[…] Why I Mourn for Glenn Beck […]

Seems to me that this website should change it’s name from The American Conservative (what a joke) to The American Progressive. No true Conservative could bash Beck or Fox News but Obama would be proud at how you knock someone who is telling us what the Obama administration never will..the truth.

[…] Old Right leaves a lot to be desired. Progressivism had right-wing as well as leftist qualities, as Paul Gottfried has made clear, and some of the outstanding Old Right libertarians were themselves close to the progressive […]

[…] friend of mine pointed me to recent piece in the American Conservative on Glenn Bleck’s historiography. Passages like this make it well worth the read: Beck maintains that Americans stand at a crossroads […]

http://www.theliplesreport.com/2010/10/environmental-conservatism-can-two.html

The Nazi (and Mussolini) fascists were first pragmatists. Recall, they made their countries work; they made the trains run on time, and truly did improve the conditions of their populations, who were suffering under an imprudent economic regime imposed upon them at Versailles. Hitler replaced Germany’s traditional rulers. He was considered an avatar of modernism and progress, Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda were remarkably similar…They BOTH promoted the “new man”.

Along with his economic successes Hitler made people feel good about themselves. There’s no doubt the Hitler employed many of the self affirming ideas, to put himself in power, and to show Germans that their WW I defeat was a betrayal by groups within Germany…not the fault of the German people. Hitler (and Mussolini) like all such self-promoters used the media for their theatrics…theatrics that mesmerized a nation into yielding their democratic will to a dictator…a dictator who had improved their lives substantially.

If Hitler has stopped here; supporting the democratic government..and if he had muted his anti-semetic hatred….he would have had an entirely different historic legacy. The “illustrious” Mr. Hitler might have, as Pius XII had hoped…he might have served as a bulwark against the rising Soviet power.

But he didn’t…and the rest is history….that is after the 50 million deaths of WW II.

I hate it when the Hitler analogy is throw around willy-nilly, like Glenn Beck does. It’s good to underline, that no one of us is Hitler….NOT one of us….no matter political party. We can disagree without this kind of ridiculous accusation.

[…] by Paul Gottfriend, American Conservative […]

Beck bashing, Bush bashing, Soros examining, obama madness all the same firing from all the sides with various opinions. That’s great that we can all vent and express our opinions. After reading the original article and reading the comments I believe most of you got off of the original subject line. One of the great things about America is that we currently can express our opinions but there are those people that would do away with that right. Progressives, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Socialists and anyone I missed all have their missions and agendas and “we” in my opinion are just grains of sand on the beach that the controllers of the world (who ever “they” are) get to walk on while they enjoy their day in the sun. Beck is not an enemy. Maybe some of you think of him as such, to bad.
I believe there is a God and someday we all will answer to him and He doesn’t care about money or power because he owns all of everything and everyone will be judged according to our lives, good luck. Let’s be for the promotion of good and unity of the common good and figure out who we need to get out of the system. Who is the monkey in the wrench?

While it may be interesting to some to detail the history of statist political movements and argue about whether X was a true “progressive” or – after some deeper analysis – more of a lopsided neo-quadrasectarian-libomartian with fascist tendencies, it misses the point.

Beck misses the point with his progressive obsession. He’ll
close a show on the evils of big gov’t progressives with a casual remark about torture – a word which apparently induces laughter in him. He’ll do a show on how tyrannical states murder thousands, and then without missing a beat he’ll talk about the “war on terror.” He doesn’t seem interested in counting the corpses that that terse bit of warfare-state propaganda has piled up. He’ll talk about
our rights being taken away, but then demonstrate that it is only Americans he believes have rights. Iraqis and Afghans
do not. Prisoners held without trial in Gitmo do not. And those who talk about big gov’t violating rights overseas must therefore “hate America” or “blame America first”.

He could do endless shows on the Military Industrial Complex and how it siphons endless billions off of us, but I only heard him mention that term once. Again, it was a joke to him. It’s odd that he still does that “You’re a kook” schtick even though he himself has ventured into “kook” territory. Still, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like him is someone to mock mercilessly. That’s strange considering how far he has gone by bringing NWO stuff into mainstream discussion!

So it’s really hard to take him seriously. If A is wrong when it does X, then so are B and C. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?

In short, people like Beck never seem to have a center – a place to work from in order to judge all things by the same standard. While he tries to intimate that he is critical of Republicans, I doubt we will ever see an expose on the
Bush family, for example. It’s as if he’s trying to cover for
his one-sidedness by bringing forth “the progressives” as a stand in for the usual left vs right claptrap. We’re supposed to think he’s moved past left and right, but it’s clear that he hasn’t.

Liberty knows no party. Statism knows no principle. They are fundamentally incompatible, but few have the guts or the clarity to say so. If Beck wants us to think he’s a champion of liberty, he’s going to have to continue his journey and get where he says he wants to go quickly. If he goes all the way and starts applying a single standard to all, then I’ll be convinced that he is really what he claims to be.

Like someone else said here, I am suspicious of him. He seems like he does fit the bill for an establishment shill, someone useful for corralling the cattle when it looks like they’re going to stampede. He appears to be copying Alex Jones systematically, but presenting it in an establishment-friendly way. He’s seems to be trying to sanitize the freedom movement and keep it within the acceptable parameters of
“the American system”. Holding a rally at the Lincoln memorial? Give me a break. Lincoln should be the first guy on Beck’s hit list for amassing centralized power and trashing the Constitution and violating rights, and utterly destroying the America of the founders.

As long as Beck or anyone else is caught up in silly mythology about the federal gov’t and gets teary-eyed talking about the military, we’re still in the same boat we’ve always been in. This guy is not, as yet, any kind of radical for liberty. He’s not a Jeffersonian by any stretch. So aside from some good information sometimes, what is he offering? A “land of the free, home of the brave” crying party?

I know he has had some states’ rights people on and some good economists here and there, but the fact that he does not focus on topics like the Fed, nullification, secession, etc., is just more evidence that he’s just a flag-waver at heart.
He’ll criticize the Fed, but does he call for its abolition? Which federal agencies should be abolished? It would be a great series of shows to pull out the Constitution and then compare it to the leviathan that now exists in DC. I’ve never heard him call for abolition of the monstrosities, but that just makes him like every other talking head out there. He’s sort of one step beyond the faux-libertarian Republicans/conservatives in his rhetoric, but like them he is ultimately unconvincing and tragically weak.

You can tell by the way he assails “radicals” that he really is a good ol’ boy statist. It’s funny to me that he’ll go hog wild over the commie radicals and what they say about tearing down the structure of gov’t, but he gives himself away there because he always reverts back to the orthodox statist finger-wagger warning people against being an “anti-government type”. I guess he doesn’t think that you can be a radical for liberty and human rights! I guess that the federal gov’t really is, after all, mankind’s greatest achievement, its shining tower of strength and the Seat of Wisdom.

Even though he has gotten better, I really don’t think he’d be on Fox if they weren’t sure he was in the fold.

I can’t believe I wrote all that about Beck. I guess I needed to vent. I don’t like him and think he’s extremely annoying, but he is also interesting and does seem to be doing some research. I’ll watch and wait, but I agree with the author above at least as far as making a fetish out of progressives. When will it end? Now we’re on the Soros train. Where does that go? He won’t be for real unless he starts really and truly breaking through the left/right crap of politics. So far it’s only lip service.

This debate is as useless as testicles on a cow. You folks, whether D’s,R’s Progressives, Nazi’s, or whatever are all barking up the wrong tree. The only problem to human existance (and to allowing each human to live an unencumbered life) is government, pure and simple. Any intrusion into the individual’s life deters that freedom. So, it’s not the philosophical make-up of the government that’s the problem, IT’S THE GOVERNMENT, STUPID. We’d all by light years ahead if we coul;d only practice that simple credo.

Seek: get a grip and learn your history. Fascist/Nazi/Communist/Socialist….. ALL ARE OF THE LEFT AND ON THE LEFT. The common thread, as stated by some above, is big government, statist control by self-selected elites that manipulate and control the rest of us by force and coercion. More government = LEFT, less government = RIGHT. It is the left that is forever tainted with the solid connection and philosophical agreement with all of the ‘isms’ listed above. And no, political elitism is not a necessity; for a free society, it is prohibited.

Until Beck examines Henry Clay and the “American System” that failed at the state level before being pushed into the Federal System I will continue to view Mr Beck as a Judas Goat who exists only to deliver the sheep back to the Neocons.

Excellent piece. The idea that progressivism is a first cousin of Fascism/Nazism is wrong on so many levels that one barely knows where to begin to refute it. But Paul Gottfried has given some good guideposts. It’s sad that mainstream conservatives, desperate to wash their hands of any taint of connection to a Fascist/Nazi legacy, have chosen to blithely torture history until it says the right things.

Were Glenn Beck merely a quixotic showman, the Clown Prince of Tea Parties, he would be a moderately entertaining side freakshow, a la Reverend Ike, Tiny Tim and Jessica Hahn. But his tenuous grasp of history and reckless conflation of mass politics with religious piety make him a demagogue of the highest order. Many people looking for Real Simple Answers, regrettably, believe every word. Beck’s conspiratorial worldview, by the way heavily shaped by prominent and now-forgotten World War II-era Nazi sympathizer Elizabeth Dilling, is the stuff of a dangerous political movement.

Political elitism — at least up to a point — is a necessity. We need more of it, at any rate. Thanks to Paul Gottfried for underscoring this.

As far as Hitler being a progressive; well in fact he was an environmentalist, eugenecist, gun control, state health care politician. It all starts out innocently enough with social planning. It actually worked splendidly for some time in Germany. It all ends in death for millions, and yes, Churchill was also a liberal progressive wack job. What kind of sick animal agrees to give Poland to the Commies and sends thousands of people who fled the Soviets back to face death under Stalin?

I come not to praise or to condemn Beck, but to condemn the “us versus them” mentality of too many commenters. It was Nixon, I think, who said “we are all Keynesians now”; more recently, Newsweek said “we are all socialists now”; and in a sense, “we are all Progressives now” – or at least this is true of just about everyone who has his hand on the tiller of the ship of State in recent memory. That should be one of the main takeaways from Paul Gottfried’s article.

To fix the problem, we need to end the silly D versus R debate, and think a lot more about the systemic problems.

Public Choice Theory goes a long way to describe why, in Thomas Jefferson’s phrase, liberty tends to diminish and tyranny tends to grow. We can reverse the process if we recognize and boldly fight against tyranny wherever we see it.

Today, most people dare not even recognize the tyranny of the State; they do not even question the notion of using government force to “help” with education, health care, banking, money, or many other important matters.

If we are prevented from even discussing these fundamental matters, we’ll never find our way to a solution.

The author mentions several different flavors of Progressives as evidence that they aren’t a monolithic movement. To me, this merely indicates the different pies that they have their fingers in. Regardless of particular flavor, the Progressives, no matter what they are called today, have centralization of power as their primary focus. Modern-day progressives/liberals wouldn’t accept endorsement from the likes of the KKK because the KKK is not in vogue; but they take support from the likes of George Soros, the Rockefellers, and other internationalists.

I do agree that Beck is confusing at times. He rails against Progressives like Wilson and TR, but continues his hero worship of Lincoln, refusing to see him as the Progressive’s power-centralizing prototype. He focuses on Soros, but refuses to take on the larger picture of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Having said that, no one is perfect. Beck has done a lot to awaken the American public to things that they had never dreamed of.

I fault Gottfried for ignoring or missing the foundational structure for the Progressive movement, that being Fabian Socialism. One blogger mentioned George Bernard Shaw, who was a founding member of that notorious gang of arrogant pretenders. It is not a disjunction that members of both major and many minor political parties were secret Fabians, if not card-carrying, then at least brothers-in-the-blood.
The fundamental premise of Fabianism is that a small elite ought to manipulate and control the greater masses as a means of organizing societies, national and international, into harmonious, efficient orders, according to the perceptions a predilections of those elites. Of course, the socio-political precepts and prejudices of those elites were the guiding principles for creating those orders. Malthusian concepts clearly influenced them.
Anyone who looks at the history of Progressivism in America can clearly discern this attitude: “we know what’s best for everyone, so shut up and let us do what needs to be done for your own good”. What was done has been pretty well elaborated in other blogs.
It should be an easy reach to conclude that any social or political movement that promotes compelled behaviors in a society in the interest of homogeneity, for whatever reason, is anathema to individual freedom.
There is no such thing a collective mind or a collective idea. Humans are individuals. We don’t share brain tissue or blood supplies or digestive tracts. Any scheme that proposes or attempts to coagulate us into a regimented entity is folly. Humans of every race and culture exist and function as individuals. Where humans have common interests and willingly cooperate to achieve common goals, societies are organized and operate to serve those interests. Individuals who do not share those interests cannot morally be compelled to engage in effecting ends for which they have no wish to achieve. The fundamental precept of democracy, as political science once held, is “majority rule with respect for minority rights”. Nowadays, democracy is a red herring used to dupe the gullible into participation in elections that are predetermined by computer programs, ensuring continuity in the Progressive order.
The greatest damage, in this writer’s opinion, that Progressivism wrought is the removal of common law from America’s legal structure. By displacing the common law in favor of administrative regulations, founded as they were on socialist premises, individual rights got sidetracked for what is known as “public policy”. Accordingly, socialism was established as the prime directive in the government of the United States. The three branches of government, specified in the Constitution, got homogenized into an organ of Fabianism. All the so-called “social issues” were/are mere eyewash and window-dressing.
It is likely that the themes promoted in Progressive propagandizing had appeal to a people who were still trying to recover from the utter destruction of Lincoln’s war against freedom. Ignorant people without means, thanks to a totalitarian government and the predations of the Robber Barons, may have found hope in the snake-oil promotions of Progressive politics. They didn’t understand that the same charlatans, who had brought paper money and income taxes to America, were erecting legal fences around the populace so they could be shorn of their properties and what little wealth they had left. Consider the statistics that show how a vast majority of America’s wealth is claimed by such a tiny minority of its people. This is not a colossal accident of history; it is the result of special interests controlling the economic, political, and legal machinery of the country. This phenomenon is not limited to America, of course. Consider what is happening in Greece and Ireland today; this is part of the operation whereby nations are lured into traps and locked into regimens that control their behaviors and their prospects.
The current TSA degradation and humiliation regimen is a perfect example of such an operation. It is about teaching people to comply and accept being dominated, all for their own good, of course. Regard the talking heads, posed on TV news, who obediently praise the government’s protections and willingly abandon their rights. I believe that it was Jefferson who proposed that those who sacrifice freedom for safety will have neither.
Trusting people with ulterior motives to act in your interests is both naive and irresponsible. Progressivism succeeds with people who want someone else to solve their problems and take care of their needs, at the expense of others.

I’m disgusted with the constant nitpicking attacks on Beck (and other Conservatives). So you know more about the wide range of progressives than Beck. So what? So your Libertarian ideology is purer, more radical than our Conservative principles. Bit deal; you end up with very little. You’re surprised when Beck criticizes Republican. That’s because you don’t really understand where he’s coming from. When libertarians could make common cause with Conservatives and support the things they agree on, instead they write such invidious pieces as this one. For most people something is better than nothing. Libertarians insist on Everything and end up getting nothing. If little-minded, doctrinaire Libertarians prefer high-sounding Nothing to incremental Somethingt, they will continue to sabotage the cause of freedom, smugly sneer at their natural friends, and aid and abet their common enemies.

Inveighing against Beck is like inveighing against someone who passed gas loudly at a gathering. It just isn’t worth the trouble.

I just want to comment on the Bill Gates reference in the long comment above.
The Gates argument that vaccinations and medical care will help reduce population growth is based, at least public ally, on the libertarian position that economic growth by itself will reduce population growth,. IOW, if there is economic growth coupled with better health care, including vaccinations, the infant mortality rate will decline. Economic growth and lower infant mortality both contribute to dampening the need for the poor to have large families.
You might want to argue that there is a hidden agenda (with some proof), but on the surface at least this is NOT a program for sterilization or eugenics. Perhaps the anti vac crowd will claim conspiracy, Alec Jones of course already has.

Why is Homeland Security still intimidating and harassing Dr. Kenneth Tennant ? They arrested him on Nov. 5, 2004 (see April issue TAC, article The Knock On The Door, by David Lindorff)
The man and his family was humiliated by the media, his father suffered a heart attack and subsequently died over this, his wife lost her job of almost eight years despite numerous awards and accolades from her employer, Quad-City Bank & Trust, their children have been targeted with trumped up false allegations by school officials (proven false), the wife has an appeal pending in the Iowa Supreme Court over a false charge that claims her rain drains, which are with City Code, caused “severe land erosion” to a “long existing fence” despite the fact that the fence is not within City Code nor is it “long existing.” Moreover, there was never any evidence or proof of injury or damages produced to support the false claim, and there is no verifiable complaint as required by CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs. ASTINGER. But it seems the rule of law doesn’t apply in the Iowa judiciary where the good ole boy culture of corruption rules the day. In the COTY OF DAVENPORT vs. Kenneth Tennant, magistrate Douglas Wells declared:”I don’t want to hear anything about the Constitution” as he proceeded to prosecute from the bench finding Dr. Tennant “not guilty” as charged but guilty to an “amended” complaint that has never been seen nor tried. There was no injury or damages, as testified by Officer Cliff Anderson, and there is no verifiable complaint, so the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. But, that is law and the Iowa judges are above the law because Homeland security has made a deal with the devil. I’m Dr. Kenneth Tennant and my no. is 563.355.7073 if anyone cares.

I say Mr. Beck is one of the progressives he speaks against…as a neoconservative.

@ Royden: I don’t think of it as being horrible or even immoral, but I do believe it is irrational and often irresponsible and asking for trouble. However, it’s not so much about race as it is about nationality or culture to me. I simply want to preserve and pass on my identity and that of my people, which is why I am not in favor of mixed marriages. I’m from Europe and know first hand that children from mixed marriages, especially interracial and interreligious ones, suffer from a perpetual identity crisis, usually never quite fit in and will eventually rebel against their “White” side, and almost always perform worse than “non-mixed” children. My philosophy is basically to say “to each nation their own country”, i.e. let the Japanese remain Japanese, and the Russian remain Russian respect all races and nations but stick to your own kind. I hope that clarifies. Regards.

I honestly believe that Beck is a elite paid, and highly trained shill (probably via the CIA). The goal is to corral in the paleo-conservatives, and libertarians from taking off, into a true anti-state, anti-war, free market political movement, which would undermine our current interventionist, centralized state. His anti-progressive message is to keep the anti-war left from joining forces with this movement, and to focus questioning conservatives to a new target to serve establishment GOP interests.
These (even now after being totally discredited) people keep promising us freedom from government, once they rout the Democrats, crush the left wing on campus, and in media, and conquer foreign lands.
From 1969 to 2009 they controlled the presidency for 28 of 40 years, and had legislative control 12 years. I will let you surmise whether we have more freedom, harmony, and prosperity in our country, or whether or not our governments are smaller in terms of funding, and/or personnel.
I frequently get comments that I should listen to Glenn Beck from my GOP friends, and family. He is a libertarian they claim.
I reply that I can’t. He is for public education, and I am for the elimination of it.

To the degree that Beck, et al. conflate liberalism and progressivism (as it was then defined) Gottfried has a point; if you want to see Beck as setting up straw men. However, Mr. Gottfried acts like the “little bit pregnant” argument didn’t, in one form or another, precede Hayak. The progressives were entirely comfortable with the state’s expansion. They still are. Whatever underlying philosophy they adopt will always reflect that swelling desire.

R…..Liberals would love to have a one party state. And so would Conservatives. Then they could force their misguided views on the citizenry that doesn’t conform to their way of thinking.

But R, one question….. what’s so horrible about interracial marriage?

Beck is a conman who gets paid to do this. Why take him serious at all? Why expect anything more than shallowness from a radio host? The only reason I can see that justifies debating the man’s views is the fact that he manages to delude so many people. Progressivism and Nazism are not the same thing. Nazism was a unique phenomenon that needs to be seen in its own context. Its objectives were not those of modern-day Progressives and frankly the means they used are not either. Last time I checked, Liberals did not advocate a one-Party State, for instance. The Eugenics argument is especially lame. Churchill supported some degree of Eugenics, as did virtually everyone back then. Does that make him a Liberal, a Progressive, or even a Nazi? I personally don’t agree with interracial marriage, does that make me a Nazi, too? How about Henry Ford? I guess he was a Liberal, too, right? To equate Fascism and U.S. Liberalism (or Islam, i.e. “Islamo-Fascism” in Neocon parlance) as some self-professing Conservatives like to do, is sheer nonsense. First, Italian Fascism and Nazism are not one and the same thing. Secondly, many European Conservatives actually supported Fascism because it was a reactionary movement against Marxism and Socialism that managed to appeal to and gain the support of the common man at the same time. Although it posed as a revolutionary movement, it actually consolidated the status quo and defended traditional family values that any Conservative would have supported. Fascism, however, is an openly and all-out Totalitarian ideology whereas U.S. Liberalism with it’s attachment to liberal democracy and free elections is not. How did we arrive at this point where Conservatives are using such shallow arguments against Liberalism? The result of growing up in a dumbed-down, liberal culture, it would seem!

getting mired in language (controlled by the left), and being forced into a false choice of which modern party is right or wrong, allows the big picture to escape notice and the ‘progress’ to continue.
Nobody is even trying to do the “right” thing today. Bush was more wrong than Clinton was, but today you try to draw attention to the appalling communist bent of the current admin and all you get is how “your” president wasn’t perfect either.
The progressive movement set the stage for the destruction of the greatest nation ever developed, and it continues today as if they were supermen in their foresight. I don’t believe they were, and I’m at a bit of a loss to explain how this country has devolved so far after the magnificent beginning. We all must be in some way responsible for the demise, there is no way a bunch of eggheads a hundred years ago were that dam smart to cause all of this. They opened the door, certainly, but they have had help all along, and arguing about whether Sarah Palin is smart when we just elected the stupidest incompetent communist puppet is a sure sign that we aren’t going to fix it, Dark Ages are inevitable.

Ian…..which book would you recommend?

Ok, time to get a few things straight. I will miss some things, but I’ll try to get most of the big statements of this article (and some of the comments)

1) George Soros is not a “johnny come lately”. Look back over his life, he has started/been involved with/funded MANY organizations. The Tides Foundation is somewhat new compared to alot of them. He has been very actively involved for a long time, with a TON of his money.

2) Beck criticizes republicans very often (which keeps coming as a surprise to me). You say that he just now started attacking progressives because the democrats are in power? Not true. When he was on CNN, he criticized Bush and republicans on many things. Before he was on CNN, when he was only on the radio, he would often criticize republicans for spending, social programs, waste, pork, etc.

3) How much research have you done into the Eugenics movement? I’ve done plenty recently and it’s scary. Eugenics is now known as several much happier terms – Population control, Population stabilization, Climate control, Overpopulation, etc – but it’s the same principle. If you look up any of these terms, you’ll find that EVERY organization that supported eugenics in the 1920’s and 1930’s has changed their vocabulary from “Eugenics” to one of those terms. Every single one of them. It’s amazing how an organization goes from “involuntary sterilization” to “population stabilization” overnight and everyone stops worrying about it.

I’m sure you are questioning why I said “Climate control/Climate change”. Look up current environmental organizations that have been around longer than 50 years. They have been preaching about population control for a very long time, or are decendents of other organizations focused on population control. However, ever since the re-emergence of climate change, their language has changed. In the 1970’s, they were talking about population control to stop global cooling. Now they are talking about it to stop global warming. It doesn’t matter if the Earth is cooling or warming, their answer is always that code word.

Many of these organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and EngenderHeath, changed their language and have actually succeeded at completely normalizing abortion. I personally do not have a strong feeling on abortion because I can understand both reasonable arguments, but abortion should still be more taboo. Why? Because it should NOT be used as birth control and it should NOT be forced on young people as their only option, but it is. My favorite term they use is “family planning”. Seriously? No one goes to them and gets their insight on actually STARTING a family…so the family planning is planning on not having a family. It’s actually sickening how they have made abortion mainstream and more of a casual topic.

4) Progressives today use different code words than they did 60 years ago. Eugenics was a code word for “getting rid of the unwanted/undesirable”. Involuntary sterilization was a code word for “we don’t need more people like you”. Population control is now a code word for “we need to protect the planet, so we need to lower the population total however possible”. And as most of their rhetoric is focused at developing nations as they tend to have more children, it is fair to say that the rich, white, elitists are going after poor blacks and latinos. Just like when Margaret Sanger first began building Planned Parenthood in the ghettos throughout America, the progessives are targeting who they consider less desirable (primarily because they are poor, don’t benefit society, and as a whole are the main cause of pollution). Yes, you can say that I am race-baiting, but that doesn’t make it not true.

5) You phrased somethings that progressives did as positive, yet they were ALL negative. You were trying to rationalize, saying that they did some things Beck would agree with, but Beck would not have agreed with any of those. You said that progressives from back then are more like modern-day conservatives, and as an example you said they would have “been against the government encouraging women to join the work force”. So you are saying that modern-day conservatives are against women in the work force? Are you that ignorant?

6) Seriously, check out the history of these organizations like EngenderHealth, Planned Parenthood, The Sierra Club, Red Cross, American Eugenics Society (doesn’t exist anymore, but the companies and people that founded it and funded it are insane), etc. They changed their language after WWII because of Hitler’s use of their ideas. But do you really think their feelings about eugenics changed overnight? Are you really that ignorant to think all of these people who believed whole-heartedly in it changed their minds? If you look closely, they are saying the SAME things, but with a much more pleasant connotation.

7) Margaret Sanger wasn’t JUST a feminist. She wanted involuntary sterilization of mentally ill and wanted to euthanize the “poor and indigent” (Negro Project). She was one of the worst parts of the whole Eugenics movement, along with George Bernard Shaw who believed in euthanizing people not fit for our society (feebleminded, poor, etc).

8) Environmentalism and eugenics have been closely linked since the late 1800’s (and probably longer). Every environmental group has something along the lines of “need to control/stabilize population”. Most have something along the lines of “need a considerable decrease in population”. Bill Gates for instance gave a lecture recently where he said that through “vaccinations and health reform, we could see a 10-15% drop in population”. Now, maybe I’m just feeble-minded, but isn’t that counter-productive? Shouldn’t vaccines make people live longer and thus make the population rise? Hmm…The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives a ton of money to EngenderHealth and has partnered with the Rockefeller Foundation (look them up, more interesting stuff about all the Rockefellers did over the last 100 years in the name of eugenics and social engineering). Oh by the way, it’s not good news that the richest people in the world are giving half of their money to that foundation, especially when Bill Gates is going around talking about how to reduce the population through vaccinations and health reform.

9) Just a few more things to look up about the “social engineering” progressives – The New School (funded by Rockefeller, originally called “New School for Social Research”, and was founded by Socialists), Population Connection, American Genetic Association (formerly, American Breeders Association, supported and pushed eugenics research and legislation), Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, World Wildlife Foundation (all environmentalist groups have an anti-population stance) and many more!

10) Reproductive Health and Family Planning have always been and will always be a pleasant way to say “population control”.

11) No, Im not trying to sound like an alarmist, and yes I know I sound like one…and I wish I didn’t, but the connections I’ve made in my research and just too ironic to miss. It’s scary and honestly, I wish I never knew about this stuff because now I’m obsessed with tracking down every last vestige of it and trying to learn how I can stop it. Once you start getting into it and see how everything connects with modern progressives, you’ll wish you didn’t know.

12) Am I serious about this? Yes, very. Beck might be alittle off in some things he says and he might not always hit the nail on the head but this is something worth watching. Learn about the strategies of how to turn a capitalist country into a socialist country. If you know your current events, you’ll definitely notice a clear pattern over the last 30 years of what liberals and some conservatives have been doing. And their is a pattern over the last 120 years, but it’s not as obvious.

Royden, you’re right. The Nazis were progressives (called themselves national socialists, which is why Russia didn’t like them because communists and socialist never get along…such as what happened during the election when the Nazi party came to power). The Nazis based the majority of the holocaust on the American Eugenics movement, and implemented their ideas. They took from Sanger, Rockefeller, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Carnegie, etc, etc. ALL of these people believed in involuntary sterilization and euthanization. It wasn’t just a fleeting thought of these people, it was their life works. Just like the Nazis, progressives in America from the early 1900’s up to today believe in the Earth before humans. It’s not about creating a better life for people, it’s about helping the Earth by any means possible. It’s about getting rid of the useless or worthless people so that everyone else can have more of nature to enjoy. Every single proponent of conservation has been a socialist and has espoused some view of population control. From Bill Gates and Al Gore, to Teddy Roosevelt and Hitler.

And sorry, I didn’t get any of this out of any books by Beck or Hannity. I researched it online, found multiple, varied sources for all of my information and if I wasn’t too lazy, I’d list every single source. Many of these people have published papers, books, and essays on their views concerning eugenics(and population control, social engineering, behavioral engineering, etc). So seriously, don’t be ignorant and call other people out on what you perceive to be ignorance. Chances are you just see it as being “alarmist” and are too pathetic to actual do any research for yourself. I don’t like being wrong so before I argue a point, I find out everything I can about it. I know that I am right. So before you call me out, research it. Then you will not think that I sound crazy. Or you can be worthless and ignore what has been happening all along right before our eyes, call me stupid, say I watch too much Beck, call me a racist (since I don’t like Obama), and just be generally ignorant to what is so obvious if you just open your eyes.

Oh and I think Beck is alittle annoying at times too. I also can’t listen to him drone on about Soros…

Where there is an action….there will be an opposite & equal reaction. Beck is the ‘reaction’ to the Lefist media. So, I cut him a break as to interpert history as he wants too as the rest of us do.

After saying that, I am not impressed with his style of speaking & tends to put me off & not give credit to what he is trying to force on me.

Last word on it… Peoples whose families/family members were killed by actual Nazis are quite aware that the Nazis were not a healthcare movement. They weren’t. They were however ardent propagandists who demonised there opponents. remind you of anyone?

Frankly youre deluded. Read a book Royden…. and not one of Beck/hannitys make it a real book.

Don’t forget, Ian, that the Nazis were actually progressives and collectivists. When the theory that “experts” can perfect society is pushed to the extreme, you get Nazis.

Weakly written and dull.

Cowardly approach to an interesting phenomena. Royden I don’t know if Beck is correct about very much. The nazis killed my mothers brother in 1941. We’re pretty familiar with them. Beck has a lot more similarities than a 13 yr old Jewish child in Hungary being taken to a house to inventory possessions.You couldn’t be a lower or more disgusting propagandist than Beck.

Actually, Beck is correct about many things. His biggest flaws are his support of Israel and interventionist attitude towards Iran.

Oh yes….and his infatuation with Sara Palin.

kind of a deep dicussion for,I don’t have the background in history you all seem to have Beck just seems real creepy to me.I don’t watch Fox or MSNBC(unless I know Pat is on)
just way to much spin.The cable media allow our politicians
to constantly lie to us.Both parties have a network to do their dirty work

This could be the dumbest critique I’ve read, yet, from The American Conservative. Professor Gottfried strays so far from logical criticism I’m surprised he didn’t finish writing in gaelic. Examples?: Fox news has never taken a position on Progressivism, you would know that had you ever watched, porfessor dimwit. The suggestion that Robert KKK Byrd was against the Civil Rights Act because it was pro federalism vs states rights is on it’s face laughable, but pathetic once you realize you consider yourself a professor at an institution of higher learning. Progs being racist is the essence of who these dirt bags are, professor, it’s who Liberals are today. If you think that the Prog/Liberal statist philosophy has done anything but destroy minority communities, than I’ve got an inner-city I’d like to sell you. You and your fascist friend Buchanan are about as conservative as Pol Pot.

Zywicki does feel that the 17th Amendment derived from the desire of “special interests” to more easily influence the federal governments actions for their own gain. I’m sure many of those “special interests” were progressives attempting to find a path to further their agenda in order to “scientifically” manage the country; certainly a collectivist action.

nothing is more uncertain than the future, except maybe history?

Interesting article.
My only factual quibble is that, going by the official rate, the current unemployment rate is not “many times” lower than that of the Great Depression – the spike in that era was 25%, and we peaked at 10%, at least officially.

In other media, it’s been claimed that the “real” unemployment rate is as high as 17%, if under-employment is taken into account. Given that the economic and personal/social effects of unemployment are only more severe than, not fundamentally different from, the effects of underemployment.

Additionally, it’s possible that the informal market is less a source of revenue for the US population, at least proportionately (although rates of illegal immigration, relative to the two eras, may strengthen or weaken this point).

Sadly, neither Glenn Beck, Fox News, nor the mindless lemmings who play the name-calling shell game that is American political discourse, have the capacity to consume, digest, and be sustained by this wonderful, and depressing screed. To “spin” (as only neo-cons can) a phrase; “progress in defense of liberty is no vice.”

Brian, Your input is a point well taken. I have read some of prof. Zywicki’s papers,although mostly his views on bankruptcy. I still believe that the centralization of power,especially the power of Federal enforcement was made possible by the actions taken by Lincoln and later on by the Progressives,To our detriment today.

Libertarian Jerry,

Unfortunately the scholarship doesn’t support your argument about the 17th Amendment, and it may be the same with the 16th and Federal Reserve Act, although the belief is fairly mainstream. I recommend you check out the writing of Prof. Todd Zywicki of George Mason University, particularly his paper “Beyond the Shell and Husk of History: The History of the Seventeenth Amendment and Its Implications for Current Reform Proposals, 45 Cleveland St. L. REV. 165 (1997).” Zywicki points out that the “progressive” or “external theory” doesn’t hold water for a number of reasons, however, his belief is that the “public choice theory” is much stronger.

My problem with Beck is that he and other conservatives have a selective eye on historical POV when it comes to those they give a pass to on ‘their’ side. All of the progressives Glenn “hates’ had other aspects to them, of which he would approve including Teddy Roosevelt. Beck’s prism on history is as cracked as everyone else’s. As far as I am concerned guys like GW BUSH or Newt Gingrich who WERE big government establishment types more than they were conservative or constitutionalist …..are more at fault for where we find ourselves than George Soros. Yet you rarely hear Beck or anyone else bring the republican or conservative establishment into the finger pointing circle. Now he is blaming SOROS for being puppet master behind the scenes. Holy moly ms molly ….. Soros is a johnny come lately in the BIG scheme of things. The Tides Foundation is small potatoes compared to a dozen other foundations that have funded leftist OR globalist causes for decades and decades. You can look at Paul Volcker or Kissinger or Brezynski ….other masters of the universe and/or policy gurus who are more responsible than SOROS for our current mess. If Beck thinks that all would be well if Soros went away or the Pelosi Obama left went away …..he better think again. As long as there is a Bush, a Gingrich, a Wolfowitz, Feith, Haas, PNAC, Lugar, Zoellick, Graham, McCain, Group of 30, Council of Elders, or those pushing for ‘integration’ with the EU like George W. Bush …….. Soros power and influence will be no better or worse than the ‘other’ group of masters of the universe. Beck makes the same mistake so many make, they THINK their prism on events, history, or future trends is the right one. By and large they have tunnel vision and refuse to incorporate other information that is important into their latest theory. I turn Glenn off when he gets into Soros mode….I think Soros is a corrupt semi evil fool but he isn’t the worst and he does not have the power some of the other so called ‘insiders’ have or will have if we are not careful. Glenn needs to be less obsessed with progressives and more concerned with abuse of power by anyone with access to the seats of power on Wall Street or the US federal govt.

“By today’s standards its cultural orientation might seem quite conservative and was certainly pro-family.”

this is correct and a very important to point out.

It will all end badly since it is all unsustainable, the welfare/warfare state has already started to collapse.

This is how Empire’s die and it will be the end of the U.S. Empire as well. The Ruling class and their servants may not wish this but it will happen eventually.

What the progressives really achieved was to contribute to the tearing, down of the bulwarks set up by the founders in the Constitutional Federal system. The creation of the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax,the direct election of the Senate,going off the Gold Standard,and government interference in the economy especially during the 1st World War, occurred during mostly progressive administrations. This,and other courses of action,set up the New Deal,the Great Society,foreign entanglements, thru the U.N.,and the growth of the central government. The progressives cleared the path for the collectivism that followed and helped contribute to the creation of today’s run amok Federal government..

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by AmericanConservative, Michael Cullison. Michael Cullison said: @glennbeck Your myths about Progressives: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/glenn-becks-myths/ […]

[…] Some think Glenn Beck defines all Mormons (Indeed! – and I define all creedal Christian – wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and he is stupid.  The good news is that he is “stupid” for all the same reasons the rest of us that actually believe in an Almighty are so considered.  That is very worthy of note. […]

[…] my post earlier in the week I mentioned the possible relationship between attitudes toward evolution and the causes and […]

[…] Comment of the week, in response to Glenn Beck, Evolution, Global Warming & Tea Parties: People who don’t believe in evolution don’t comprehend evolution. Evolution is a struggle to […]

Kat, there are the denialists and the skeptics. There’s a difference. There’s no time for fence-sitters while the evidence comes in. Where I’m currently living, it’s not clear whether what we are experiencing is evidence of anthropogenically induced climate change already in action or part of a long term drought cycle, but it’s a dire period of change happening in real time. Times are tough. The pace of urbanisation means that a lot of now heavily populated cities don’t design for rainfall, temperature, wind, sea conditions, snow loading or frost heave where those have not occurred there within human memory or adequate written records. Even where recurrent major events have been recorded, the political process and the nature of people has permitted those places to become heavily populated, and they are being repopulated (check Aceh, 26 December 2004. If we are pious, God will protect us. After the 2004 event, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Australia pronounced that it was God’s punishment of Muslims, while Muslims noted that most of the mosques remained standing in areas where most other buildings were swept away- Indonesian colleagues have pointed out that it was due to the nature of the foundations of the buildings, rather than some divine intervention – the mosques were built on deep piled foundations due to their size and heavy loadings, the other buildings were constructed on shallow pad foundations and were destroyed – this was one of many major lessons in construdtion of buildings in tsunami-vulnerable areas, but it was swept away in a tide of popuar religion – engineers of many countries and religions had frank discussions about such issues, based purely technical considerations, but we dont run the world- no, large earthquakes on subductions zones on tectonic plate boundaries are not climate-induced, but it illustrates modern human interpretations of such disastrous events that occur in modern times – in that respect the Chinese are admirably scientific compared to most of the rest of us, while being very non-admirable in many other respects.)

Decisions on design standards and construction of mitigion measures need to be made faster than we have time to gather decisive empirical data, and the forecasting models are not that great. And it looks like it is much too late to reverse the process anyway, the best we can hope for is to mitigate it somewhat, possibly insignificantly, and learn to live with it fast. Redesigning megacities and relying on urban renewal and retrofitting is not an easy or quick fix, and many already live on the edge.

And the frightening thought remains that we could be on the cusp of a new ice age.

My take is that we should quit arguing about whether it is happening and what we should do to try to stop it happening, and start dicussing how we are going to design and build for it to mitigate the effects, and feed ourselves.

And anon clearly stopped reading about the conversations on global warming a long time ago; the idea that there was any ‘conspiracy’ in the East Anglia emails was debunked a long time ago.

Blecch is painfully stupid, just hyperextroverted and skilled enough in the art of bullsh*t to twist nonsense into words that someone with an IQ of about 85 might think are sensible.

I find it funny that the anti-Global Warming sorts don’t seem to actually listen to actual climatologists on this – or the plethora of data that backs it up from, say, biology (let’s see: Humboldt squid roaring up the coast from Mexico, species ranges extending north, the list goes on…). Nope, they go to people who don’t study it professionally.

Anyway, anyone who actually studies global warming essentially thinks we can’t do anything about it anyway, so the best we can do is mitigate the impact.

Razib, OK, just let me make an explanatory statement to miko by way of apology for my outburst, and then I’ll drop the crusade.

miko, I’m sorry, I probably shouldn’t comment when I’m tired and cranky. As you might guess from my comments, I’m deeply offended that there are engineers who masquerade unethically as scientists in order to try to give authority to their wingnut arguments that evolution has been falsified. I’m aware of the correlation you refer to, but in America I think this comes from confirmation bias, or at least I hope it does. Someone who claims to be a scientist once identified a creationist claiming to be a scientist as actually holding a degree in engineering, not science. Since then, people have looked for this among the vocal ID advocates, and sure enough, because they look for it, now and again they have found it, particularly in the more religious states. I understand your point about ways of questioning,which is why I made the comment I did at #25 – I was hoping this was not another data point.

I am also fed up with engineers and scientists disrespecting each other professionally in real life. It happens a lot, particularly at the boundaries, where mutual respect and cooperation would make for a better world.

Razib, you have mentioned being a conservative. You are also very tolerant. Considering the comments people leave on your blog.

Show a little respect for your host, folks.

Nobody ever went broke understimating the intellegence of the American public.

H L Menken

Where o where are our H L Menkens, our Mike Roykos, our Mark Twains, when we need them most. I do believe the N.E.W.S. now stands for Nonsense Everybody Wants Sickness.

Someone needs to read some Dawkins cough-#57-cough.

People who don’t believe in evolution don’t comprehend evolution. Evolution is a struggle to survive as a species. How else can you explain Neanderthal man and the dead end they came to? They existed, despite the Bible’s not bothering to mention them. The traits that ensured modern man’s survival were passed on genetically. That’s what evolution is; the passing on of traits that are more suited for the survival of the species.

This is all self evident. It doesn’t threaten religious orthodoxy except in the most simple-minded way. You have to wonder if the people who dismiss evolution because it somehow conflicts with their religious beliefs have ever taken the trouble to actually read Darwin’s “Origin Of The Species”? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess no.

Evolution is not only a fact, it’s a necessity. It’s all about a species being able to adapt to it’s environment in order to survive. Many species in the history of this planet have gone extinct. How do you account for it? Was it God’s will, or something more plausible? How about this? They ceased to exist as a species because of their failure to adapt to their environment. In other words, their failure to evolve.

Homo-sapiens didn’t become the dominant species on this planet because we had so much spirituality and trust in the Lord. How did we do it? Here’s a clue, our eyes are located in the front of our heads like any natural predator, we stand upright and have opposable thumbs. The homo-sapiens with eyes in the front, who grasped weapons and stood on their hind legs to hunt, survived and passed these traits along. The traits most suitable for survival were passed along. Get it? It’s called natural selection.

As to how evolution gacked up a human hairball like GLenn Beck is another matter entirely. I think he must be some kind of double agent planted by the left in order to make conservatives look like a bunch of clueless, bloviating demagogues. Mission accomplished.

Sandgroper, sorry to give offence. I think it’s a fairly well-recognized phenomenon that people who give belabored, science-y sounding justifications for religious beliefs are often engineers or doctors. It even has a name that I can’t remember now. They are able to be conversant with some of vocabulary of molecular genetics and evolution, though without actually understanding much of it.

That doesn’t mean many (or most or maybe almost all for all I know) engineers can’t or don’t understand evolution–I’m sure most understand far more than the average person–it’s just that certain ways of questioning evolution seem correlated with being an engineer, but this is only within the pool of evolution-doubters.

Doesn’t Beck remember that part in biology about homologous structures or, I suppose I should be asking based on his comments, has he ever taken a bio class? If so, there is no way he would make a dumb comment about half-monkey/man hybrids in an attempt to discredit evolution.

#49 miko, the practice of engineering is to take a commission from someone with money (e.g. a democratically elected government) to meet an identified community need, and to design, construct and maintain something to meet that need to pre-defined standards of safety, utility and longevity, in exchange for some money. The adequacy with which the profession does that is in some way related to the quantum of money available to do it.

Religion or any other kind of magic doesn’t come into the process. That is not to say that some engineer somewhere may have some belief in some kind of magic, but it has no relation to the practice of her/his profession. There is no role for magic in engineering design, it doesn’t enter into the process in any way.

If it does, the engineer concerned will likely pretty soon find her/himself the subject of a professional indemnity suit, if not an inquest and a criminal charge of manslaughter. If that happens, the cause is far more likely to be corruption rather than mystical belief.

I’m talking about professional engineers in the real world who build, operate and maintain stuff that enables you to stay alive and earn a living, like road and rail, water supply, sewage disposal, electricity and gas supply, building construction…you get the picture.

Why should you give a shit about whether the moron who maintains your water supply is an Intelligent Design advocate or not, as long as you keep getting clean water when you turn your tap on or flush your toilet?

The thought really bothers me that when I am lying dying in agony, instead of punching a fucking big syringe full of morphine into me and writing “multiple organ failure” on my death certificate, my palliative care doctor might tell me I don’t need any pain medication and to put my faith in Jesus. That thought really bothers me. Been there, done that. When the anaesthetist said “OK John, now we will take your pain away” and clamped the rubber face mask over my nose and mouth, I didn’t rip it off and say “Wait, are you an Atheist?”

Engineers can’t hurt you with whatever weird religious beliefs they might attest to – it doesn’t come into the ethical practice of their profession, so I don’t see the relevance. And what they say outside the practice of their profession is about as relevant as what a street sweeper might say, and about as deserving of your attention, ridicule and baseless generalization.

In any case, you are being hugely Americo-centric – engineers in America might be consedrvative religious crackpots, but they are not in many other countries. And, contrary to popular belief, America is not the whole world. It’s your problem and, increasingly, not ours.

Don’t defame my profession. Defame any individual you want, I don’t give a shit, after all, you live in the home of the brave and the land of the free, and you can allege whatever defamatory bullshit you want with impunity. But don’t defame my profession, we don’t deserve it. If we ever decide collectively to withhold our services (which engineers colletively don’t believe in on ethical grounds, so it will never happen), you would be totally fucked. I suggest you recognise that fact, and show a little respect.

tfagan is definitely an engineer, or maybe a low-level medical professional. I love the “You have to prove it didn’t happen by magic” argument.

I don’t think Glenn Beck has beliefs about evolution or much else, but I fall into this trap often with the few leaders on the far right who aren’t obvious morons (and let’s note with a sigh that radio personalities are now the leaders of American Conservativism). On the other hand, he has little formal education. Maybe he does think what he said makes sense, but it sounds too calculated to appeal to people much stupider than he appears to be.

“where does an Atheist that believes in evolution but does not believe in Global Warming fit into this analysis?” Ah, Ross, he’s what I’d call a Sound Chap, a Sensible Fellow, or a Man with a Sense of Proportion – a rational, scientific sort of a cove, in fact.

The answer is the environmentalist power grab is really, really obvious. You have to have an IQ under 110 to believe in global warming fully, if you are any higher you have to use cognitive dissonance techniques.

And about climategate, you can’t just hold a few incestuous hearings and expect us to forget it. The emails contain direct and irrefutable evidence of a CRIMINAL conspiracy. When we get power you will pay for your crimes. Enjoy your freedom while you have it.

#27 Elle

There is no ‘Darwinism’, just like there’s no Newtonism or Einsteinism or Boyleism or Daltonism or Lavoisierism or Mendeleevism or Copernicusism. There was a guy called Charles Darwin, a pretty fair Geologist for his time, as it happens, who through his work advanced science, which has been advanced a lot further since by a whole lot of other people. ‘Intelligent Design’ has no place in this. It is certainly not the next rung up from the work of Darwin or anything like it.

It is my understanding (likely wrong, as usual) that a clade consisted of an organism and all its evolutionary descendents. It that case, a bird is also a reptile and a fish, etc, back up the evolutionary tree.

By the way, many people (almost all faculty in the humanities and social sciences) claim to believe in evolution, but questioning will discover that they do not believe in Darwinian evolution, at least for humans. They appear to be some sort of Lamarkians.

[…] here to see the original: Glenn Beck, Evolution, Global Warming & Tea Parties | Gene … This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged argument, between-the-two, climate-change, […]

Your opening cheap shot at Mormons comes across as sophomoric. Perhaps you could pretend to be a journalist?

#18 tfagan
“So your task is to prove those scientific mathematical theories are in fact wrong and demonstrate how billions of bits of meaningful, specific, functional code can be created by accident. ”

Or you could download Avida, run the simulator and see for yourself how billions of bits of functional code come into being.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/avida/

Controlling for background variables he did not find that Tea Party identified Americans were any more, or less, Creationist than they should have been (they’re disproportionately religious conservatives, but they’re not more Creationist than you’d expect from that). On the other hand, they do tend to reject anthropogenic Global Warming to a greater extent even when Josh controlled for background variables.

Well, the Global Warming issue doesn’t really fall along the standard “Liberal/Conservative” line. It seems to fall more along the “Libertarian+Anti-Government/Everybody Else” line. But maybe Josh did include some ANTIGVT variable in his analysis?

Having wasted way too much time in various forums, I am not so sure about your distinction between creationism and climate contrarianism. I do believe that there are meaningful similarities, beyond the obvious pattern of wildly espousing conspiracy theories when scientific consensus runs against your ideological core beliefs.

The post by Elisha above is a good illustration, I think. You could compare it against a standard creationist manifesto about the “doubts”, “hoaxes” and “politics” that “plague” evolutionary theory. Just substitute temperature records with radioisotope dating and you’re halfway there. Hell, you even have the token acceptance of a limited, non-threatening version of the theory (small, insignificant AGW holding the same role as “micro-evolution”).

Creationism is a shallow but broad belief, rooted in intuitions and imbued with symbolic valence. Is man a monkey or an angel?

Well, “how can puny humans have any measurable impact on global climate?” Also, intuitions about the omnipotence of free enterprise and the evil of government intervention can run quite deep, even after the Great Pop.

Thirty years from now we will not be discussing Global Warming

Ever the optimist, I see. 🙂

I found I could not tolerate an entire segment of Beck back when he was on CNN (like an especially awkward sitcom). But I think it actually reflects well on him that he’s taking a weak position on a topic he’s ignorant of.

Lots of people have probably heard of the “Unskilled and Unaware of It” paper. They may be interested in this critique (this is not intended as an endorsement of any conclusion).

[…] Glenn Beck, Evolution, Global Warming & Tea Parties. Boycott Fox “Thug” TV. Contingent Education?: How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids. […]

it’s a paraphyletic group, so i was really wondering if we can talk about it in a cladistic sense like keesey implied. by this logic birds are reptiles, since they’re closer to most reptiles than turtles

Just to add to the counterintuitiveness of that particular relationship, crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards, snakes etc.. Dealing with naming conventions in the face of phylogeny is certainly a challenge.

I have to say I happened to be tuned into the local radio station when Beck started spewing this verbal diarrhea. What shred of baloney I gleaned from his show in the past has been lost forever to his ignorant rantings this morning. With that said where does an Atheist that believes in evolution but does not believe in Global Warming fit into this analysis?

Hmm. Well I do know more than a bit about paleoclimatology and about evolutionary biology. That life on earth evolved is backed up by so much evidence that it is undeniable by anyone who a) is willing to look at it, and b) understands the theory of evolution.

Beck, who is largely an autodidact, has not had the guidance of good educators who push bright students–and he is bright–beyond their preferences. That is the primary value of a good undergraduate education. And for that reason, he is ignorant of the most basic ideas that comprise the modern theory of evolution, and therefore does not understand it. However, this is not a malady only of the political right (and the Tea Parties). I know quite a few lefties (and social Darwinists), who while fervently preaching the gospel of evolution, understand it no more than does Beck. This is clear from some of the statements they make that sound odd in the ears of a biologist.

“Global Warming” (a really bad name for climate change) does not have the scientific credentials that the theory of evolution has, nor should it, being that it is less than a few decades old. That climates change is obvious but the extent, the direction of the change, whether it is truly global, and the reasons for it are far from settled, despite politicians’ great desire to use it for their own ends. Further, some of the blatently false statements of the press make those looking into it appear to be ignorant of earth history. Worse, I do believe that some of those scientists probably are ignorant of it, being married to models rather than doing their fieldwork. When a “climate scientist” makes a statement like: “the earth’s temperature is warmer now than it ever was” or “there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now that at any other time”, he loses all credibility. The Mesozoic was far warmer and the earth’s atmosphere contained quite a lot more CO2 than today, and for quite a long duration. And the absurd statements that the CO2 in the atmosphere is a poison, a pollutant are equally non-sensical, given that the late Paleozoic and the Mesozoic saw a tremendous amount of plant growth and diversification, as well as a very twiggy tree of life for the dominant clades on the earth at that time.

The science is NOT settled. For example, how do we know that the spike in global temperature–if real, and there is evidence that it is an artifact caused by sampling errors–is not the same kind of spike that was seen prior to several of the glacial advances that marked the end to inter-glacial periods roughly 10,000 years in duration. We need a lot more time, and real measurements before claiming that there is no room for controversy in the matter of anthropogenic climate change that is definitely going into the direction of warm.

And further, even it this science was settled, the science does not in any way dictate a particular political response. Science is value-neutral. This science has been made into an issue, and is being used. Many of the climate scientists have sold their integrity to the political hand that feeds them.

It took quite a long time to get from Darwin to Crick and Watson and the modern synthesis. We need to be a little more patient and a little less arrogant with this same process with respect to climate change. (Which is really happening all the time. Why should we expect that cycles of glaciation and retreat should suddenly end just because we made our appearance–rather late–on the evolutionary scene?).

In any case, shoddy science and political agendas only make it more possible and more likely for the likes of Glenn Beck to be able to further discredit research in the eyes of the taxpayers. And lest we forget, they pay for a good deal of the science that is currently done. And it is forced from them, which is always a very bad proposition. Milk cows may put up with it, but Americans have a history of throwing off the yoke of taxation. The more I see of these false debates, the more ignorance I see, the more that I am convinced that government-sponsored science is indeed an oxymoron.

For Beck and most people, it is a matter of time and interest. Beck is certainly smart enough to understand evolution. Even intelligent people can’t study everything, and understanding how science works is a long process.

So why do intelligent people comment on things they don’t know much about? Better question. My guess is smart people assume they know more than they do, cause they took a class in college or whatever.

Razib: regarding Lab Lemmings comment, he implies that what Beck said is no evidence at all as to what he actually “believes” about evolution (he could be a creationist, could be an ‘evolutionist’, or he might honestly acknowledge to himself that he is ignorant about the issue); he was merely pandering to his audience with a statement on the topic that he knows will be positively received. In contrast, you imply that tribal affiliation results in an actual belief in the tribe’s doctrine (or at least something just one degree of separation from an actual belief: analogous to Dennet’s “belief in belief”)

[…] Beck Says: No Proof of EvolutionThe AtlanticWireGlenn Beck: What if God made us from monkeys?WND.comDiscover Magazine (blog) -Death and Taxes -TPM LiveWireall 12 news […]

#18 tfagan: LOL. Your post reads like a Poe, or a mindless repeat of a Discovery Institute press release, complete with unwarranted distinction between micro and macro (hint: macro, in this case, is nothing but a result of a number of micro events). A class in introductory molecular biology will cure you of such delusions. But even if that’s too much, an elementary textbook on philosophy of science (and, in particular, that of biology) will.

To SANDPIPER, EXACTLY, though obviously I am NOT as educated as most on this page, AT LEAST I have been continuing the search, like you yourself did, as you say, at twelve, and I am sure you, as an educated person will continue to search,. In short ( YAY) I have read to the point of ” The mapping of the Human Genome”, which to most on here is probably old , but it gave me the CLUE, that all was not ending at “DARWINISM is AWESOME,” and found that intelligent design seems to me to be the next rung on the ladder, and Darwinism HAS had its day.THANKS all u guys, for the instructive lessons here today. SERIOUSLY. Well, I know we are primates. It is like this: all monkeys are PRIMATES, but not all PRIMATES are monkeys.( UMMM DUH)

Thirty years from now we will not be discussing Global Warming, thirty years from now we will probably be discussing evolution.

This statement requires one of multiple possible sets of assumptions to be true, and I not willing to accept any of those sets. That is, I do believe that we will be discussing Global Warming in thirty years and I don’t think that you’ve made a compelling case that we will not be. Now, if you were suggesting that we will not be discussing it in the same manner (as a contrast to creationism vs. evolution), then I agree.

the common ancestor of humans and monkeys were monkeys?

Well, since there are two groups of monkeys (old world and new world) that have a common ancestor and we fall within the lineage of one branch, so I’d say that we are monkeys. 😉

#18 tfagan, please tell me you are not an engineer. Please.

“When my friend expressed his skepticism I was totally shocked, as I’d never considered that anyone would reject evolution. I was familiar with the idea from my early elementary years because of my fascination with dinosaurs”

You could have been me. It was that rejection by my peers that led me to read On the Origin of Species when I was 12, and more broadly on geology and paleontology, beyond the ‘dinosaurs were awesome’ thing that seems pervasive among young kids.

SOORRY Razib, i tried to delete the stupid repeat of a meandering and self righteous post, am a newb, ummm obviously. APOLOGIES, have pushed delete three times.OBVIOUSLY I missed the clock, if not the point.

I truly believe, from what I have read, and followed up on, that ALL of you guys EACH has a PIECE of the “ANSWER” but we all need to find the ENORMOUS rest of the puzzle, it is with the HIGHER POWERS, that I, because of my lack of true knowledge will call GOD, A LOVING GOD. I am hoping, and when we find the rest of that big puzzle, we will know. I never thought there was a fight between creationism, and darwinism, it has always been that MONKEY IMAGE, I think, that persons found impossible to pass, perhaps because of their lack of self esteem to begin with. Creationism,the buzzword coming along lately, when we think in these terms, has a bit MORE of the puzzle. I apologize, friend for forgetting your name, but the person that said he could see the roots of a deeper creationism in the perfect strands of peptides, etc, and the machine like PROGRAMS imbedded in our D.N. A. said some things I had to stop and look at. Science, it seems, has led us back to where we STARTED, THIS TIME, WITH BACK UP.

There is more energy wasted creating BOUNDRIES that separate our chosen psycho/sociological stance, than their ever ever is, finding out the ” close” answers to these questions, BECAUSE, as long as we are far more interested in establishing ourselves into smaller and smaller and LESS relevant sociological splinter groups: i.e. secular HUMANIST, LIBERAL ( YOU BET THAT IS ME AND I BELIEVE IT IS THE INDICATOR OF A MORE INTELLIGENT, MORE OPEN MIND ( READ STATS ABOVE)) but THAT makes me just as guilty as the rest of ( MAINLY WESTERN) humanity.CHRISTIAN, ( PRO LIFE) BLOWING UP CLINICS THAT DO ABORTIONS WITH THE MOTHERS INSIDE, WITH A BABY IN UTERU, because the clinic ALSO provides pre natal care.HOW TOTALLY IRONIC. OR, :” AGNOSTIC”, what the heck does the even MEAN, really?It means, not accepting the simple Judeo Christian ethic, still SEARCHING.( ummmm should we all be still searching, for that, that itself , not MONKEYS, an IMAGE, is what EVOLUTION s all about: Mental evolution.A stolid self named CHRISTIAN would say an agnostic does not even beLIEVE. NO, THESE maelstroms of words, breaking us( HUMANS, WHEREVER WE CAME FROM, the (heheh)literal( chuckle)Adam and Eve mythology,OR monkeys or spaceships or WHO AMONG US BUT HIGHER ONES THAN US( IF THEY DO EXIST, and I am sure that they do) really knows for SURE FOR SURE? I fault myself and fellow liberals just as much for preaching the evolutionary theories, not because they are not THE BEST WE HAVE COME UP WITH SO FAR, but because when we stop searching, we start fighting, and stop learning. AND LEARNING, I TRULY DO BELIEVE, is a great and loving GIFT from whatever loving GOD that does exist. We are at the Tower of BABBLE, splintering into these different groups, and the moment we get angry at another human being, we are splintered, broken off from him or her. The very single moment our self WES,,,,,,,,, created identity is attacked, we are NOT going to think about the person in a kind, human, GODLIKE way, and then, AND THEN HATE rears it’s evil head. THAT is why I can only say”, I am trying to find an answer, and I HOPE I am on the right path, I am not close yet, but I am learning ALOT. YEA, you can best BELiEVE that I believe in a GOD, a LOVING GOD, but aside from THAT, I do not know, and WILL NOT be a sheep, ever. Another gift from our lord is the gift of LOVE. EACH TIME WE SPLINTER INTO ANOTHER” I am THIS but what are YOU??” thing, the love, GOD.s love, gets tossed away.