Fareed Zakaria's GPS is busted

I must follow up on the incredible disappearing Glenn Beck mega-controversy of the week.  To review:

1) Glenn estimates in an off-the-cuff comment about something unrelated that around 10% of Muslims around the world are terrorists

2) Liberal blogs and some others fly off the handle

3) We show that the statistic is backed up by respected pollsters frequently cited by the exact same people complaining about it

4) SILENCE

There were a couple of exceptions to the silence.  For example, Jon Bershad at Mediaite takes the high road–with a refreshingly honest response to the information we presented here.

  • Stu “asks for the media ’s apology . Well, here it is: I’m sorry. You appear to be right. However…”
  • Look, I know my argument is more about feelings than facts and I know it’s a little flimsy. For instance, I hate the theory, espoused by the likes of early-2000s Eminem and one of my least favorite episodes of South Park, that words like “gay” and “fag” shouldn’t offend homosexuals because, in modern connotations, they actually mean “stupid” or “lame.” However, here I am, basically arguing the same thing about the word “terrorist.” I know I have no proof as to why those two arguments are different, but I feel that they are.  And therein, basically, lies the crux of my (admittedly flimsy) argument.

The entire post is worth your time, as I said–it’s honest.  And “honest” isn’t an easy genre to connect with for many in the media.  For example, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.  If you don’t know who Fareed Zakaria is, then you aren’t working for his show.  But, apparently he decided to rehash all of the arguments that my last post shot down, with impressive levels of denial. You have to love the summary of the opposition:

“And this guy cited some polls to support the claim that many in the Muslim world don’t like us and wish us harm. Uhh, yes, many of us have been pointing that out for over a decade now … But hating America is not the same thing as being a terrorist.

“Believe me, if we had one hundred and fifty seven million Muslim terrorists active across the world, we would be hearing more about it.”

As “this guy” I feel uniquely qualified to comment.

1) The polls don’t describe a “wish” of any sort.  They don’t just describe people hating America.  They show support for violent attacks against civilians on US soil.  They show support for the actions of Osama Bin Laden.  They show support–aka advocacy–for those attacks.  Why is advocacy important? Well…

2) Dictionary.com.  Terrorist. Definition number one.  ”a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.” Look, Fareed -you’re either wrong, or you need to start attacking the dictionary, not Glenn. Just admit it.  Fareed’s defense on this point is that other organizations don’t define it this way, so “never mind.”  Never mind what?  The dictionary?  Never mind the dictionary?  When your defense can be summarized as “well, I think the dictionary is wrong”, you’ve lost.

3) Fareed claims that by my definition of terrorist, Glenn is a terrorist because Glenn says things that make people angry at the government.  I apologize for acting like I’m talking to someone with the IQ of eight, but apparently, I am.

a) Not my definition of terrorist.  It’s the dictionary definition of terrorist.

b) Here’s where your previous mistakes create issues for you, Fareed.  Saying things that make you angry at the United States does not make you a terrorist.  Advocating terrorism does.  If Glenn starts advocating attacks against civilians in the United States, he would be a terrorist.  He hasn’t done this, and never would.  But, let me ask you this-if Glenn DID start advocating attacks against innocent American civilians—would you do a segment of your show defending him?  Would ya?

4) He says if all of this were true “we would be hearing more about it.”  But, then also says he has been pointing out what he considers similar things for a decade.  Nice admission of your irrelevance.

Snark aside, let’s boil both sides down for a second.

–Zakaria’s (incorrect) point is that Glenn Beck is crazy for saying that 157 million Muslims are GOING to blow Americans up, because the truth is just that157 million Muslims WANT Americans to blow up.  Even if that were correct, is it really a point you are proud to argue?

–Glenn’s larger point was that a small percentage of Muslims are causing a major problem for the far, far larger non-psychotic part of it. Is that really a point that you find that objectionable, even if it was worded incorrectly? (It was not.)

The larger thing to observe here is –why is Mediaite doing a far better job than CNN?  Isn’t CNN supposed to be the one who is the level-headed-we’re-better-than-the-other-cable-networks-because-we’re-journalists-network?  Why is Mediaite able to completely destroy them in the credibility department?

Before I go, allow me to end with an acknowledgement of tactics from the left blogs that are in perpetual attack mode on Glenn.  Please, please, please notice how all of this started.  It’s one of the most common tactics in the failing war on Glenn…the sniper method.

Look, the number Glenn used was correct.  But, has he communicated that point in a more clear way at other times?  Sure.  For example, he usually says something like he did in The Real America—ten percent “want you dead” or a similar variation.  But what these blogs (Think Progress, Media Matters, Media Progress, Think Matters, DailyHuffPOlberschultz) constantly do is take a statistic or comment that Glenn says 50 times with all of the appropriate qualifiers–and wait for the one time he does not.  No one bothers to try and understand what he meant or try to understand the context.

A perfect example is the O’Reilly/View walkout.  How many times has O’Reilly said something similar to “Muslim extremists” on his show?  25,000?  Anyone who has ever heard him speak about terrorism at all knows that Bill O’Reilly does not think that every Muslim on earth is flying a plane into a building.  But, the one time he leaves off extremists, he suddenly is anti-Muslim.   It’s an absurd standard utilized by cowards who know how pathetic it is, but use it anyway because they believe the ends justify the means.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.