Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 04/02/2009 9:45 am

Glenn Beck: 'Fascism Is on the Rise' (Video)

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Fox News’s new darling, Glenn Beck, broke new, rabble-rousing ground last night when he claimed the government is leading the United States straight into fascism.

Beck, who hopped to Fox earlier this year following a career at CNN, has long said that the nation is marching toward socialism, but "admitted" last night that he’s been wrong. We’re not going in that direction at all, but we are headed down a far more frightening path.

Said Beck, via Think Progress:

It all adds up to me, having to admit that I was wrong. Our government is not marching down the road towards communism or socialism … But now I have to tell you that they’re not marching us that direction. They’re marching us to a brand of non-violent fascism. Or to put it another way, they’re marching us to 1984. Big Brother … Like it or not, fascism is on the rise.

Beck highlighted his point by running footage of the Nazis and then flashing a picture of Fed head honcho Ben Bernanke. But it’s not all doom and gloom, because our brand of fascism has a "happy face." Way to keep it upbeat, Beck!

Watch:

255 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

deber B

Since I wasn’t clear on what fascism is I thought finding a definition would be helpful:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution.[9] In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.[10][11][12][13]

Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[14] Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals through elected representatives rather than as a collective nation or race (individualism, liberalism, representative democracy); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (communism, class conflict oriented labour movements, internationalism, and laissez-faire capitalism); that protects and empowers people deemed weak and degenerate (egalitarianism) and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation (pacifism); that may seek to preserve any of the privileges, institutions and cultural values that fascism seeks to overthrow (traditionalism and conservatism).[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word.[26]

Contents
By deber B on 04/02/2009 8:54 am
Z ****

Here’s another definition (from dictionary.com)

Fascism a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

By Z **** on 04/02/2009 10:03 am
f p
Sounds like Rush and Glen to me.
By f p on 04/02/2009 11:13 am
S.J. Morgan

Are you saying private citizens Rush and Glen are not entitled to an opinion?  Neither is an elected leader much less a President..?

By S.J. Morgan on 04/02/2009 1:01 pm
f p
NO I’m essentially saying they’re demagogues
By f p on 04/02/2009 1:04 pm
Rudi G.
They are promoters of fascism.
By Rudi G. on 04/02/2009 2:44 pm
Rudi G.
Fascism is generally a right-wing form of totalitarianism, like the regimes of Hitler and Mussolina. Liberal extremism is generally statism, like the regime of Stalin.
By Rudi G. on 04/02/2009 2:49 pm
Z ****
It’s all about working the buzzwords.  =)
By Z **** on 04/02/2009 2:51 pm
Amanda C
Maverick! Reform! Terrorism! Pork Barrel!
By Amanda C on 04/02/2009 5:00 pm
Z ****

Now….I know it is difficult to "get" when your party has been marginalized — but, here is the definition of DEMOCRACY.

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Remember that election we had back in November, 2008?   And, that majority rules thing……………..

By Z **** on 04/02/2009 10:06 am
Rachel F
Remember that election we had back in November, 2008?   And, that majority rules thing……………..

Adolf Hitler was elected. Hamas was elected. Sometimes what starts as "free" ends up quite differently. The fact that someone’s elected to power doesn’t mean that things will remain free and "by the people" under his control (see Hitler, for instance).

BTW, just for your enjoyment, here’s a bit of Nazi propoganda that was used to elect Hitler:

"Those who want everything to stay as it is vote for Hindenburg. Those who want everything to change vote for Hitler."

Discovering the Western Past: A look at the evidence
Volume II, 3rd edition, page 370, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston New York 1997

By Rachel F on 04/02/2009 10:46 am
Z ****

Hi Rachel — understanding that there is the word "everything" in the above quote…….I’m trying to get a sense of your point, could you explain?    Surely you don’t mean we should always leave things the same (particularly when what we are doing isn’t working) and there should never be change?

The definition of insanity is "keep doing what you are doing and expect different results".

By Z **** on 04/02/2009 10:53 am
Rachel F

Nope, not at all. My point is that everything, including democratic elections, inspiring rhetoric, the need for change, or anything else can be used for ill purposes.

Just because someone says "we don’t want four more years of the same" or "we don’t want everything to remain the same" doesn’t mean that the suggested alternative is better. "We need change" might very well be true, but the "change" you get might be a lot worse than the problem you started with. I’m pretty sure the people who voted for Hitler would agree (remember that they too were in pretty dire financial circumstances when Hitler took over, and desperately in need of positive change).

By Rachel F on 04/02/2009 11:08 am
Z ****
I agree, change for the sake of change isn’t good.   That said, I’m trying to get a sense of how the quote applies to our current situation.   Do you think if there had been an alternative to Hitler for change……..that might have made a difference?    No one has ever accused me of being a history buff, but I wonder if there had been a more middle ground candidate — would things have been different?
By Z **** on 04/02/2009 11:40 am
Rachel F
I provided the quote there as accompaniment to our discussion of how good things (like Democratic elections, or, in that case, pleasing rhetoric) can be used for bad purposes. As to how another candidate might have changed things, that really is a matter of speculation. My personal opinion is that radical change appealed to many because of the severity of the problems; that’s also why Hitler’s hate and fear-mongering were effective — because he coupled them with hope they could (or were willing to) believe in. "Yes, you’re suffering, all because of evil x, y and z, but vote for me and I’ll make it all better!" Of course, there were a lot of people who didn’t fall for Hitler’s rhetoric, and who voted against him accordingly. But, sadly, not enough to change the tides of history.
By Rachel F on 04/02/2009 11:53 am