenience, if you don't believe in his research, do your own.

btw - Do you disagree with Beck about the USA being hypocritical when it gets in bed with bloody dictators?

So you don't like his religion? Some others don't like it, either. So what? Would you rather have incorrect analyses and predictions from an atheist? Find me one with Beck's track record of successful disclosure and I will gladly read or watch him/her.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

The only proper, decent, moral response is NEITHER. You tell them both to go to hell.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hide here.

I thought you wanted the silent, gentle, Islaminc majority to nicely talk them out of it? I mean, that's what you said, but now this??

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I thought you wanted the silent, gentle, Islaminc majority to nicely talk them out of it? I mean, that's what you said, but now this??

Bob,

That's not what I said--by a long shot.

I said we should try to encourage the moderate 93% to turn on the violent fundamentalists and reject them. Not "nicely talk them out of it." And I said that the military should handle the force part. As an added thought, I said that this was a good goal for intellectual warfare--and far more effective than antagonizing moderates with bigoted statements..

The problem with haters is that they can't read correctly. Your spiteful manner even got me to not read you correctly as a reaction to you.

Go back and read what I wrote--in the proper context--if you are truly interested in what I said.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I thought you wanted the silent, gentle, Islaminc majority to nicely talk them out of it? I mean, that's what you said, but now this??

Bob,

That's not what I said--by a long shot.

I said we should try to encourage the moderate 93% to turn on the violent fundamentalists and reject them. Not "nicely talk them out of it." And I said that the military should handle the force part. As an added thought, I said that this was a good goal for intellectual warfare--and far more effective than antagonizing moderates with bigoted statements..

The problem with haters is that they can't read correctly. Your spiteful manner even got me to not read you correctly as a reaction to you.

Go back and read what I wrote--in the proper context--if you are truly interested in what I said.

Michael

"bigoted statements"

Islam is a lie, and is dangerous to many.

This is not bigoted, it's called truth.

Right, right, sorry...

"try to encourage", "nicely talk", "go to hell"

Yeah, I see now - pretty much the same.

(and the 93% is intentionally misleading, this just represents those who feel that 911 wasn't completely justified)

I'M sure they will be exceeding receptive to our "attempts at encouragement". Absurd.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

That's a post with intellectual content in it?

We're trying to discuss something serious on this thread.

You know, USA in bed with dictators, stuff like that. There's even more if you are interested and actually read.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You are making a very common mistake I see others do with Beck when they are not that familiar with him.

William,

I want to add to this thought.

Beck is often labeled as a fear-monger. I can see how those who say that can think this.

I have noticed that there are two kinds of mentality: those interested in controlling others as a primary and those interested in controlling themselves as a primary.

People who lean toward the first think Beck is purposely manipulating the audience. Underneath, I believe they envy him because he is so persuasive. But they're always looking for a magic button (like fear) he uses to engineer compliance. They keep looking in the wrong place.

Beck fans who are more individualist-oriented look at Beck when he goes over the top and think he is just worrying out loud. But it's sincere worry. So it's OK. You don't have to agree with it. (Do you think a mother is trying to use manipulation techniques when she tells her child to use extra-warm clothing when it is cold out? Even if she goes over the top at times and tells him he will get really, really sick if he doesn't? That's the way Beck fans take him. If you want to see this gentle benevolence in his fans, just look at the behavior of the crowd that showed up to his Restoring Honor rally.)

Beck has studied show business, so he is not ignorant of crowd techniques. I can't imagine him as a puppet-master, though. He's not interested in ruling others. And he's not into deception.

He is interested in talking the masks off of deceivers. He's so good at that, he even rips the skin off with the mask. Now that causes some real hatred from manipulators.

I think the lesson is that sincerity trumps using crowd manipulation techniques as a fundamental motivation.

A very clear example of this difference is the blackboard. Beck uses it as a show-business prop. But his persuasive force comes from the message he puts on it and how he.talks. The Obama people tried to emulate that in some really lame video presentations. (I'll look them up if you like.) Here's what the public saw. A rather snooty dude looked down his nose at the audience as he lectured them on Obama's policies with a whiteboard. Those boneheads thought a prop was a magic technique for getting compliance.

Those are the kinds of people who will always call Beck a fear-monger and not see what the real connection is.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Gentlemen I will respond to this essay in more detail at a future time.

Despite the fact that I disagree with the premise, I do understand where Michael is coming from. I would refer you all to William Thomas's excellent tract on foreign policy (link below).

The U.S.'s foreign policy of installing or supporting regimes friendly to it was not and is not being done in the name of world domination or empire and will have to be used to stem the tide of Islamism like what was used to prevent the spread of communism.

Hopefully Thomas's column will explain why or give some insights many of you may not have considered.

http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/war-over-libertarian-foreign-policy

Edited February 2, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would refer you all to William Thomas's excellent tract on foreign policy (link below).

. . .

Hopefully Thomas's column will...

http://www.atlassoci...-foreign-policy

Mike,

You linked to an article called "The War Over Libertarian Foreign Policy" by Roger Donway.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Yes. I apologize I got the names mixed up. I posted this is mainly due to Donway's explanation of a foreign policy of self interest which is explained later in his essay. He critiques and addresses the concerns about TNI's article about Ron Paul and statements by other libertarians while outlining (what I think) is a very good manner in which the U.S. can conduct itself.

It does discuss the debate in the libertarian movement over foreign policy but also outlines what I think is a very good explanation of what foreign policy should be all about which is also grounded in reality.

I would refer you all to William Thomas's excellent tract on foreign policy (link below).

. . .

Hopefully Thomas's column will...

http://www.atlassoci...-foreign-policy

Mike,

You linked to an article called "The War Over Libertarian Foreign Policy" by Roger Donway.

Michael

Edited February 2, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[william.scherk]

You are making a very common mistake I see others do with Beck when they are not that familiar with him.

William,

I want to add to this thought.

Beck is often labeled as a fear-monger. I can see how those who say that can think this.

I have noticed that there are two kinds of mentality: those interested in controlling others as a primary and those interested in controlling themselves as a primary.

I have a slightly different take on the 'two kinds' trope: There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't think there are two kinds of people in the world.

It's a fun little trope that I use in real world discussion to gently point out that positing mutually exclusive entities ('two kinds of mentality') bears little fruit.

You and I have had some interesting discussions over the years, and you know that the most heated discussions between us often become a wrangle over the usefulness or appropriateness of analogies; other heated discussions have come about when I have been rather persistent in asking for specifics.

Now, I know you don't add me in to one or the other of the two mentalities you posit above, and I am confident that you haven't sorted me into one of only two possible views of Beck. Moreover, I am certain that you do not place me in the camp of an unspecified horde that dismisses Beck as a 'fearmonger.' You acknowledge that my opinions are my own, and not a result of membership in a collective that we might label "Beck-bashers."

I will answer your other Beck thoughts later, in detail -- I will even give the entire first episodes you posted a hearing and take notes on the specifics that I find wanting. I don't expect you to accept much/any of my opinions or point of view, or even the fairness or accuracy of my own observations, but I do appreciate that you want me make a case.

There are two kinds of mentality with regard to Beck, those who accept everthing that Beck says, and those who reject everything that Beck says.

Or not.

[Richard Wiig]

I thought you wanted the silent, gentle, Islaminc majority to nicely talk them out of it? I mean, that's what you said, but now this??

Bob,

That's not what I said--by a long shot.

I said we should try to encourage the moderate 93% to turn on the violent fundamentalists and reject them. Not "nicely talk them out of it." And I said that the military should handle the force part. As an added thought, I said that this was a good goal for intellectual warfare--and far more effective than antagonizing moderates with bigoted statements..

The problem with haters is that they can't read correctly. Your spiteful manner even got me to not read you correctly as a reaction to you.

Go back and read what I wrote--in the proper context--if you are truly interested in what I said.

Michael

But it is the consequences of what you said. You say that the majority should be persuaded to turn against the tiny minority of extremists (and why aren't they turning on them already if their values are so opposed to the extremists) but without using words or ideas - such as Bobs "bigoted" ones - that might offend them. Tell me, do you know what will and won't offend a muslim and why? Should people who are not as smart or knowledgeable or sensitive towards the feelings of Muslims as you are, remain silent lest they offend the muslims and ruin the chances of persuading them? I'm keen to hear your plan.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's a fun little trope that I use in real world discussion to gently point out that positing mutually exclusive entities ('two kinds of mentality') bears little fruit.

William,

I should have used a qualification. Something along the lines of the following: Among people who hold strong opinions about Beck, there are basically two poles, with some variations in the middle and some exceptions.

Of course I don't think all people fit into one or the other of two categories.

In fact, if you look, you will see that I tend to piss off people who predominantly think in terms of black and white. I recognize black and white, but I also recognize that if you use them in a situation where they are useful (where degrees are at issue, for instance), they cause what I call oversimplifications.

And just when people get used to doing the degrees of gray for the appropriate situations with me, I generally point to the color spectrum.

That's when the black-and-whiters get really pissed at me, saying I promote moral equivalency, getting really nasty, yada yada yada. And then they don't know what hit them when I come down on them like a ton of bricks about their own moral shortcomings--in correct black-and-white terms.

In their world, a person like me is not supposed to do black and white. But that's because they don't see the other colors (I believe many are afraid to look) and get confused by those who do.

Anyway, that's just context.

I do hope you mention some of the things you agree with Beck on, also. Too much negative stuff can get awfully bland.

Instead of the issues, it could turn into something like the endless discussions that go on and on promoting the Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth.

Michael