BEFORE YOU READ MY ARTICLE READ THIS:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12418


Sometimes big brother is so pathetic and lazy in his attempts to rule us with an iron fist that it requires us to put down the humorous training gloves and bareknuckle smash a fad into a hundred pieces.

Flip flopping on redudant issues is about as common a practice to politicians and pundits as sleepwalking through life is to the average North American citizen. Not to long ago Glenn Beck was a pompous conservative news commentator, today… he is a pompous conservative news commentator. However, he has as of recent made some fundamental and bizarre changes to his approach which likely have a lot of people scratching their head, and a lot more cheering in applause. Becks tone has shifted from one of conservatism to libertarianism (I.e. an ideology which likes to set itself outside the political spectrum but somehow is only content in being represented by the republican party… whatever).

Here is a definition from the place that always comes up first on google and is likely a medium that is too highly censored to our shadowy elites liking (i.e. Wikipedia)
Libertarianism is a term used by a spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to promote individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state

The change in his act came during Obama’s ‘transition’ period. In addition, Beck ironically left a job with a conservative media agency (CNN) to an even more reknown conservative media agency (FOX) that is arguably anything but libertarian. Why is this relevant you may be asking? There seems to be an ulterior agenda to Becks change of focus (what else is new!), that may start making sense after some context is provided.

Before I contextualize this issue its important to state a central contradiction amongst so called radicals. Maybe not so much of a contradiction as an exception. Many people who criticize the corporate media oligopoly as being completely bias, filtered, censored, and misleading don’t fall short of embracing that media when it spouts things that validate their opinions. For instance up until now 99% of mainstream media has worked to ridicule and slander proponents of a new 9/11 investigation (those who have legitimate and sane questions and in some cases conclusions derived through rigorous research) about the event. Likewise these groups don’t pass up an opportunity to reciprocate this bias about corporate media; and good for them because contemporary mainstream media is meant to sell not inform, this is clear amongst people who are off the hegemonic grid. But when that same media recognizes their cause, and maybe even advocates it, they will use it to validate their opinions, almost repressing the notion that there may be some ulterior motive to this validation. Thus, corporate media is only corporate media when it disagrees with your non-conventional views, and when this media agrees with a dissident voice, the dissident will hoist it up and use it as proof almost to say “even corporate news agrees with us”. At this point to they have fallen victim to the ad populum logical fallacy that they for so long have criticized mainstream news viewers for succumbing to, in that if what is typically revered by the majority as being truthful is in fact; truthful. People who at once criticized the mechanisms used to suppress the realization of the best interests of the majority, take it as an objective affirmation of their beliefs when it functions in accordance with them, so wrapped in amazement that their viewpoint is being dignified by the powers that be (the ones they feel are permanently deceitful outside of this single validation). They rationalize these concession in a variety of ways, they may even say that its proof that their activism has been effective, that they have forced their perspective to the point of recognition. In spite of their enlightened understandings of the processes which corrupt media, they have been so deeply conditioned over the years that media convention represents truth, that no matter how far they stray from the fabricated reality, how much they learn about the corrupting forces of news media, they will always in some way be reactively inclined to regard it as the ultimate source for truth, if only briefly before realizing it as more smoke and more mirrors.

So now I would like to contextualize this whole Glenn Beck flip flop ordeal by briefly explaining some observations I have been making over the past 2 years with regards to one Fox news.

Fox news seems to have a mandate to come off as the most socially regressive bias conservative shit media available. There are not enough negative adjectives in the English language to describe this excuse for information. I have speculated in the past that this is done to legitimate what is thought to be ‘the liberal media’, that is, it makes it look really accurate by contrast. It also works to polarize issues that entrap all the sleepers in debates which are about as relevant to primetime as my ass is to theoretical physics. They wont talk about petty issues such as the gross distribution of wealth in their society, and the erosion of their freedumbs that have long since atrophied due to under use. Regardless of this, it is they (Fox News) who have given the 9/11 controversy the most airtime (albeit 99% negative publicity). So in the process of their longwinded campaign to ‘debunk’ those with questions about the event they have in fact introduced the idea to many people. It could be argued they wanted to lay the foundational schema for the concept, so that after being exposed to it our default perspective will be “anyone who believes that shit is smoking some shit” However, as notorious as an idea may be, any publicity no matter how negative is still publicity, and can sometimes have positive outcomes. Take for example notorious radio talk show host Howard Stern, whose negative publicity won them the attention of many, one person was quoted as saying “I hate it but I cant help but want to hear what he will say next”… What of the liberal media though who deals with issue in the exact same fashion but seems to spend far less time on the issue. I have noted this discrepancy in coverage while compiling footage for an amateur 9/11 media documentary I compiled a year ago that you likely never heard of entitled Human Vs. Robot. Fox news has a lot of highly charged sensationalist news that is made to appeal to their viewers 3 second attention spans, it may just be that this issue gets good ratings. Then I started to notice an enmity develop amongst this an another strand of libertarian media called wearechange. The wearechange group travels the country compiling videos of protest activity, and encountering celebrities and politicians about their views on 9/11 and so on. In addition they dignify Fox news backward views by playing into the whole 9/11 truth Vs. Fox news debate generously.

Wearechange aligns themselves with the Alex Jones network a reknown anti-big brother American spokesperson or loud mouth part of the problem I have yet to completely decide, although I lean to latter. He self defines as a paleo- conservative; someone who is anti authoratarian/ anti-communist.

Here is Alex getting rubbed by the media agency which is in theory supposed to be in direct oppostion to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt6O0ruFmfE

Oh but wait… Here is 9/11 truth Vs. Geraldo again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ27ucTdQaI

And again with asian correspondent who has her race exploited by the trash news agency she works for
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeZelXUt4U

Just a few of his and his counterparts numerous run ins with the show. Alex Jones hypocrisy lies in the fact that he thinks the left/right political dialectic is all a show, put their to give the populous the illusion of choice while hypocritically espousing very McCarthiest views. Fair enough, improperly executed socialism has resulted in countless human rights violations and fascist like suppression, but how can you say the political spectrum is a deception and concurrently hold that we are transitioning into a one world government ‘communist’ government, in order to scare people into accepting your ideas? Sounds like a familiar tactic…one Jones himself heavily criticizes.

So I have given examples to show how media allots more media time to controversial issues then its liberal counterparts but always in a condescending way. Ok so how does Glenn Beck tie in to this? He at once was a CNN talkshow host, a reborn former AA member Christian conservative who was very clear on his views towards the 9/11 truth movement.

As summarized in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnKppff5yQ8&feature=PlayList&p=556744B8025B494D&playnext=1&index=10

The predominant strain of the 9/11 truth movement has as a backdrop the paradigm that the world is run by a shadowy elite that plotted and used the event to push for their agenda for a one world centralized communist government. Sounds pretty wild! The centralized government has in the last few years been feared as a one world ‘communist government, born out of the fascist practices of once sovereign states, now stitched into a global patchwork under the auspices of this global elite. So Glenn Beck, the same one who likened 9/11 deniers as he calls them (in an attempt to kill it with death by association to holocaust denial or …questioning) to a domestic terrorism liability, is now the Fox news spokesperson for the preservation of the domestic liberties of the American sheeple. He is their new resident ‘libertarian’ pundit who recently had this to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MemOrzieH1g

Beck has mistakenly equated Obama’s pledging to cap the salaries of CEO’s who were bankrolled by taxpayers as socialism. Not only are there numerous loopholes CEO’s can climb through to escape this salary cap, for Beck to equate bailing out the banking elite as socialist demands a refined ignorance earned through years of anti-soviet rhetoric and to be taken in much less digested. Good thing there arent any academics that watch the program. Here is a definition of socialism:

Socialism
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society to attain such status. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended,although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

From big brothers wiktionary

Clearly it has had some false starts, and Hitler was simply using the word to push forth his and his American financiers own fascist agenda! it does not equate to stimulating your economy with money you have printed that will be backed by your populations labour, nor does it equate to preserving the likes of private bankers so they can continue to feel motivated enough to indebt and profit off of us, essentially lending and collecting usury isn’t a cherished industry in many socialist paradigms. Thus the recent string of bailouts by rationally minded people have been accepted as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

Glenn Beck is attempting to hijack a movement that was initiated by his affiliates in the 9/11 truth movement that he at once was in clear opposition to. For Beck to entertain the notion of a communist conspiracy yet call people exercising their right to free speech “dangerous” doesn’t make any sense. Alex Jones on the other hand has always railed against communism, and as I have discussed before has the effect of protecting the so called free market that has allowed the gross inequities of capitalism to persist. I have also speculated him to be a co-opted revolutionary who by and large advocates the maintenance of the status quo. So is it that Fox news is trying to now capitalize on this movement by bringing Glenn Beck on with his new refound libertarianism, is it that they are trying to lay the psychological groundwork for another cold war with Russia… China… Argentina? They say Obama is fear mongering in his threats of economic collapse (which are in fact very realistic in a contrived sort of way!) while Fox news uses it as a backdrop to instill fears of communism and socialism. Obama says fear non-stimulation, Fox says fear socialism. NEITHER ACCURATLEY NEED TO FEAR THE OTHER, BUT IT IS PLAYED OUT THIS WAY.

So what are the implications here. Well in a nutshell you have a bunch of conservatives arguing with one another, and you now have a bunch of pissed off nationalist ‘patriots’ /survivalist/ constitutionalist/ alarmists looking up to a corporate news anchor on one of the most ‘sheepish’ strains of media available… W        T         F    is going on here!? Are they playing these people off of one another? Be extremely sceptical of Becks insincere appeals to your desire to self-preserve, its as if Alex lures them in, and Beck knocks em down…

Leave a Reply