Geller: "Was Beck saying that standing up to defend the 'equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state' and 'freedom of speech' is fascist?"

If Beck wants to see real Fascism in action, he should come to NuLabour's Britanistan.

Was Beck saying that standing up to defend the "equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state" and "freedom of speech" is fascist?

That is precisely what not only Glenn Beck, but the overwhelming majority of leftards and many self-described conservatives who are on the payroll of the al-Saud, equate with fascism these days. Geller couldn't have hit the nail on the head anymore precisely with so few words... May this question travel all over the web in order to reach those in the civilized world who still need a wake up call to see what really is at stake here.

I saw that show and he was obviously dabbling in a subject he knew nothing about - hemming and hawing. But I definitely left it with the impression he slammed Wilders. Totally inconsistent with his take on America. Uncharacteristic ignorance of his subject. He probably got rapped with a ton of emails on that, including mine.

This statement by Beck last Monday continues to be very troubling, has Beck done any follow up since he criticized Wilders as being a fascist? Someone in the the conservative media should definitely confront him on this, it should not be dismissed and allowed to be ignored since he has a very large audience both on FOX and on radio.

I remember watching an interview that beck did with Geert Wilders when he came to the US just after being refused entry into the UK by then Home Secretary Jaqui Smith who resigned not to long after that, noting she was not really up to that job. In Beck's interview with Wilder's I remember getting the sense that Beck appeared to take Wilders somewhat lightly and at times almost flippant in comments and questions put to Wilders. In any case I found the interview to a disappointment on Becks side when reflecting on Wilders interviews earlier while he was here in the US.

I have no use for FoxNews since they started going soft on Islamic terrorists and getting addicted to Saudi money. Remember how they made a non-story out of those Muslim cooks plotting to poison our troops?

Beck IMO may be a Islamic sympathizer to some degree given the sort of guests he has on when the topic comes up and side steps it the rest of the time. Seen him have CAIR on one too many times.

What's worse, he's in position to demonize and wreck any anti-Islamic movement here in the U.S. and Europe.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer.

"Why would he stigmatize Wilders this way?"

Fascists try to control, but Beck has called out the wrong control freaks.

I watched that particular Beck program, too; and IMO, Beck made this false assertion about Wilders in an effort to defend islam. Beck is an ignoramous about islam, and he thinks that it's a "religion of peace" ...which it isn't. islam means "submission", by force if necessary. And for many muslims, it is always necessary.

Anyway, I think that Beck is sending the message that Geert is trying to control matters pertaining to islam, when in fact Geert is not. He is pointing out islam's need for total control of, well, you name it! islam wants to control how we think, believe and behave ...and in every area of everyone's life, too.

Geert is merely speaking the TRUTH by showing muslims BEING muslims -- and suddenly Beck is accusing Geert of trying to control things? Huh? Beck has it all backasswards.

Geert is simply speaking and showing the truth about islam, he isn't controlling anything -- whereas islam and it's adherents are the control freaks. Come on, Beck, grow a brain.

Glenn Beck is an entertainer.

Exactly, Dog. A news entertainer. It all started with that rotten bastard Walter Cronkite.

I do watch Beck now and then, mainly for the pleasure of watching him cry and then stuff his face with M&M's. But the guy isn't that smart, most of the ideas that he presents, 99.9% of them, he lifted from someone else and then dresses it up with entertainment to obsure the true source of the information. Or he invites an author on the show and then parrots their talking points for weeks on end until people think they are actually his ideas. So I am sure he is just being a parrot for whomever at Fox. It's why I don't buy his books, I will check out the ones he recommends, but I won't buy his books.

He himself said he got into talk radio to be the "common man." Not to bright, by his own admission. He should stick to flag waving and interviewing authors who happen to be his buddy, that's what he does best.

Have had my fill of Glenn Beck. It's not that he's usually wrong. Actually, he's usually correct on the issues, though not, of course, where Geert Wilders is concerned. He got Wilders wrong in a real cheap kind of way. It's his style that bothers me----part preacher, part entertainer, part goofball, most of the time histrionic. Done with him.

Beck is an embarrassment. Any one of us could debate him and easily win. I would love to be in a room with him and have Fitna playing. I would then ask him to stop the film at that point where Wilders says something hateful. Since Wilders never says anything in that film but merely shows the Muslims making the hate speeches, he would be sitting there drooling all over trying to make excuses.

To Beck, Krauthammer and FOX News (excerpt):

When a man risks his life and that of his family to speak the truth, when a man stands for principles, for the centuries and souls it took to create systems of governance where liberty is allowed and personal freedom largely protected – you, an AMERICAN media news and opinion outlet should not decry that person for doing so. Perhaps you should pull up a chair and learn something, rather than be in line to squelch the life out of that canary…he is warning you, too, if you would only listen.

Sharia law condemns freedom, forbids equality, and denies traditional sovereignty; it is legitimate that we reject it. The call to sharia law in America is a call to overthrow the US Constitution. Jihad, whether state organized or by individuals must be recognized for what it is, the followers of Islam engaging in war to advance Islam and force the imposition of Islamic sharia law. Please educate yourselves; you may choose cultural suicide, I do not.

To liberty under the US Constitution,
CD

Glenn is one of the most important voices in America today.
If it turns out that he is stealth islam lover, he's history with me. I sent him an email to that effect today.

Robert or David Horowitz needs to have a "talk" with him. Maybe he just had a bad hair day........

I happened to be in Glenn Beck's audience for last Friday's show. Before he came down to the studio, one of his producers asked for questions from us to possibly use for this Friday's show, "Ask Glenn".

Heh, heh; I asked if GB really was calling Geert Wilders a fascist, or if it was an elision, whereby he forgot to clarify who exactly he meant when he went on to warn of fascists arising during difficult economic times. The producer looked chagrined and said "we're working on it", meaning addressing the issue. Ha!; we'll see.

(Just watched the clip again, and in my opinion, he knew exactly what he was saying. He called Geert Wilders "far right" and went on to say that the right is fascism in Europe. Pretty obvious he's called Wilders a fascist.)

I've never followed Beck closely, but I was so shocked and disappointed to hear about this. I thought he was on our side.

Glenn Beck is a clown. Glenn Beck is not intelligent. Glenn Beck for some reason is called a "conservative."

Why?

What does Glenn Beck have to do with Edmund Burke?

I don't think for a minute that Beck or Kristol or Krathammer were toeing the FOX corporate line. I don't think for a minute that they were asked to. The truth is much more disheartening: Kristol and Krauthammer, two thoughtful, conservative intellectuals (Beck doesn't qualify), are as ignorant of Islam as many liberals.

Hi. Greetings from Finland. It's been a few years since I last commented at JW.

As much I respect Mr. Spencers views and I do understand the anxiety that the recent obvious changes in FOX policy generates, I'd still would like to offer a view to this politics of islamization.

I understand that the common ground at JW is that, as Wilders says, that there may be moderate muslims but no moderate islam and that we are facing an abyss, but inspite of that there is a school of thought here in Finland and in Sweden that is gaining ground. About the threat to civilization, it is good to know that you on a cliff that is 5 kilometers deep, but little does it help a mountain-climber to start analyzing that depth, instead of that one need to move forward. While analyzing the depth of the risk, we are creating a paralyzis from the analyzis.

It is not to belittle the risk of losing civilization as we know i - by all means no - but to recognize the fact that to lay stress on that risk publically is, after all a losing battle - there simply is too many sociolgists, islamologists and x number of talking heads to battle with. If you write one scholary A4 demostrating the islamict mindset, the multiculturists will write 10. No matter that you are right- the point is that you lose the PR-battle by ratio 10:1. Right as well, this is not an agenda you can sell to large number of footsoldiers: it is in human scale a hard bargain for members of the city council, local activists as well as the (confused but interested) voters to start educating them in different schools of thought in islam, what is taqiya and so on. It very simply is too much for an average political footsoldier. People would like to do things but don't know what to do.

Instead of mind-numbing exercise of islaimic studies a political footsoldier needs an effective here's-what-you-need-to-know-package which, when executed on a local level supports the anti-jihadist agenda on a national level. In other words, the approach is to begin with micropolitics and after secured the position there to proceed to macropolitics without the footsoldiers not knowing that they are contributing to national level, and from national level contributing to global level.

What is there to be done on a local level, then ? In such a way that the micropolitics supports the higher levels ?

The war an terror is, in essence a war on appeasements. It would be a disaster for the big boys of islam, this is the KSA and Iran that the muslim population in Europe is after all abandoning islam culturally, and after the departure from the culture starts leaving islam will follow. The islamization is a 2-way street: secularization of muslims in Europe is a threat for the big theocracies in the middle east, and respectively the islamization of Europe is a relief for these mullocracies.

Terror is not an end in itself, it is a mean to get appeasements and so a good cop - bad cop system. More often than not, the local self-appointed community leaders as the mullahs perversely are called want appeasements for peace.

The appeasements are then the very fabric of islamization that in the end is protecting the big theocracies. It may first be difficult visualize the world politics in such a manner that prayer hours given to muslim students in a swedish school are protecting Iran's mullocracy and vice versa; every appeasement that is turned back will increase the pain of the big theocracies.

The average political footsoldier - the decision maker in a town concil - can impossibly be trained to recognize taqiyya of other finesses of this branch, but he/she can be trained to not give in a millimeter and to taking back the appeasements.

Thsi approach is to be launched 2010-2011 in Scandinavia, and will begin by destroying the good islamic PR. More details will follow later this year.

Thank you Pamela. I've been meaning to write Beck about this all week, but haven't yet. In part because I rather doubt he would notice one more email in the flood that comes in. I will but thanks, really. I'm sure he'll hear about this piece.

Beck is fine. In fact he's one of our very best. But that doesn't mean he can't screw up. And boy, he sure screwed this one up royally -- by even his own articulated standards.

I expect that he just didn't do his homework thoroughly. I imagine he saw a few headlines about Wilders and went with it. He even interpreted Wilders' having been banned by Britain as a point against Wilders rather than the appeasing British left. Doh!

I'll bet he didn't know that they reversed themselves on this, or why, or what happened to the idiots who banned him in the first place.

Beck's not a dope. I expect, and certainly hope to hear a public retraction on this.

It does strike me as curious that he did not single out somebody like Le Pen, who really is rather the sort that Beck objects to, rather than Wilders who is clearly a good guy. Odd.

I really really don't want to think that FOX's Arab backers are somehow pushing FOX to smear Wilders for them -- and that FOX is going along.

And I really really really really don't want to think that Beck would go along with such a thing, were it the case.

All the best and thanks again,
JB

Although I have rarely watched Glenn Beck, I recall seeing him when he was still on CNN a couple of years ago, and he was insisting that he had never criticized Islam, Muslims, that his supposedly critical remarks had been misunderstood, etc. I can't remember his exact words, but what does stick with me is how truly afraid and anxious he appeared--it was palpable in his facial expressions, his voice. Clearly, he had been receiving death threats for daring to discus the truth about Islam and jihad on his show (and no doubt for having had Robert on as a guest in the past). I am *sure* this has everything to do with his now slamming Wilders.

Glenn Beck can be quite informative and amusing at times, but his maudlin moments often appear contrived and a bit disingenuous. I watched him regularly for a few months until his predictions for the future became so depressing I had to stop. I'm referring to the precarious state of our economy and what he calls the "coming collapse". He's probably right but other than trying to unseat as many profligate Democrats as possible, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it but wish it weren't so. It appears that whatever Obama cannot impose on this country by exerting pressure on the legislative branch, he will impose by executive order. He said that even if he was a one term president, he would accomplish his goals. Sadly, I believe him.

Beck has largely ignored the islamic threat in Europe and America and concentrated on Obama and his communist colleagues, czars, and friends. Limbaugh has done the same. I don't think either of them understands islam any better than the Fox All Stars and Beltway Boys. Krauthammer's comments about Geert Wilders were the most shocking because I thought he knew the score. There are ample conspiracy theories on the internet insinuating that the Saudi prince and Murdoch have forged new business deals and islam is now off limits to any criticism on Fox. After the deluge of criticism and untruths they collectively dumped on Wilders last week, there might be some truth to the rumors.

Fox News is or was the only alternative to the liberal media and I hate to think it has been compromised by a slimy Saudi. But the slimy, treacherous Saudis seem to have an extraordinary amount of influence in the halls of power in America. That money is just too irresistible to the politicians and power brokers and buys far more influence than the electorate who put them where they are. The corruption is ubiquitous.

Finn, excellent post, and you have an astute overview of the Islamisation situation. You are quite right, too, when you say that we have to stop analysing the situation too much because we need to act.

My view is that Beck is scared for his job, and for his future, and he figures the best way for him to survive is to cave in. He realises America is turning, and people are fed up of neoconism, and of certain groups "buying" policy for their own ends, which has led Islamism to use the opportunistic methods it thrives on to get a hold. The poor man really believes he will be on the winning side. Sadly he's not alone.

The only way forward is for us to refuse to be gagged about what is going on. We should take our example from Geert Wilders and organisations who want to stop this insidious cult from gaining any more power. We should start small, speaking to friends and neighbours, making them aware of what is on the way if we do not wake up.

I am the only Jew in my area, and my neighbours are kind, decent, tolerant Brits. Too tolerant - but they're beginning to wake up. They too, speak to others, and come our General Election in the UK - they WILL make their voices heard, as I will.

Finn, Jamie

read Malcolm Gladwell's book, 'Tipping Point'. Read chapter four, 'the power of context: the rise and fall of New York City Crime': the recounting of how Pay particular attention to the discussion of what's called the 'broken window' theory (James Q Wilson, George Kelling); and the case study, of how someone called David Gunn applied it to clean up first the New York subways in the mid-1980s, working with one William Bratton in the transit police from 1990; and then Bratton and Giuliani got to work on the whole of NYC.

Think of a mosque as being the spiritual and political equivalent of a 'crack house'.

Muslims *deliberately* break windows, strew litter and scrawl graffiti, both actually and metaphorically. They *use* 'context' - that's those little physical things that add up to the stealth jihad, the war of attrition, death by a thousand pinpricks, the 'Islamoforming' of a neighbourhood or a region. Every Muslim female wearing her slave-rag sends a signal, cuing other Muslims to behave in a particular way.

*That*'s why the Swiss decision to ban minarets, matters; it *will* have an effect. That's why I think the French proposal to ban the burqa, matters; especially if the French go through with it and other European countries are then emboldened to follow suit.

Every city and town and county and shire council that refuses to permit the building of a mosque, matters. Every refusal, on the basis of noise pollution, to permit the adhan, matters.

The demographic jihad, the hegira, immigration-as-invasion/ colonisation - has to be stopped. But while we're getting round to that, I think there's still a lot that can be done, for *at the moment*, in many parts of Europe, and in most of Australia, Canada and the USA, there *are* still more non-Muslims than Muslims. And I think 'context' can be actively shaped to turn the tide *against* Islam.

Apologies. My posting above was not fully drafted.

First paragraph should read:

"read Malcolm Gladwell's book, 'Tipping Point'. Read chapter four, 'the power of context: the rise and fall of New York City Crime'. Pay particular attention to the discussion of what's called the 'broken window' theory (James Q Wilson, George Kelling); and the case study, of how someone called David Gunn applied it to clean up first the New York subways in the mid-1980s, working with one William Bratton in the transit police from 1990; and then Bratton and Giuliani got to work on the whole of NYC."

If you want the truth as to why FNC is now treating Islamists with kid gloves, you need to research and expose Islam's George Soros. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal owns 5% of NewsCorp, FNC's parent ... See Morecompany. He is buying his way into American media and higher education to promote Islamic apologia and lay the foundations for domestic jihad. He bought his way into Harvard, Georgetown Universities Muslim-Christian engagement center or something like that, and through NewsCorp he influences FNC, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post and HarperCollins Publishing. He bought off Glenn Beck to say this I'm guessing. This is a real issue brother. This man is dangerous. Possibly worse than Soros and Strong combined.