Glen Beck often brings a unique perspective to complex issues. His discussions can spark interesting debates, especially regarding Israel and its role in global politics.
What specific points from the talk stood out to you
Kilroy was here
Not really a fan, can you sum up?
If you’re a fan did you know he did a cameo in Nefarious?
about the driest part of the movie though, and it’s not a fast movie, but it is a very good movie 
I had tried to listen to Glenn many years back, he kept carrying on about the democracy we live in which is a pretty quick way to loose me
Official Definition of DEMOCRACY copied from Training Manual No. 2000-25 that was published by the then War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928.
Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.
CITIZENSHIP
This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication “The Constitution of the United States,” by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
CITIZENSHIP Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy
CITIZENSHIP Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Atwood. Superior to all others.–Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”
"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
Can you read the transcript and answer for yourself?
1 Like
Yeah, I think Israel understands that more or less. It’s an accurate summary of the Jewish experience for over 3,500 years, both in their own land and outside of it. It’s why they concluded that a Jewish nation has to exist to protect the Jews. That’s the founding idea of Zionism, which is quite similar to the same for the 2A. Nobody will care more for our lives than we ourselves.
That’s why they are making moves to become less dependent on the US, as I mentioned, for ammo and such. (I used to buy IMI 9mm and 5.56, but since Oct. 7, I haven’t seen them so much stateside. Apparently they need it for themselves.)
2 Likes
One of the most impactful moments of my public school education was when my American history teacher said that the Founding Fathers considered democracy - pure democracy - a form of tyranny. It made me think a lot, especially as a Jew in a nation among a majority of non-Jews.
I already knew that a majority doesn’t always make a thing right. But to reframe it as a potential tyranny was a new angle I hadn’t considered in the context of statecraft. Now, it isn’t necessarily unjust, and there are many contexts where majorities do lead to peace and justice. But the cliff is very close, and if the majority loses patience and brotherly love for the minority, that is when tyranny can easily begin.
3 Likes
But, is ZIonism driven by Jews?
Is Zionism simply Jewish self protection, give us a home, or is it a political project that used Jewish suffering as fuel for nefarious motives?
The men involved may have been Jews, just as current Israeli leaders may be Jews, but that does not make the political project identical with Jews as a people. Zionism has Jewish actors, but it also has nationalist theory, British imperial sponsorship, Christian prophetic support, U.S. military backing, donor networks, and war economy incentives. That is why I am trying not to say “Jews.” I am trying to separate Jewish survival from Zionist machinery.
The Christian prophetic support in particular makes me nauseous as it misses this clear divide,
Synagogue of Satan, no matter what you believe Satan to be it is not Jewish religion correct?
Or, incorrect?
The famous line is associated with Mossad, from Proverbs 24:6. In KJV, the verse says “by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war,” but Mossad’s older slogan rendered the idea as “by subterfuge” or “by deception.” That distinction matters. Counsel is one thing. Deception as a governing method is another. Scripture identifies Satan as “that old serpent… which deceiveth the whole world” and as “the father” of lies. So when a state’s security culture begins to boast in deception, and its soldiers are attached to banners of Satan or the Angel of Death…
Well, perhaps we can justify in various ways, some simple, but at any point are we to consider the symbols are saying the quiet part out loud?
The men may be Jews, but the root is not simply Jewish. There is a political root, an imperial root, a Christian Zionist root, and a mystical messianic root. Kabbalah/Zohar do not create Zionism by themselves, but they help explain how a modern state project can be clothed in sacred mystery and redemption language.
Begin to study the history
https://www.brandeis.edu/jewish-experience/history-culture/2022/september/kook-zionism-mirsky.html
https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/judaism/figures/gershom-scholem
https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/judaism/jewish-bookshelf/zohar
Then look at the divides, all of them, we see Christian prophetic support accepted in one place and ignored in another (Synagogue of Satan) and the same happened with the reformation, Luther, the grand champion
part,but not the whole story, Bucer, Calvin, Capito, and others carried forms of the same anti Jewish inheritance, a long habit of treating Jews as a spiritually dangerous, cursed, inferior, or socially contaminating people.
So both examples are of a “new” thing with so called good intentions.
That is where I am dividing the question. Jewish history gives real reason to fear rulers and promises. But Torah does not say, “Because you suffered, you may become ruthless.” It says the opposite: because you were strangers, do not vex the stranger; because you were oppressed, do not oppress; because God regards not persons, execute true judgment.
If Zionism claims Jewish survival as its moral root, then it must still answer Moses. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” “Oppress not the stranger.” Survival may explain fear; it does not sanctify cruelty.
The charity question does not have to begin with Luther or Rome. It begins with Moses. “The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” That is the standard. Jewish suffering is real, but Torah does not turn suffering into moral immunity. It turns memory of suffering into a duty of mercy.
A state may be Jewish in name, but if it forgets mercy, justice, and the stranger, it is not standing on Moses.
One side accepts Christian prophetic support when it blesses Zionism, but ignores Christian scripture when it warns about false Jewish claims or Satanic/deceptive symbols.
The other side, the Reformation/Protestant side, claims reform and truth, but carried inherited anti Jewish contempt from older Christianity.
Does any of this matter now?
That depends on the reader
If you held the black album to a mirror would you see three 6’s stacked?
If you view yourself to a mirror do you see charity?
or just more hate?
You’re lucky you had any impactful moments realized at that time, what if you hadn’t and chose to chase tail, whiskey, weed and Black Sabbath …
Would you have wasted time, or…
Embrace it
And then you will know yourself
The change in you is goddamn electric
The Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Community Rule, speak in terms of two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of perversity/injustice. Man walks under one or the other. That is close to the biblical divide: truth versus lie, light versus darkness, obedience versus rebellion. The deception begins when man walks by the wrong spirit and calls it wisdom.
So if we perpetuate through school and all manner of social norms for generations, the same things repeated, never looking at that dark glass reflection, just believing …rather, not believing?
The truth is out, the lies are old, but you don’t want to know
And as Morpheus said
Many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
So they will tell you it is warfare…but then…ignore it?
2 Likes
Are you suggesting that Jew-hating non-Jews are exploiting the Jewish need for self-preservation (=Zionism)? Well, that’s of course. That’s how we get the UNRWA skimming off of aid which they then hand over to terrorists, terrorists taking hostages to trade in exchange for halting any response and releasing more terrorists, and the UN demanding land-for-peace. In all those cases Israel was promised peace if not preservation, but actually it fed back into more violence. The cycle repeats.
You’re right. Technically, the political project is just a means to preserving the Jews, and other means are possible, like maintaining Jewish identity in the diaspora through Torah study and mitzvos in the classical sense. At the same time, it is also a mitzvah to “not stand idly by your fellow’s blood” (Lev. 19:16), which means that Jews are commanded to save each other’s lives, and lives of their friends.
It’s hard to take seriously the “innocence” of a movement like the anti-Zionists, whose name means denying Jews the means to organize and physically defend themselves from a contiguous piece of land. They explicitly call for the complete removal of Israel from that land: “From the river to the sea” means from the Jordan River at Israel’s eastern border to the Mediterranean Sea at Israel’s western border. That’s everything. Likewise the Arabic version, min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye, Falasṭīn ʿarabiyye, which means “From the water to the water, Palestine is Arab.” Another version ends, Falasṭīn ʾislāmiyye, “Palestine is Islamic.” Those are genocidal chants. These chants have been used by the PLO in the 1960s, which has a charter calling for eliminating Israel; and by vandals in graffiti during the First Intifada.
Suppose some America-invading political movement were to come about with a chant like, “From sea to shining sea, Turtle Island is for me”? (Turtle Island is a protest name some have for mainland USA.) And then they say that the “evil” political project of America is not the same as the American people? We just want to criticize, they say, we oppose American nationalism? Wouldn’t that be an existential attack?
Break it down. The American political project is what protects the American people. That’s why we “d[id] ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It was “to insure domestic Tranquility, to provide for the common defence.” To eliminate America’s constitutional political project is to attack its people, whom it protects.
Likewise, to attack the Zionist political project is to attack the “domestic Tranquility” and disrupt “the common defence” of the Jewish people.
You said
but that’s impossible, by definition. Zionism is about Jewish survival and escaping the Jew-haters: “If we could only be left in peace… But I think we shall not be left in peace,” wrote Herzl. Though there are many flaws in his essay “The Jewish State,” this at least has proven unfortunately true.
That’s what Zionism was made for.
You can criticize policies of the USA and the policies of Israel. But to attack their essential existence is a whole different level.
2 Likes
That is precisely the definition I reject. Zion does not begin or end with Zionism, nor is the ancient term owned by the later -ism.
Zionist political actors appropriated an older Jewish and Christian sacred term and made their political meaning dominant. They wisely hijacked it, because that allows defense of a political project to present itself as defense of Jewish survival.
Nor do I treat hatred as a foregone conclusion. You do, by collapsing criticism of Zionism into hatred of Jews. That is the very machinery I am trying to separate.
So then why do you do that?
Peace sells but war has buyers with money, power and something to gain. That is why war is never advertised as war. It is peddled as survival , bomb them before they build a bomb, add in hate, ridicule, low IQ, shame, contempt, just sand niggers who cares, not worth even the same scraps a dog gets, all packaged so nice with a bow you just have to buy from that nice little man
but he’s already been defeated and people only need to wake up
1 Like
I suspect that the definition you reject is not among any of these, which I’m using.
Zi-on-ism n. 1. A plan or movement of the Jewish people to return from the Diaspora to Palestine. 2. A movement originally aimed at the re-establishment of a Jewish national homeland and state in Palestine and now concerned with development of Israel.
~ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. 1978.
Zi-on-ism n. - an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in the historical region of Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel
~ Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, 1 Aug. 2026
Zionism means a Jewish state should exist. Anti-Zionism means a Jewish state should not exist. Not that it should be smaller; that it should disappear.
Whether you combine Zionism with religion or not, it still boils down to Jews having their own land from which to defend themselves. To deny them that is like a mass gun confiscation, a denial of the right (EDIT: or means) to self-defense.
3 Likes
It’s not about
It is about accepting.
I am not questioning Jewish fear or the desire for refuge. I am questioning the machine that stepped in to organize that refuge. When the British Empire, Balfour, Rothschild channels, mandate power, and later U.S. machinery are central to the construction, scrutiny is not hatred; it is basic discernment.
Those powers are not known for giving. They are known for gathering, managing, meddling, profiting, and playing both sides. Jewish survival and the political machinery built in its name are not the same thing.
I am using “antichrist” functionally, not ethnically. Anything that replaces Christ, speaks over Christ, or redirects Christian allegiance away from Christ is antichrist in operation. Modern Israel does this when it claims sacred standing while rejecting Jesus. Britain did it when crown and empire placed political authority over church order. America does it when it carries and funds the machine. Christian Zionism does it when it teaches believers to defend a state faster than they obey Christ.
The result is not one isolated error, but an antichrist arrangement: empire, church, money, prophecy, and war taking the place that belongs to Jesus.
This connects to 1 John’s “many antichrists,” Revelation 13’s beast, Revelation 17’s woman riding the beast, and Revelation 18’s Babylon merchant system. Antichrist is not only a future villain; it is any spirit or system that denies or displaces Christ. The beast is empire power. The woman is sacred corruption joined to kings. The merchants profit from her. And the people of God are told, “Come out of her.”
That is why this is not merely foreign policy. It is a religious political system asking Christians to give sacred loyalty where only Christ has authority.
A Jew can deny Christ. That is the religious divide. But he cannot deny that modern Israel has depended heavily on Western blessing, especially America: money, weapons, vetoes, diplomacy, and military protection. The danger is that Israel turns that blessing into blood. America the Beautiful becomes America the beast when it is used as the sword for another state’s ambitions.
Romans 11:26 is exactly where the distinction matters. “All Israel shall be saved” speaks of Israel as a people before God, not an artificial state apparatus. Paul is talking about blindness, mercy, the fathers, Jacob, ungodliness, and sins being taken away. That is covenant language, not statecraft. A political state can borrow the name Israel, gather bodies into land, build an army, and claim sacred standing, but it cannot fulfill Romans 11 unless the Deliverer turns away ungodliness from Jacob.
“Out of Sion” points to Christ’s authority and God’s act of redemption, not man’s construction of a state by empire. Artificial Zionism gives a political Zion before the Deliverer turns away ungodliness. Paul’s order is the opposite: blindness remains until God acts, and salvation comes by the Deliverer, not by a flag.
That is why I cannot accept artificial Zionism as fulfillment. It looks like a political clone wearing the covenant name before the promised conversion has occurred.
Mark 13:34 gives the Christian side of the same problem. Christ is the man gone on a far journey. The house is His. The authority is His. He gave authority to His servants and commanded the porter to watch. If Peter received the keys, and that office continues, then England did not merely disagree with Rome. It set crown authority over the church and denied the porter Christ left watching the house. That is denying His name in the biblical sense: denying His authority while He is away.
So the issue is not Jews versus Christians. The issue is counterfeit authority. A state can wear the name Israel. A crown can wear the name church. A nation can wear the name liberty. A prophecy movement can wear the name Bible. But if the result redirects allegiance away from Christ and toward empire, war, money, or national destiny, then the name has been stolen while the authority behind the name has been denied.
None of this is without further need to dissect, and the short of it is no, I don’t equate Zion with Zionism which may be as confusing to some as
We think in modern terms and try to see through ancient language, a lot is lost or hidden, or just clear as mud , but the bottom line, an artificial Israel can never do what God alone can do
which is soften a Jewish heart.
Can’t conclude without a song or it might be out of character
1 Like
Sorry! I’m just dense. ?What part of the existence of Israel as a state do you object to. Israel was formed by the victors of a World War, as a means to formalize a place of refuge for the millions of Jews across the continent that were still at risk from fascist/communist forces. Interestingly, much of Israel was originally purchased FROM THE ARAB OWNERS, who were happy to take jewish money for land they felt was pretty useless. The 1948 war was fought mostly without any real outside national help. It was Jews fighting for Jews. Arms was surplus stuff purchased on the arms market by Jews. WE didn’t provide them much of anything as AMERICA. “Palestine” (whatever that was) was during the war an active supporter of Nazi Germany. THAT means they LOST THE WAR! Look at what al happened after WWI, and ask yourself if the creation of Israel was nearly as disruptive or “helpful” to the Eweropeans.
3 Likes
It’s not you, it’s clear as mud, I do not object to Jews seeking refuge or merely to Israel existing. I object to replacing complicated history with the claim that Jews mostly bought the country, fought entirely alone, and were entitled to the remainder because “Palestine lost World War II.” Britain, the Mandate system, the UN, foreign arms and war were all central to what occurred, maybe ask why?
If you cannot explain what each of those powers stood to gain, how certain are you that what you “know” is the history and not merely the justification you were taught?
Still is isn’t it?
If the land was pretty useless, why did Britain, the UN, the Soviet bloc, Arab governments and Zionist organizations invest so much political power, money and blood in controlling it? Useless to whom and what was it actually worth?
1 Like
MY reading of history - long ago - says your objection is without merit. Jews did fight pretty much alone, at least in 1948, and they did purchase large tracts of land in what is now israel. the
1 Like
If that needs to be clarified we can pull up historical facts on what you’re citing to argue it, but it makes more sense to focus on what I am asking, why the great powers constructed, armed and recognized the project?
If your old reading of history never required you to ask that question, perhaps it told you what happened without telling you what was happening.
Here’s another thing to consider, before you go further, cognitive overload and cognitive dissonance, the latter is holding two beliefs, here it is Christian and Jewish and the former means your working memory is saturated. At that point, more reading, comparing, or deciding usually makes the work worse.
Stop taking in new information. Write down only:
- What must be decided now.
- What can wait.
- The single next physical action.
Then do only that action. Do not reorganize the whole project while overloaded.
We have multiple threads on the same content, but they are all the same, my best advice
prayer closet.
2 Likes