Beck: I’m the Real Victim of Persecution!

Samuel L. Jackson recently made a video urging his fellow celebrities to speak out against racism and violence by the police. That was enough to send Glenn Beck into a fit of red-faced rage, declaring himself to be the real victim of persecution and discrimination because he’s a Christian (well, Mormon; close enough).

“You want to talk about racism? You want to talk about bigotry?” Beck said. “Let me ask you: have you tried being me? Have you tried being a conservative? Have you tried being a Tea Party member?”

Claiming that conservatives in Hollywood have to meet in secret and conceal their views for fear of being blackballed by the liberal establishment, Beck declared that it is people like him who are the real victims of discrimination.

“I can’t change what I believe,” he bellowed. “I believe in God the Almighty. I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There’s nothing I can do to change that. Sometimes, believe me, I don’t want to believe that; it’s not fun all the time, it’s not easy all the time, it doesn’t make you popular all the time. I can’t change it. It is who I am to the very fiber of my being. That’s who I am. Do you think that I want to be a pariah?”

“Don’t tell me about your problems, Samuel L. Jackson,” Beck concluded. “Shut the hell up.”

Yeah, have you tried being him? Have you tried being a white man who makes almost $100 million a year and has an adoring audience of millions who hang on his every word no matter how ridiculous or dishonest he might be? You try walking a mile in his handmade Italian shoes before you start complaining about police gunning down innocent people, you liberal scum!

""How much has he (Bill Clinton) gotten from speaking fees at (sic) Russia since Hillary ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"my god, someone paid $100,000 to listen to Sarah Palin?"

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"Of course Bill Clinton got 500k speaking fees from the Russians"

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Claiming that conservatives in Hollywood have to meet in secret and conceal their views for fear of being blackballed by the liberal establishment, Beck declared that it is people like him who are the real victims of discrimination.

    He’s got a point. Why aren’t the Hollywood bigwigs lining up to back unprofitable conservative movies and unprofitable conservative actors? I know; it’s because they’re conservatvie!

  • John Pieret

    I can’t change what I believe

    Ummm… Glen? You converted from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism. What was that about not being able to change your beliefs?

  • Larry

    John Pieret, you’re today’s winner of the Internets. Congratulations!

  • dingojack

    Hey Glen — #illridewithyou.

    @@

    Dingo

  • Sastra

    “… I can’t change it. It is who I am to the very fiber of my being. That’s who I am. Do you think that I want to be a pariah?”

    In addition to the irony and hypocrisy of someone in the smug and comfortable majority complaining about discrimination, I’d like to point out this lovely example of equating belief with the believer. Religious and spiritual methodology entails that beliefs are a test of character and a badge of identity. They’re not to be thought of as human conclusions which could be right or wrong. You open your heart/mind/eyes and just see the evidence you’d only see if you’re willing. Confirmation bias = humility.

    This is part of the reason Beck and many others view criticism of religion as personal insults or attacks on values. What Beck says about conservative religion is the same thing the liberal believers say when their religious or spiritual conclusions aren’t treated with respectful deference: “I’m being bullied.” Faith not only involves the sacred, it creates a sacred space around the faithful. They’re supposed to be on gool. Someone says they’re wrong. That’s not allowed.

  • http://cycleninja.blogspot.com cycleninja

    #shutupdonttalk

  • dingojack

    or rather:

    #illride(inyourchauffer-drivenlimo)withyou…

    @@ Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Ummm… Glen? You converted from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism. What was that about not being able to change your beliefs?

    How much of a change is that, really? I was at the Bethesda Mormon Temple visitor center (for the Xmas light display, which was lame), and one of the young starry-eyed missionary-wannabees tried to explain Mormon doctrine…and I couldn’t help noticing how Catholic it sounded, especially the “Father-Son-Holy-Ghost” triune-God bit. If there’s any real difference in the actual doctrine, they either didn’t know about it, or were afraid to talk about it to all and sundry.

  • Larry

    and I couldn’t help noticing how Catholic it sounded, especially the “Father-Son-Holy-Ghost” triune-God bit.

    Image yourself as Joseph Smith. You want to fabricate a new religion but don’t want to spend the time coming up with all new rituals ‘n stuff. What’s a poor profit to do? Why, you steal a little here, a little there and, who’s-your-daddy, Mormanism is born.

    The magic underwear, however, that’s gotta be Smith’s idea.

  • moarscienceplz

    Raging Bee #8

    I’ m pretty sure RCs don’t believe they will get their own inhabited planets to rule over.

  • Al Dente

    Raging Bee @8

    The triune god is basic Christianity. It’s in the Nicene Creed, which dates from the Fourth Century. The Mormons differ from other Christians by claiming that the three gods have separate bodies while the rest of Christianity do a hand-waving shuck and jive about three persons in the same body or spirit or something.

    There’s other differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity but I won’t go into that. If you ask the local Mormon church they’ll be happy to send a couple of clean-cut young men to your home to explain how Mormon doctrine works.

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    Yeah, horrible, conservative persecuting Hollywood. They would never make big budget films with conservative actors, like Arnold Swarzenegger and Mel “The Joooos is ebil!!” Gibson. Or films that glorify CIA torture and US militarism.

  • johnwoodford

    Six years ago, John Rogers wrote a wonderful screed on Big Hollywood, which even now still answers Beck’s points rather well. See HERE.

  • magistramarla

    Larry,

    It’s a long-standing tradition to the xtians. The early ones borrowed from the Egyptians (the Isis cult had baptism and a story of rebirth), the Mithras cult and the Saturnalia of the Romans, the story of Gilgamesh (a flood story – also found in the Greek Deucalion myth) and other ancient beliefs that they looked around themselves and saw.

    Learning more about those ancient cultures when I was teaching Latin led me to Atheism.

  • noe1951

    #9 – that’s how you go from being a poor prophet to a profit prophet.

  • https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007447278436 Carol Paterson

    Completely off topic, but so glad to see you’re still going strong here Ed… it’s been a while since I last visited.

    akashapeace :-))

  • kenbakermn

    In a way he may be right. It probably really does suck to be him.

  • lsamaknight

    magistramarla @ 14

    Point of order. Christianity had nothing to do with borrowing any flood myths. That was well embedded in the Jewish tradition before Christianity came along.

    On the other stuff, Richard Carrier suggests that the other things you mention (other than moving Christmas to compete with other solstice celebrations) aren’t actually borrowed as such. More that Christianity started out as the Jewish manifestation of the same cultural trends that through out the Cult of Osiris and Isis in Egypt, Diyonisis Zagreus is Greek areas and Mithras in areas of Persian influence.

  • weatherwax

    Wow! I mean, just… wow.

  • krambc

    @ Raging Bee:

    Catholic school made me agnostic.

    Mormons made me atheist.

    See ? Completely different.

  • lorn

    People who call themselves conservative like to think of themselves as persecuted. The problem is that what is termed ‘conservative’ is not what it used to be. Up until the 90s there was a healthy population of reality-based, legislatively functional, and ideologically moderate people who happened to share a conservative bent in the Burkean sense. They sought to conserve the hard won gains, traditions, and culture of western society but they were also practical and willing to invest in the long term and well aware that yo some extent we all sink or swim together. After the 90s this now rare breed was systematically culled from the GOP. The people who now call themselves conservative are not preserving anything but an illusion of consistency constructed upon a false mythology of America as a society of radical individualists with no social conscience.

    Unfortunately the term conservative has been hijacked to now reference people who have no social conscience and dispute even the idea of the existence of commonwealth and/or common good. This foolhardy judgment is applied with such ideological strictness that it precludes the existence of common sense. This is not a brainlessness inflicted from outside. This is an entirely unforced error. This is stupidity, self deception, and rejection of reality by choice and preference.

    The modern “conservative” is a brainless dolt well deserving persecution. There is no, and there never should be, protected status for willful stupidity.

    what is being persecuted is not conservatism but stupidity.

  • dingojack

    “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families”. That kind of thing, lorn?

    Dingo

  • Michael Heath

    lorn writes:

    Unfortunately the term conservative has been hijacked to now reference people who have no social conscience and dispute even the idea of the existence of commonwealth and/or common good. This foolhardy judgment is applied with such ideological strictness that it precludes the existence of common sense. This is not a brainlessness inflicted from outside. This is an entirely unforced error. This is stupidity, self deception, and rejection of reality by choice and preference.

    The modern “conservative” is a brainless dolt well deserving persecution.

    The ‘no true Scotsman’ argument is entirely uncompelling; and as a devoted Andrew Sullivan reader, I’m exposed to it regularly. In the early 2000s a number of psychologists and neuroscientists began to study political ideologies beyond what Bob Altemeyer found in the two prior decades. Their findings show political and religious conservatives have a strong aptitude for authoritarian thinking.

    In your post where you refer to the Burkean conservatives of old to the modern day GOP, you instead are observing and describing is the migration of conservatives into the Republican party, their takeover of that party starting to some degree with the Reagan Administration but taking full-hold when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, and the purging of non-conservatives from the party that was attempted in both the Reagan and H.W. Bush eras but became a fait accompli under Gingrich’s leadership. Where it wasn’t so much the head of the snake that drove this direction, but instead the grass roots efforts of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

    The Burkean wing of conservatism that once thrived in the GOP that you describe earlier in your post did and still does exist. It’s best contemporaneous exemplars are Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Mark Warner (and Republican Rick Snyder, gov. of MI). They’re all establishmentarians rather than authoritarians who now best exemplify the powers that control the Democratic party vs. authentic liberals like Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

    For a good review on the science that describes the conservative brain and describes exactly what we see now is true conservatism, I recommend Chris Mooney’s mis-titled book, The Republican Brain. Mis-titled because he’s not describing political affiliations, but instead political ideology. It just so happens that that this ideology is now almost fully entrenched within the GOP, especially with LA Sen. Mary Landrieu’s failed re-election bid. Therefore there’s no competing powers diluting the full display of conservative thinking.

  • matty1

    Let me ask you: have you tried being me?

    Briefly, but then the drugs wore off and I was ok again

  • dingojack

    “Let me ask you: have you tried being me?”

    Glennie — we’ve all been privileged, bigoted, idiotic assholes from time to time — the difference is that we realise it, apologise for it, and try to be better toward our fellow human beings going forward…

    Dingo

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    “The magic underwear, however, that’s gotta be Smith’s idea.”

    Not entirely. The concept is present in Mosaic Law. The Bible describes how priests are required to wear a special undergarment under their robes whenever they approach God’s altar “lest the be guilty of sin and die.” In others words, if God accidentally catches a glimpse of the naughty bits under your robe, he just might be so offended that he’d kill you.

    Really, Yahweh’s neurotic relationship with penises would be comical, if it hadn’t done so much damage down the years.

  • lorn

    A lot of people, not necessarily anyone here, forget that the prior to the Dixiecrat walk out that both Democrats and Republican had their loonie extremists. The right had the anti-communists and a sprinkling of religious loons and the left had racists. When the Dixiecrats switched sides the proportion of people wanting to govern and rabid ideologues shifted. The left became a party of bland technocrats and mangers essentially free of the fire in the belly necessary to gain popular support and push big ideas. On the other hand the right found that people wanting to govern and effectively run things interfered with radical fervor and party purity.

    We have ended up with Democrats who can’t inspire and Republicans who couldn’t run a lemonade stand because they would, at some stage of the game, have to compromise their ideology to reality.

    You make a good point noting that on a liberal-conservative scalar Obama and the core of the Democratic party would be classified as moderate conservatives. How things change, but stay the same. On that same scalar Nixon would be far too liberal to get elected on the right today. Nixon was a bit of a hybrid and oddity because he was aide to Eugene McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare, proposed national healthcare, and expanded Social Security. Of course if you want to see how things have gone look at the president when Nixon was vice-president, Eisenhower. If Nixon is a liberal compared with the present GOP then Eisenhower was a hippie. But he was also a practical man, a supporter of integration, willing to govern and one of the clearest voices warning of the limits of military power and what he called “Congressional-military-industrial Complex”. (In the final version he eliminated the reference to congress.)

  • dingojack

    “… one of the clearest voices warning of the limits of military power and what he called “Congressional-military-industrial Complex”. (In the final version he eliminated the reference to congress.)”

    That he, himself, set-up.

    ‘Guillotines for everyone (of course, the ‘decapitating blade complex’ is bad.)’. Whattaguy.

    Dingo

  • lorn

    Actually Dingo … no. Eisenhower knew that going into WW2 US industry was profitable but sloppy. Look up some of what Deming said about his experiences recording the practices and huge reorganization of major corporation just before we got into WW2. He account of how Ford kept records and paid bills is illuminating. The efficient and innovative practices of post-war corporations, heavily rooted in the sciences if time-motion studies and accountancy, were essentially imposed upon those organizations by the US government as part of the coordinated war effort.

    The eyewash was that the various industries patriotically volunteered their production capabilities. In fact the federal government controlled all resources and simply told the various industrialists what they would produce, how they were to produce it, and how much they could charge.

    It was only after the Korean war that we saw industry feeding money into politics and public relations used to manipulate reputations (A skill set learned during the Red Scare) and they systematic positioning of politicians beholding to industry onto committees controlling the federal purse that we saw the emergence of a substantial Military-industrial-congressional complex. By that time Eisenhower, IMHO the last good Republican, was president (53 -61) in his second term with Democratic majorities in both houses and powerless to do much about any of it. The military-industrial complex was part of his farewell speech in 61. This was perhaps the height of Democratic cronyism, racism and good old fashion back-room corruption.

    In some ways Nixon, as H.S.Thompson pointed out: A man so twisted he needed a personal valet to screw him into his pants each morning, was the right’s answer to Democratic corruption. He wasn’t there to enforce rules. He was there to pay them back and do them one better. The Southern Strategy, a cynical and corrupt counterpoint playing on the darkest recesses of the American psyche, was answer to Democratic excesses. Of course, it takes money to run that sort of machine. So the deal was struck with the generals, General Electric, General Dynamics, et al, that their prices and cost overruns wouldn’t be questioned as long as they pumped money and media to get Republicans in important places. That blending of federal dollars, flowing through defense contractors, who profit without much production, to feed raw political opportunism was the triumph of the military-Industrial-congressional complex.

    Of course the corporation are never to content to get enough of a good thing. Once the defense contractors showed the way to milk the system all the major corporations wanted in on the game. Everyone wanted to play. But don’t let this leave you with the idea that only federal programs can be milked. State programs are even easier to exploit and now, with the plunder becoming a science, corporations are actually easier to fleece than the federal government. If you can get a congressman into office and onto a committee you can easily get a cooperative sort onto a corporate board, or into a seat as CEO or CFO. Ripping off government is still, technically, illegal, Or at least embarrassing if it was to come to light. Plundering a corporation? Well … that’s business.