Beck says his book is not "dangerous" like one by "anonymous group from France" which "calls for violent revolution"
July 01, 2009 7:11 pm ET
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Robert Neil Joos
Dennis Mahon
Daniel Mahon
Hal Turner
Daniel James Murray
Shawna Forde
James von Brunn
Scott Roeder
Daniel Cowart
Paul Schlesselman
Thomas Coletto, aka "Vito Lombardi"
Joshua Cartwrigh
Daniel Knight Hayden
Timothy McVeigh
Terry Nichols
Dannie Baker
Richard Andrew Poplawski
Dr. Nicholas Bartha
Jim Adkisson
Abortion Clinic bombers
Sulejman Talovic
Charles Carl Roberts
Aaron Kyle Hoff
Jennifer San Marco
Jeffery Weise
Robert Steinhauser
Michael McDermott
Oh good.
"The order of work was the order of a world. The evidence of its ruin is paralyzing to those who dread what will come after. Today work is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers, and of preserving by any means necessary the order of work. Producing oneself is becoming the dominant occupation of a society where production no longer has an object: like a carpenter who’s been evicted from his shop and in desperation sets about hammering and sawing himself. All these young people smiling for their job interviews, who have their teeth whitened to give them an edge, who go to nightclubs to boost the company spirit, who learn English to advance their careers, who get divorced or married to move up the ladder, who take courses in leadership or practice “self-improvement” in order to better “manage conflicts” – “the most intimate ’self-improvement’”, says one guru, “will lead to increased emotional stability, to smoother and more open relationships, to sharper intellectual focus, and therefore to a better economic performance.” This swarming little crowd that waits impatiently to be hired while doing whatever it can to seem natural is the result of an attempt to rescue the order of work through an ethos of mobility. To be mobilized is to relate to work not as an activity but as a possibility. If the unemployed person removes his piercings, goes to the barber and keeps himself busy with “projects,” if he really works on his “employability,” as they say, it’s because this is how he demonstrates his mobility. Mobility is this slight detachment from the self, this minimal disconnection from what constitutes us, this condition of strangeness whereby the self can now be taken up as an object of work, and it now becomes possible to sell oneself rather than one’s labor power, to be remunerated not for what one does but for what one is, for our exquisite mastery of social codes, for our relational talents, for our smile and our way of presenting ourselves. This is the new standard of socialization. Mobility brings about a fusion of the two contradictory poles of work: here we participate in our own exploitation, and all participation is exploited. Ideally, you are yourself a little business, your own boss, your own product. Whether one is working or not, it’s a question of generating contacts, abilities, networking, in short: “human capital.” The planetary injunction to mobilize at the slightest pretext – cancer, “terrorism,” an earthquake, the homeless – sums up the reigning powers’ determination to maintain the reign of work beyond its physical disappearance."
Better than Becks infantile meanderings, but nothing new as far as revelations about living in the hologram is concerned.
Cause I think this is too soon.
YEAH, SURE GLENN.
"Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary."
Now exactly how is that different than the position of those peace loving people who defend their 2nd amendment rights? The Invisible Committee's position seems pretty clear to me from what they've written here: when faced with injustice, the use of force is not legitimate unless every other option has been exhausted. I have a hard time understanding how anyone but those committed to absolute pacifism under all conditions could find this objectionable.
Furthermore, let's me clear here. This is a group of intellectuals who have written a book. There are plenty of academics who have written about (and advocated) a future mass revolution. Revolution, even violent revolution, is by no means despicable on its face. (Western history rather tends to revere its revolutionaries, no?) The question is whether or not the revolutionary action advocated is legitimate and supported. And I'd be willing to bet that the intellectuals who wrote this book can run rings around Mr. Beck's indignant objections.
To be clear, I have no idea whether I agree with this book's 'message' or not. But to evaluate it and dismiss it because of a few lines from its promotional blurbs is absurd. And to argue that its content must be evil because the French government locked up its suspected authors is downright frightening.
that's what the RIGHT keeps telling us. Promoting to get out and buy as many guns as you can and not to register them.
His hypocrisy of finding the book appalling yet becoming a big promoter of it.
I admit to being blinded by my disgust of Beck. I feel regardless how he spins it, he is promoting a violent attack on this administration, that he and his cronies will not be satisfied until there is an attempt at such. In his hypocrisy he was playing to loons to pick up on the strong violent message he was implying is within it.
However I agree with YOUR assessment of what the actual message could be or probably is.
I apologize for being long winded and not as articulate as the majority of the regular posters on this site. I do appreciate the in-sight as well as the humor here.
Mr. Beck's phony indignant objections.
The coordinated nature of this outrageous and ongoing 'Obama is a Marxist/fascist/Stalinist/socialist/dictator' theme among ALL the right-wing broadcasters leads me to conclude they are going all-in on the assassination of President Obama. If not by a true lone gunmen they inspire, then by a conspiracy which their overwrought rhetoric will intentionally give cover to. The combination of the President's race and the charged political environment will cause people to look past the possibility of a conspiracy.
I think they are counting on riots afterward which will lead to excellent ratings for political shows and a reversion to a demand for conservative leadership ala Nixon in 68 after the King assassination. It would further erode world confidence in America's stability just when the dollar is in its most precarious position while providing investment opportunities for those who know exactly when it will happen.
I wonder if the trigger men in the conservative media have thought this all through. I wonder have they considered the possibility that there will be such disorder that they may not be able to safely continue their public lives. I think it's also likely they will be seen by their bosses at that point as liabilities and gradually replaced.
So French peeps = American democrats?
I must be missing something here, 'cause I can't see how Glen can't form a sentence or feed himself with that level of stupidity.
WOW the hypocrisy is so intense that my brain is about to implode!
Muslims aren't bad... Muslim Extremists are bad.
Christians aren't bad... the KKK is bad
Animal Rights group are fine... Animal Liberation front is bad
-r