Glenn Beck on How to Deal With Dangerous Progressives: “Shoot Them in the Head”

With the recent shooting in Arizona, there’s been a lot of talk lately about the level of aggression and violence inherent in today’s political rhetoric.  From Sarah Palin’s “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!,” to Sarah Palin’s infamous crosshairs map (surveyor’s marks my ass), to Sarah Palin’s insistence that if any of her critics get their way it would “destroy the Republic,” there has indeed been a lot of charged, inflammatory speech in the political arena that serves only to create divisiveness and foster the type of anger that all too often leads to violence.  And while Jared Laughner does not seem to be motivated by politics or ideology, he’s not the only one who has recently attempted such an act (Byron Williams comes to mind).  So where does all this vitriol come from?  My nomination for most obvious promotion of politically-motivated violence is one Glenn Beck, seen here:

Now, of course, this video is heavily edited and it stands to reason that something like this should be viewed and understood in its own context.  So, here is the transcript of the whole rant.  And for those of you who would like to hear Beck’s explanation of those comments, here it is.  Let it never be said that I take things out of context.

Now, more importantly, let it NEVER be said that Glenn Beck is in fact not inciting violence with this statement.  Let’s analyze this transcript together, shall we?

The first premise asserted by Beck is that Progressives are dangerous.  It’s laid out pretty clear when he says “they are dangerous.  Why?  Why?  Well, because a lot of them have called for violent revolution,”  followed later with “They are dangerous because they believe.  Karl Marx is their George Washington.  You will never change their mind… They want to overthrow our entire system of government.”

So now we have established, for the Glenn Beck viewing audience, that Progressives are dangerous revolutionaries that want to overthrow the government, and essentially destroy the republic.

Next, we are treated to an explanation of the true dedication Beck has to his own belief system, which is based on his “understanding” of the founding principles of the United States.  Never mind that these beliefs are based on utter falsehoods propped up by radical revisionist historians like David Barton, they are still Beck’s most deeply held and most sacred precepts.  Beck even gives us a hint as to how closely he holds these ideals when he asserts that one would have to “Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders.  Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.”  Pretty powerful stuff.  Even in his later explanation of the diatribe, Beck explains that he was talking about how he would rather die than recant his beliefs or even stop trying to see them brought to fruition.  You would have to shoot him in the head to stop him.  He said so himself.

With me so far?  Good.  Here comes a twist.

After explaining how he will never be stopped while alive, Beck then establishes the premise that dangerous Progressives, his political opponents, are just as devoted to their own world view as he is to his.  In fact, “They believe in communism.  They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head [emphasis added].”  That’s the only way anyone will stop the dangerous Progressives from doing everything they can to see their own world view realized.  They believe that hard, just like Beck.  Beck’s later explanation of this rant doesn’t even attempt to refute that statement.  He only says that he was talking to the Democratic party leadership, explaining that they have been infested with this dangerous Progressive cancer which can only be cured by the destruction of the dangerous Progressives who have infiltrated the party.  Kind of like how someone once said labor unions had been infiltrated and corrupted by Jews in a plot to destroy…  What country was that again?  Anyway…

Here’s where it hits you.

Now that we have established that dangerous Progressives have taken over the Democratic party in an attempt to spread their Republic-killing propaganda and socialist agenda, Beck is extraordinarily insistent that these dangerous Progressives must be stopped.  He has said it over and over again.  It’s pretty much the basis of almost every episode of his show.  We must stop the dangerous Progressives, because the fate of the nation hangs in the balance and “at some point they’re going to come for you.” But wait, the average viewer might ask, how can we stop them? Fortunately for you, “Professor” Beck has already told the Democratic leadership about the only way to stop these dangerous Progressives, and he did it so you, too could hear the solution“You are going to have to shoot them in the head.”

In case you’re having trouble getting the point of all this, Just read the words in bold to understand Beck’s real narrative.  Or, let me state it more simply.  It’s just a more convoluted way to say “Those guys are bad! Let’s kill them!

Advertisements

29 responses to “Glenn Beck on How to Deal With Dangerous Progressives: “Shoot Them in the Head”

    • Right. And of course that’s what Sarah “Don’t retreat RELOAD” Palin was doing in the first place. Experienced surveyor that she is and all.

    • It’s shameful to stand behind the guy that says, “You’re going to have to shoot them in the head.” A little girl was murdered. Good people were murdered. A congresswoman was shot in the head. More than a dozen others injured.

      This is the moment for a person to completely distance himself/herself from madness and hatred. Seize the moment.

  1. Pingback: Glenn Beck Channeling Rwanda Radio « WriteChic Press

  2. When there already have been over 20 known attempts to kill sitting and former Presidents, such language is criminal.

  3. What a great story on the influence of such a schmuck of a human being. I am composing a follow up story to my post yesterday: http://hulshofschmidt.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/angry-white-man-takes-over-new-hampshire-with-his-tea-bag/
    that will include your post. I will refer back to your blog.

    Best regards,
    Michael

  4. Did you read that? Writechic just said to shoot them in the head!!!

    The same illogical spin can be applied to you also. I hope you are misunderstanding Glenn’s message and not purposefully misleading. Either way, unlike Writechic’s call for ignorance, this is the moment to seize some reality.

    It was a graphics company that designed the Sarah PAC map, the graphics used could very well have been named registration or survey marks, I don’t know for sure because I don’t have access to their particular software (neither do you). The company, knowing Sarah is a hunter (because marketers and designers make it their business to do some basic research on clients) could have used the symbols because they look like crosshairs. Regardless, crosshairs, targets, etc. along with all other war metaphors have been used far longer than any of us have been on this earth. SO WHAT? If symbols kill people, then a Betty Crocker ad bakes me a cake. If guns kill people, then hammers build houses.

    You also must have missed the history of the slogan “don’t retreat, reload”, yet another hunting analogy that was advice given to Sarah from her father when she faced challenge and opposition as a young girl.

    Obviously, you don’t want to express outrage when someone is really calling for a violent revolution and rioting in the streets like Francis Fox Piven has recently, ” Local protests have to accumulate and spread—and become more disruptive—to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.” – http://www.thenation.com/article/157292/mobilizing-jobless

    No, we wouldn’t want to have our eyes open to real danger…would we?

    Since the real message has been convoluted here, it proves you need to watch some Glenn Beck to get an idea what he’s all about, so you know what you’re talking about.

    • I understood Beck just fine. People like me, who support single-payer health care, strong unions, and public education, are what Beck considers dangerous Progressives. Progressives are dangerous revolutionaries who must be stopped, and they believe so strongly that they can only be stopped by shooting them in the head. Pretty easy to understand.

      As far as the crosshairs map, I never really took issue with it. Gabby Giffords did, though, and then she was shot in the head. As far as whether symbols can kill people, of course they can’t, any more than a speed limit sign can force your car to adjust its speed. But that sign (or symbol) certainly does affect your behavior as a response to viewing it. Or maybe not. Maybe you do 85 in a 25mph zone because symbols have no effect on you. Or maybe, just maybe, you allow that symbol to cause you to change your behavior, even if only subconsciously.

      Moreover, I have never said anything about Frances Fox Piven, either positive or negative. I at least give her credit, though, for standing by her rhetoric (whether I endorse it or not), and not trying to walk it back and say that she never said such things. This certainly distinguishes her from people like Beck and Palin, who continually backtrack and try to say they would never do what millions just watched them do.

      Finally, I have watched Glenn Beck on many occasions, and I have a very clear idea of what his message is all about. He promotes an ideology that has no tolerance for people like me, and considers folks like myself to be the single greatest threat America has ever faced. As far as he is concerned, we are inhuman Nazis who want to overthrow the government, institute a massive eugenics program, and “take you to a place to be slaughtered.” Who wouldn’t kill someone like that?

      • I wouldn’t want to kill progressives because their ideology is destroying America, no sane person would. The same way no sane person would attempt to assassinate President Reagan because of Jodi Foster.

        You are spinning honest discussion and debate.

        The sleeping giant, the silent majority that awoke and is calling themselves the Tea Party doesn’t recognize America as it used to be. What you consider pushing progress is what others see as a decline in the Republic’s initial purpose of self governance for the people, by the people and of the people. Not socialized healthcare, whereas medicare and medicaid are models of such and have failed miserably. Instead of fixing something thats clearly not efficient or working, they’ve expanded it. Not over-extended unions that have become so powerful they sit at the table and dictate how government should run, or priced themselves into what normally should be considered “out of the market” where they no longer serve the purpose of protecting their contributors, but themselves. Not a money pit like public education with their tenure that doesn’t respond favorably no matter how much money you keep throwing at it. The only ones that keep capitalizing from that system are the unions and the teachers…students aren’t getting a world class education from their world class funding. Government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.

        Gabby Giffords was trying to link crosshair targets on Palin’s map and violent rhetoric with vandalism to her office door; she tried to imply the shattered glass to her office could have been caused by a pellet gun, but no pellets or bullets where found.

        A bulls-eye has never made me pick up darts and start throwing them at people’s heads. A sign does not illicit a change in behavior in me unless I’m compelled by law to abide – like a speed limit sign (which isn’t a symbol).

        You have indeed misunderstood that message by Glenn Beck. If you had watched the show, you would have understood that Beck was saying that his convictions were so strong that you would have to shoot him in the head for him to give those convictions up. He followed that by saying progressives are just as convicted and would only give up their convictions likewise. He then stated that if you shoot anybody they are going to shoot you. This tells me that shooting somebody/anybody is not the answer.

        If you can make accusations like Beck and Palin backtracking or Beck is calling you inhuman Nazis (with the rest of that sentence), then you should back it up by providing me with a link for proof, otherwise I’ll consider it propaganda.

        Finally, Francis Fox Piven calls for actual violence and you say nothing???

        • You said:

          Beck was saying that his convictions were so strong that you would have to shoot him in the head for him to give those convictions up. He followed that by saying progressives are just as convicted and would only give up their convictions likewise. He then stated that if you shoot anybody they are going to shoot you. This tells me that shooting somebody/anybody is not the answer.

          Where again did he say that? If I remember right, he said

          They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head.

          You are wrong. Stop apologizing for your hero and take his advice. Do some research.

    • Step away from your computer. You’re too dumb to use it. Someone will bring you an Etch-a-sketch tomorrow morning.

  5. Pingback: How You Say? Time for “An Eye for an Eye”? « Out Of My Mind

  6. @ Will S. thats pretty funny you quote the highly edited propaganda version. Here’s some research for yah – funny thing is, I researched before I even commented, in fact I watched the original airing of the show…I even understood what he was saying. You’re the one who should be doing some apologizing.

    • I quote the propaganda version? Maybe you missed the link to the full transcript, or my consistent direct quoting of the full transcripts in the context from which the quotes were taken, or the audio of Beck’s explanation that he was talking to Democrats (giving them advice) when he said of Progressives “you’re going to have to shoot them in the head.” Here’s what I suggest, in three easy steps:

      1. Read the entirety of the post before you go commenting that I did or said something other than what I actually said or did.

      2. Think a while, without any noise or distractions, about where you may disagree on the substance of my actual statements, not the strawmen you put up as an imaginary opponent.

      3. Come back with something that actually disproves or discredits the substance of the post, rather than the same old tired talking points of “you quote the highly edited propaganda version” when in fact I quote the full transcript. Again, argue the substance. I’ll be looking forward to your next false argument.

      Cheers!

      • You are reading between the lines and projecting your own message, when you start with the wrong premise, it’s inevitable you’ll come to the wrong conclusion. You can’t argue with fantasy!

      • Since when am I starting with the wrong premise? Did Beck not say these things?

        “Didn’t we learn that lesson from Usama bin Laden? I heard his warning in 1998. I said on the air at the time, listen to him. We didn’t listen. We didn’t listen to the revolutionaries in Germany, the revolutionaries in Russia or Venezuela or Cuba — no, no, no. They all have one thing in common. They have all called for revolution.”

        “They want to overthrow our entire system of government, and their words say it.”

        “They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind.”

        “They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.”

        I especially like the first one, where he conflates American Progressives with Bin Laden. So when Beck equates Progressives to Nazis or Al-Qaeda, as he did in the first quote, what is it you think he’s posing as his premise? Pretty obvious to me that he’s calling them the single greatest threat to America, since both Nazis and Al-Qaeda have been those things in their heydays.

        And what advice does he give to the Democratic party when talking to them about what they should do about Progressives? He says the only way to stop them is to shoot them in the head.

        I’m not starting with the wrong premise. I’m starting with Beck’s premise. Maybe you’re confused because deep down, you know he’s wrong and so is his premise, so you think that because I’m talking about his wrong premise my premise must be wrong. Bad logic. Try again.

  7. Will,

    With all due respect, I’m afraid Robin is not going to be bothered with facts or the truth. I have read her responses and she is using the “talking points” one hears on Faux News. She can’t be bothered with the truth:
    http://hulshofschmidt.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/i-will-not-be-bothered-with-facts-or-the-truth/

    Respectfully,
    Michael

    • I know, I know… But I’m bored

      • Well, I only can hope that your boredom will enlighten Robin, or at least someone that is willing to look at facts.

        Best,
        Michael

      • Lol, you’ve got the transcript and the only thing you get out of it is “shoot them in the head to stop them”. I see whats going on…God has shut your eyes so you cannot see and closed your ears so you cannot hear. No wonder you’re bored…and wrong!

      • Yup, you got me, Robin. Despite all the context and explanations of said context I provided, all I got out of it was the part you think is easiest to argue against. And yet you still haven’t actually argued against any of the points I actually made. Better luck next time.

    • With no due respect Michael Hulshof-Schmidt, it’s rude to address a comment about someone to someone else when the proper thing to do is address it to whom you wish to make the derogatory comment to. Grow a pair and use your manners.

  8. Will,

    I fear you are arguing with a person that seems to WANT to be blind to the truth. She talks about god, and I fear her “god” must have had the day off when she was made, for she is not using the tools of critical thinking and of recalling history and facts!

    Best regards
    Michael

  9. Will we can start again and we can start at the top, point by point. The first wrong premise is “Now, more importantly, let it NEVER be said that Glenn Beck is in fact not inciting violence with this statement.”
    Glenn Beck is not inciting violence, that’s your first wrong presumption. Glenn Beck doesn’t believe in violence he has often talked about it during his shows, “violence is not the answer” he has said it numerous times. I’ve heard him. Show me one instance where there has been violence at Glenn Beck’s insistence.

    • So let me get this straight. My premise is wrong, despite the evidence you almost certainly never even read, because Glenn Beck says so.

      You are not disputing that Beck’s narrative is one of “dangerous Progressive revolutionaries want to destroy our nation, just like Nazis and Al-Qaeda.” You are also not disputing that he maintains that these people must be stopped for the very preservation of the country. And you are not disputing his point that these dangerous Progressive revolutionaries believe so strongly that they can only be stopped by shooting them in the head. You really can’t dispute these points, because they are right there, in black and white, in front of you. He said these things.

      But because he later says that he deplores violence , he is non-violent. So assuming he is correct, Glenn Beck is either unwilling to prevent the destruction of the United States, or he thinks you should find some non-violent way to shoot Progressives.

      Or maybe he’s just full of shit and covering his ass when he says “but don’t be violent, ‘cuz that would be bad.” And you buy it. Way to go. I know where you can get a bridge in Brooklyn. Cheap.

      • I’m going to ignore your second and fourth paragraph for now and keep debating the first point. Beck did not say violence is bad after the airing in question, he’s said it all along. His show had been airing for almost 2 years before the episode you’re discussing. Beck was instrumental in the whole Tea Party movement, the 9-12 movement and organized the 8-28 restoring honor rally held in Washington. There have been massive demonstrations for two years all over the country. The Washington rally was attended by over 100 thousand people. There was not one instance of violence, there was not one arrest for misconduct, there wasn’t even any litter left behind…not one pop can. That’s pretty strong evidence Beck does not incite violence. If you’ve got any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you post it as I requested in my last comment.

      • “I’m going to ignore your second and fourth paragraph for now.”

        Of course you’re going to ignore the second paragraph. That’s the one with the evidence disproving your point. I make the point that Glen Beck has incited violence, and prove it. You then counter with examples of him doing things other than directly inciting violence. Thing is, I never said that’s ALL he does. I can give you dozens of examples of me not drinking. Doesn’t make me a teetotaler. Just because there are times when Beck doesn’t incite violence doesn’t mean he never does it. But I suspect that will be ignored in your response. Argue the facts if you can. Since you can’t, I suspect you’ll just come back with another weak argument that ignores the facts like all your others.

  10. This discussion thread is convoluted because there are no reply links after about three responses. You’d have to change that in your settings.

    Your fourth paragraph was not evidence against the first point I made, it was a straw man fallacy. That was a whole other point that I was going to get to. That’s what “for now” means.

    Your fourth paragraph was an attempt to ignore the point I brought up. Back to point number one, show me evidence that Glenn Beck has incited violence to back up your first wrong premise, “let it NEVER be said that Glenn Beck is in fact not inciting violence with this statement.”
    Glenn Beck is in fact not inciting violence with his statement…there you go, it’s been said.

    • I never said the fourth paragraph of that response was evidence regarding anything. The fact that you are arguing against it as though I said it was evidence is a perfect example of a straw man. Maybe you should look up the definition of what that is.

      As far as showing you evidence that Beck has in fact incited violence, consider the post upon which you are commenting. It’s all there, that was the whole thing. Are you going to tell me that he never said these things?

      Again, when you say Beck has never incited violence, I need only find one example of him doing it to prove you wrong. If you are going to argue that he has NEVER incited, violence, you will have to explain to me how the things he said are in fact no such thing. But you can’t. He said that Progressives are dangerous, anti-American revolutionaries who must be stopped in their quest to destroy the country, and that they can only be stopped by shooting them in the head. That is what he said. Tell me again how that is not inciting violence?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s