The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.
I'm a 100% conservative and Trump supporter. Subscribed because I love free speech and good journalism whichever direction it comes from. Press on, sir.
Agreed, and perhaps if we had proper journalism in this country as a widespread occurrence, we would see more people who are "50% for" or "50% against" Trump because they have not been bombarded with nonstop partisan bombast masquerading as the Fourth Estate. Getting to the facts practically requires one become their own investigative journalist!
I'm someone who saw in the early part of the Iraq invasion in the naughts that the Main Stream Media had gone bonkers, all in for perpetual war, and I decided I didn't need the propaganda and literally got rid of my TV. And, I already wasn't watching / reading their crap online, and don't buy the right-wing supposedly main-stream magazines or papers, like the NYT, Time, Newsweek and so forth. So, I've been nearly completely propaganda-free for, oh, 17+ years, though you can't help but get small doses of it now and then, say, when waiting at the Dr.s office and they have the TV going in the waiting room.
I agree that we largely have to become our own investigative journalists, though, thankfully, we still have KPFA - for the time being at least. (It's available live-stream from their web site.)
My take on Trump is simple: Terrible for and at the job, and he might be the least intelligent person ever to hold the office. BUT, he's the only one who has ever even tried to end the war in Korea. He put an end to the TPP (though some of the bad provisions got put into the NAFTA replacement). And there was word he tried to get us out of Syria and the Joint (smoking) chiefs screwed that up for him politically so he gave up.
But he's wrong about so many things - he's mostly wrong. Wrong about Iran, wrong about Covid-19, wrong about immigration, wrong about the economy, wrong about what "great" means, wrong about the USA's past and present standing in the world, wrong about Israel..... I could go on and on and on.
Looking at Trump objectively, he's bad for the nation, the world, and, worst and most importantly of all, the current biosphere.
The problem is, neither Hillary nor Biden would be better, nor Pence nor Harris, for that matter. This is the set of choices the ultra-rich want us to have; none. It's like asking if you'd rather be tossed into a great-white shark feeding frenzy or tossed off the top of the Empire State Building.
We could remain under the boot-heel of the ultra-rich into perpetuity were it not for this Holocene event we've initiated. We just don't have more time to waste getting on a serious program to stop global warming in its tracks, and that's the most pressing need of the world today. ... Earth herself will be fine and life will go on, but it won't be the current biosphere unless we act fast.
The problem is we're brainwashed from birth to believe the lie that we have a two party system. We actually have other choices. How, Calbeck, can we get people to choose "third party," especially when the two main parties offer up only different flavors of shit sandwich? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?!
It's "lesser evil voting", as is surely happening in massive numbers this cycle, that has created this present circumstance where the main parties can give us such crappy alternatives - lesser evil voting combined with the idiotic idea we only have two parties.
A small aside; what's the image you're using as your avatar?
Why the fuck are you spending 20 minutes writing an anti-Trump scree on an article where Glenn proves an article was suppressed by Trumps actual opponents?
I should have also mentioned that you stated it perfectly in your original comment. It took guts to comment on, what I would guess is, a predominantly left leaning audience. Kudos!
Former Bernie supporter turned Tulsi supporter, and I think freely-expressed divergent opinions are the foundations of a healthy democracy. Speaking of Bernie, how many houses is that dude up to now?
I’m libertarian/fiscal conservative and Tulsi is amazing. What the Dems did to her is criminal. They were scared and used the Russia boogeyman to discredit her. She has supporters on all sides because she actually has the “character” and “integrity” that all these asshats politicians on both sides claim to have.
I've noticed that most of this division seems to original with the internal DNC establishment taking its cues routinely from Hillary Clinton - not only despite the fact that she lost, but almost seemingly BECAUSE she lost.
I put this down to the party's too-deep reliance on the Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts, which really started over Bill's impeachment with the "Move On" effort aimed at getting the party faithful to pay for his legal bills. The DNC's mentality of circling the wagons around the Clintons and asserting constantly that they did nothing wrong whatsoever inoculated them against both criticism and scrutiny.
The result was perhaps inevitable: a corrupt money machine, with a political party effectively beholden to it in no small way.
HRC actually had the collusion of the media to portray Trump as a pied-piper candidate in order to establish a platform that gave her a chance to fraud her way into the Oval Office, and it was such an effective psyop that the party adopted it as their platform.
Vote blue, or Boogeyman Trump will destroy your life.
Bah.
Bah.
Wool woven into lies to cover our eyes.
I will say this about Trump: he exposed the deepstate.
I'm hoping he burns it to the ground.
Yes. There's absolute, without a doubt, election fraud. The math and 3am vote dumps coupled with the obvious stupidity required to believe that voting by mail is secure on top of the black-box-voting bullshit...
Man... If he outs the blatant electoral fraud and secures the vote again... I'll kiss his ugly ass right on the lips.
Clintons created a corrupt money scheme that was a replay of the old "house negro/field negro" mechanism designed to keep blacks 'don on the D party establishment plantation". Profoundly disgusting
But she makes the unforgivable sin, just like Ron Paul -- she talks about bringing the troops home and ending the wars. It's the same reason they hate Donald Trump. War is good for business. Billions of unaccountable dollars shoveled out the door to the politically connected. What's not to love (if you're one of them)?
I'm actually pro-war, anti-stupidity - and what BushCo did (followed by ObamaCo) was moronic in the extreme. PBS' expose on the subject confirmed my worst fears: that none of them, not even their "viceroys" in-country, bothered to do any research into Iraq's society or history. They just... apparently thought knocking over Saddam and then handing it all over to the first smiling gent with a nice handshake would take care of it. Afghanistan? Even worse!
A war which ends a great evil is not a bad war, but a war which both fails to end that evil and which perpetrates more evil in the process should be anathema to anyone.
Trump called it before I did, and bless him for it.
Jocko Willink did a 5 part Utube series called "The Unraveling" with military intel officer Darryl Cooper. Fascinating discussion on the Iraq War with insights you may not be aware of:
Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" , which some argue is the best piece of writing in american history, lays out a straightforward case that connects slavery to imperialism/war to big govt.
Unfortunately, by the Spanish-American war of 1898, the traditional Jacksonian-populist "isolationism" of america was lost to what became Wilson's "progressive" internationalism (imperialism lite)
The early version of the Deep State came into existence at that time to represent the interests of imperial elements in the USA*, and everything has been mostly fvcked up since then, with the exception of a 1945-1971/73.
---
* Deep State explained:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Not in the Democratic party, I'm afraid. There is no longer a place for her deeply held anti-war beliefs. She just won't shut up about it! (That's a good thing)
I did the same, Eric. Glenn is one of the most intellectually consistent people I have ever read. We disagree on most policies, I'm sure, but there is too much to appreciate about him to not pony up.
I am a 100% leftie and don't support anyone. Subscribed because I love free speech and good journalism whichever direction it comes from. Press on, sir and THANK YOU!!!!!!
100% conservative and do not support Trump at all, but I want to say its time we put integrity back into journalism, and stopped all the manipulation. News is something someone somewhere doesn't want published. Everything else is advertising.
It is incredibly hard to stand up to the left. I am sorry that I was so awful to you in 2016 you blocked me on Twitter but I was just in a tribal bubble. It took me a long time to get myself out of it and how I did it was to unaddict my brain to the dopamine hit I got every time I got into some dumb Twitter war. I can't believe no one cares that we have arrived at the point of censorship in this country. It snuck up on us, right? The clickbait model altered how news was presented, then social media turned it into a confirmation feedback loop. I didn't realize it until the Tom Cotton op-ed in the New York Times. At that point I realized we were manufacturing a narrative we wanted to be true and not reporting on any kind of reality Americans could plainly see. You were 100% right in your interview with Joe Rogan. I so admire your fearlessness and I humbly and deeply apologize for any terrible things I said about you prior.
Thanks. It has been a bit of a nightmare though because a lot of people are angry with me. But the problem is once you see how things really are it is hard to go back to the way they were. But I am grateful for Glenn who is one of the few still willing to be honest with people - we need that balance. We should be trusted with information, regardless of if Trump won or not in 2016. If we continue this way, can you imagine how future elections will be?
Good for you Sasha. No matter what your heartfelt views are, truth and freedom are the only path forward. It takes each of us thought and experience to realize it. I’m glad you did.
I should say the same to Matt. He was against the war in Iraq while my brother was over there. Ergo, in my own ideological bubble, Matt was against my brother. Tribalism is a helluva drug.
I will forever be ashamed at the fact that I permitted other people to exploit my patriotism and core principles to the extent that I could believe that another American would wish my brother ill, simply because of who occupied the White House.
Social Media has simply flipped the script, and given us what we have here; not just a "failure to communicate", but a deliberate, ratings-driven attempt to replace the Soviets and 80's Iranians as The Enemy with each other.
It's not that liberals favor large government (a disingenuous right wing talking point), it's that they favor war crimes, put up war criminals for office, support mass incarceration, support the terrorist states of Israel and Saudi Arabia, forgive torture, practice censorship, jail journalists for revealing war crimes, worship predatory wall street denizens, deport millions, while always movingto the right (at least since Reagan) and fully support the fascist surveillance state... so not much different than conservatives.
to the extent that "leftism" is influenced by marxism, it is daft and never succeeded in international class revolution because it has a crappy model of human nature that disregarded and misunderstood patriotism/tribalism.
leftists favor large govt (totalitarian state-socialism), war crimes (against capitalism in the very few radical-left countries that still exist), war criminals in office (most leftist-socialists are dictatorial and they ban a free press, imprison and torture political dissidents), support other left-terrorist states, or aligned terrorist states such as Iran, China, etc.
There are usually large refugee populations that flow out of leftist-totalitarian states.
China is arguably the largest left-totalitarian state that has the worst surveillance state.
e.pierce, you're an obvious propaganda victim - sorry to break it to you, but someone has to.
John Kelly's right about liberalism in the USA today not being anything on "the left," but I'd even go a bit further and call those people Neo-Liberals... The use of the term "liberal" as a self description in the USA is a waining usage of the word simply because of the confusion of people like you who think the word means something else.
Instead, what WERE, back in the '70s and likely going back pretty far, self-described "liberals" now call ourselves to distinguish more clearly and eschew the term "liberal" for this very reason.
Progressives are the genuine left, Neo-Liberals are not - they're right-of center and are much like "neo-conservatives" in a great many respects with a few minor differences regarding sexuality, for example.
The ACTUAL left, the USA tends to like, a lot, but as the ultra-rich are against the interests of The People, they propagandize and confuse people about it. And you have non-Progressives, like Hillary Clinton - the very definition of a Neo-Liberal - trying to claim the label Progressive, further confusing people. But Hillary did that not to confuse but to attempt to fool Progressives into voting for her.
Anyway, Progressives have given us a lot of things we take for granted today like the 5 day work week and 2 day weekend, the 8 hour work day, among many others. And, there are today - and have been increasingly growing in support since at least 2016 - super-majorities (2/3 or more support) for a whole slate of progressive policies. That's because Progressive Policies support The People.
I'm not too versed in progressive policies...i can get behind progressive policies more than i can get behind a progressive govt, like socialism, which has 100% failed in large countries and would be doomed to fail in America, and to the extent that we have it here, it's been more of a failure than a success. But wouldn't you say by taking a look at some progressive policies, in places like Seattle, that it's been a failure? I mean that's just the vibe i'm getting. By failure I mean it leads to a moral vacuum. Basically my question is, what are progressive policies, and have they worked? Beyond 5 day work weeks.
"Instead, what WERE, back in the '70s and likely going back pretty far, self-described "liberals" now call ourselves to distinguish more clearly and eschew the term "liberal" for this very reason."
Most of us hippies had a simple politics and would not recognize the orgins of liberalism and it's range of ideologies. I eventually pegged my "actual" ideology as social democrat anarchist and no doubt mangled the term in the process. Not a syndicalist.
You might recall I advocate a highly dimensional "Rational Political Spectrum" approach. It fits the model Art.
You are grossly mistaken. Liberals are right wing in every way except rhetorically. Leftists are anti-war, anti-torture, and pro free press. Leftists are against the horrific excesses of predatory (I know, redundant) capitalism which creates massive poverty, inequality, and suffering. Liberals talk a lot of hope and change garbage and always follow whatever charlatan will lead them further right in order to compete with the fascists and war mongers on the right. Scratch a liberal and you will see an American flag dripping blood.
"Leftists are anti-war, anti-torture, and pro free press."
Oh, you mean leftists like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty, Castro, Guevara, Mugabe, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam?
Statements such as yours are why those of us in the reality-based community consider leftism a cognitive and moral mental disorder that would be hilarious were it not so ubiquitous.
Everything you criticize on this thread is caused by the State, including what you've been brainwashed into believing is capitalism but is really a form of socialism, what Mussolini (another anti-war leftist) called "corporatism".
the predatory excesses of capitalism is what we're doomed to in want of a better system...there isn't. Every progressive dream has wrought more horror than the next when played out in real time. It's just the absolute truth. It's a nice ideal, but a terrible reality. Capitalism can work, in a moral society. Right now, I'd say we're doomed either way, short of a miracle.
The problem is that the same "leftists" who are anti-war and pro free press, are also telling everyone how effective their heady crystals are at protecting their energy, and the actually rational DNC members know that they have the #'s to keep telling lies and getting away with it.
The truth is far more sinister, the Liberal elite and the media have conspired for decades to position the DNC as the party of tolerance, and rights for all. Meanwhile, they are the actual party whom only 1 member voted for freeing the slaves from.
There is such a large overlap between what is currently held as "liberal" and "left" in the USA that most people do not care about the difference, and can only discuss the difference with long explanations of the difference (which has changed a lot over time).
What you seem to be claiming is that the "left" is more radical, and "liberals" more middle class and moderate.
---
historically (medieval/classical) liberalism co-emerged with the medieval church's ban on cousin marriage, replacement of in-clan marriage with the nuclear family, expanding sea and river trade, tech disruption (printing press, windmills, improved farming methods, clocks, sextants, etc.), Constitutional law, market trade networks (Hansa, German Free Cities), increasing literacy and numeracy of peasant classes, an expanding urban middle class, increasing wealth, eventually industrialization.
Liberalism included King George, but it has evolved through several other stages (note Henry David Thoreau's oppoistion to slavery, empires and big govt), and has increasingly become anti-religion, anti-rural, anti-populist, anti-"white", pro-big-govt, etc.
Liberal values are potentially supported by all classes that believe in the rule of law.
---
In the original definition, the "left" was the 3rd Estate (commoners) in the French National Assembly, 1789. That included bourgeois scribes, lower bureaucrats, shopkeepers and merchants.
Yes, the original "left" included capitalist commoners.
The "right" was alter and crown.
---
Typically after the industrial revolution the "left" became associated with radical anti-capitalist ideologies from labor unionism to classical anarchism to marxism to "progressivism"
These days in the USA there is a traditional left, various kooks and marginalized types, and the cultural left (cultural Maoists) that use Critical Race Theory and other debunked and discredited idiocies.
Another ignoramus heard from. The smearing, erasure, and marginalizing of the left by those conflating leftists with war mongers, capitalist piggies, and torture enablers is nearly unbiquitous and certainly by design. If you can smear and marginalize, you do not have to engage with or cover anything to do with the actual left. This is obvious to anyone who has consumed any corporate media at all. Outside of the goose-stepping little fascist opportunist Tucker Carlson, there have been no anti-war voices on cable in ages.... even weak sauce like Carlson's is a shock to the system that is only allowed because FOX knows there is no danger of any of its viewers growing a brain box with all electrically charged fleshy bits functioning.
A middle aged lady from Nepal whose family have been pro-democracy reformers for a couple of generations (recently attacked by actual Maoists) remarked that the "struggle sessions" that are being used by the Cultural Left/SJWs deeply sickened her because they were carried out by the same kind of far left scum personalities (people with psych dysfunctions) as the Maoists in Nepal.
Leftists are almost invariably delusional nut jobs, and more radical left they are, the more delusional and psycho.
When they get into power, things go very wrong very quickly.
Let's define the word leftist. The key word you use is "radical", not leftist.
Radical is part of the word "extremist" and extremists left and right is where the damage comes from, the violence, the nut crazies.
America doesn't really know much about leftist since the goalposts have been moved and AOC is a Leftist as is Bernie and they are just yesterday's center.
Terminology is how a psychopathic president finished destroying the "truth" with the dumbdown tool twitter that was originally designed for people with low IQs and short attention spans. It suited him and his public deserved better, but he was "president" so the whole world was obliged to follow into the abyss!
You didn't actually define "leftist", you just vomited out blather, and contradicted yourself.
I described the (european) history of "leftism" in another subthread, comparing it to classical liberalism, "alter and crown" conservatism, fascism, etc.
Trump came to power as a result of the failures of the left to deliver on promises of real, structural reforms to the working classes for at least 75 years.
Since the 1980s the left has failed to even hold onto FDR's reforms.
Beyond the left-vs-right narrative is a far worse problem, the "Blue church" information ecosystem (hierarchies of curated expertise) that came into existence aprx 100 years ago after the industrial revolution is crumbling and becoming increasingly disrupted and corrupted as a result of network effects, and interactive learning.
The true horror is that the mindless squabbling between "left" and "right" is incapable of solving real problems that threaten the foundations of western civilization, the US Constitution and so forth.
Plenty of leftists have been warmongers, capitalist piggies, and torture enablers. You complain about smearing and marginalizing while dedicating most of your post to doing exactly that. Shameful display.
explain Orwell's observation that the various factions on the left in the Spanish Civil War were usually more interested in killing each other off than trying to beat the "fascists".
to be fair, some of the socialists in NW europe have been forced by their multi-party political systems to slowly learn how to hold to responsible positions because they have actually been in power (unlike american leftists that are stuck in infantile protest subcultures), and learned what is the worse bs about their ideology and have rejected it.
So, in the USA, the vast majority of "conservatives" are actually "liberals" in the sense that they believe in the rule of law, Constitutional order, and market economics.
European "conservatives" (or the "right") range from actual "alter and crown" Monarchists to so called fascists to USA style pro-capitalist traditionalists (opposed to socialism).
The thinking of most people in the USA is based on WASP narratives. The obvious example are that some Catholics have been educated in the systematics of church tradition. (I personally look at religion from an evolutionary-anthropological perspective, religion is part of cultural adaptations to survival challenges.)
My kids are dual citizens, USA/Spain, and I've informally studied european history for 25 years, I have an extended family of in-laws that range from anarcho-communists to "mainstream" socialists to pro-business types (formerly Catalan Convergència i Unió, supporters) to Opus Dei members.
A lot of the basic ideology (and sociology) of different groups maps into particularism vs universalism. Ethno-nationalism vs Marxist universalism vs Religious supra-nationalist universalism.
e.pierce, your interest in my genitalia is amusing but I'm not gay and I'm not into RWNJs either, so you're out of luck. From comments my ladyfriends have made, non-gay men who bring up penis size usually aren't well endowed, so maybe you should take your own advice.
As for meds, if you continue on with that propaganda you're consuming, you're going to come to a crisis of you own someday, if you haven't already.
It was a metaphor for your intellectual impotence, incoherence, irrelevance, idiocy, imbecility, insanity, and inane, pompous, vacuously varicose drivel, babble, gibberish and blather.
All of which billows forth in an endless plume of toxic gas from your echo chamber within an ideological cesspool.
Again:
*** GET A REFILL ON YOUR PSYCH MEDS ***
ASAP!
Your insane micro-p3nis jousting is like a tiny person riding around on a dwarf pony at a Renaissance Faire dressed as a rainbow unicorn trying desperately to get some attention by farting as loud as possible.
I have no interest in your genitalia or your continued mental delusions, hallucinations, brain sewage and endless trail of psychological diarrhea across various subthreads.
Just wanted to say that I wanted to support you before, but could not bring myself to support the Intercept. Now that you are independent, I'm behind you 100%.
Glenn, I instantly subscribed with no hesitation and I will circle back and make sure my Intercept subscription is cancelled. I was also wondering what in the world was going on there, as most of the other writers there abandoned every shred of journalistic integrity and became blinded and utterly consumed by their hatred of Trump. Although I lean conservative and have many policy areas that do not align with some of your views, I have the highest respect for your intellectual and journalistic integrity. And for that reason I will read the things you write and give them serious consideration, because I at least know that you gather all the facts, present your findings truthfully and let the chips fall where they may. As a conservative I must also say that a vibrant and honest Classical Liberal opposition is necessary and good to the health of our nation (and the world). The suppression of free speech is the death-knell of a free society. We are witnessing the silencing of journalists who have very solid evidence on corrupt politicians (Biden laptop scandal) while the flimsiest anonymous accusations and being sold as front-page news ("Anonymous" NYC article...Trump accused of calling dead US soldiers "Suckers and Losers".....I could provide so many examples).
Press Forward ! You will find yourself supported by many people on the Left and Right who simply want the Truth without agenda and who are willing to even change their own positions when confronted with good solid honest reporting ( I know I have on several things).
>As a conservative I must also say that a vibrant and honest Classical Liberal opposition is necessary and good to the health of our nation (and the world). The suppression of free speech is the death-knell of a free society.
Bravo!
The left needs right and right needs left for balance or everyone gets pushed over a ledge.
I have long said that Conservatism is about "Tried and True" while Liberalism is about "Thinking Outside the Box". Too much of one is stagnation, too much of the other is anarchism. A balance must be struck and kept, and honest self-reflection by both must be at the core of it.
Every time the Intercept and Guardian put their hand out when logging into their site, I couldn't help but laugh. I'll happily pay for quality journalism but that rubbish ain't it.
I am a libertarian. I disagree with much of what Glenn Greenwald says. However, I have found his reporting to be honest, insightful, and based on verifiable fact. While I often disagree with Mr. Greenwald's conclusions, I have never questioned his integrity.
Perhaps this is the new model we all should strive for -- helping journalists deliver news, rather than helping massive media corporations deliver narrative. Avoiding paying a few dollars a month to read 'free' news is penny wise and pound foolish. In the end, we pay much more for a media landscape barren of anything like honest attempts to deliver the news.
Just subscribed, as a libertarian I don’t always agree with you Glenn but I have always trusted you were telling the truth and expressing what you believe, I am happy to support you here and any other endeavor you engage in. Good luck and god bless your wonderful family of humans and dogs!
Cute quip but the humans come first; Greenwald loves them more. The reason that there are dozens of dogs is that Greenwald sees good reason to take care of that many at his place AND can handle doing so; adding dozens of humans to his family would be a more unmanageable proposition.
Glenn. Have followed/read your work for years. The world has gone mad and unfortunately what should be the primary bulwark against that trend toward madness (an independent and well functioning press) seems to be leading the charge. I’m genuinely sad that your creation abandoned its founding principles, but I’m proud to support you in your next endeavor and will continue to be an avid reader of your work. Good luck. You have allies.
I've also subscribed to Matt Taibbi's writing. He and Glenn are fighting for our country, I don't agree with either of their politics, but I'm from a generation that was at ease with differing viewpoints. Their fight to save journalism makes them heroes in my book.
I am also a former progressive who is voting for Donald Trump.
As a gay minority, I was told that the DNC had my interests at heart.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Their deconstructionist identity politics has sown immeasurable harm in our country and our world. They have sought to foment micro-tribalist instincts among each of us, hoping that we would 1) tear each other apart so that they don't have to, and 2) stoke anti-patriotic emotions in the electorate.
I have subscribed to you because you have the kind of big, hairy balls that get me "literally shaking right now."
I'd say it's more about having largely discarded the excessive power the Religious Right used to inveigh upon the party, with just about everyone still dating to that era now in their 80s and up. Principled conservatism never had to rely on religious dogma to exist in the first place... and we are seeing a resurgence because we still defend the basic civil liberties that "progressives" now routinely argue must be done away with "for the greater good".
Honestly, is sounds like you are describing both parties. The answer is not to switch between Democrats and Republicans, but to vote for neither of them. Republicans don’t have your interests at heart any more than the Democrats do. They both suck.
You’ve been a hero of mine since the Unclaimed Territory days.
It’s wild to see so many people vilifying and rejecting you for your “change over time,” when the quality I most associate you with is moral and ethical consistency.
I’m glad to be able to support your writing directly; I stopped reading The Intercept after Hasan’s article smearing anti-war activists as Assad fanboys, and every time I’ve checked in since then, I’ve felt like I was reading the edgelord version of MSNBC.
It’ll be nice to (possibly?) see some comment threads that aren’t filled, like your Twitter threads, with morons calling you “comrade” and a “Putin puppet.” (So: hello to all of the rest of you, too!)
Well said! Was once an Intercept subscriber, but as you succinctly put, their journalistic quality all but evaporated. This is a seismic cultural shift we are living through, and it's shifting in a decidedly alarming direction towards non-sense, tribe-over-reason, label-over-fact and a seeming complete blindness to self-awareness of bias. At least I hope it's blindness, for that leaves hope it will be realised and course-corrected. But I have to recognise it could be wanton blindness, which would be beyond troubling.
I'm a 100% conservative and Trump supporter. Subscribed because I love free speech and good journalism whichever direction it comes from. Press on, sir.
100% not a Trump supporter, and subscribed for the same reason. Everyone wins from good journalism.
Agreed, and perhaps if we had proper journalism in this country as a widespread occurrence, we would see more people who are "50% for" or "50% against" Trump because they have not been bombarded with nonstop partisan bombast masquerading as the Fourth Estate. Getting to the facts practically requires one become their own investigative journalist!
I'm someone who saw in the early part of the Iraq invasion in the naughts that the Main Stream Media had gone bonkers, all in for perpetual war, and I decided I didn't need the propaganda and literally got rid of my TV. And, I already wasn't watching / reading their crap online, and don't buy the right-wing supposedly main-stream magazines or papers, like the NYT, Time, Newsweek and so forth. So, I've been nearly completely propaganda-free for, oh, 17+ years, though you can't help but get small doses of it now and then, say, when waiting at the Dr.s office and they have the TV going in the waiting room.
I agree that we largely have to become our own investigative journalists, though, thankfully, we still have KPFA - for the time being at least. (It's available live-stream from their web site.)
My take on Trump is simple: Terrible for and at the job, and he might be the least intelligent person ever to hold the office. BUT, he's the only one who has ever even tried to end the war in Korea. He put an end to the TPP (though some of the bad provisions got put into the NAFTA replacement). And there was word he tried to get us out of Syria and the Joint (smoking) chiefs screwed that up for him politically so he gave up.
But he's wrong about so many things - he's mostly wrong. Wrong about Iran, wrong about Covid-19, wrong about immigration, wrong about the economy, wrong about what "great" means, wrong about the USA's past and present standing in the world, wrong about Israel..... I could go on and on and on.
Looking at Trump objectively, he's bad for the nation, the world, and, worst and most importantly of all, the current biosphere.
The problem is, neither Hillary nor Biden would be better, nor Pence nor Harris, for that matter. This is the set of choices the ultra-rich want us to have; none. It's like asking if you'd rather be tossed into a great-white shark feeding frenzy or tossed off the top of the Empire State Building.
We could remain under the boot-heel of the ultra-rich into perpetuity were it not for this Holocene event we've initiated. We just don't have more time to waste getting on a serious program to stop global warming in its tracks, and that's the most pressing need of the world today. ... Earth herself will be fine and life will go on, but it won't be the current biosphere unless we act fast.
The problem is we're brainwashed from birth to believe the lie that we have a two party system. We actually have other choices. How, Calbeck, can we get people to choose "third party," especially when the two main parties offer up only different flavors of shit sandwich? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?!
It's "lesser evil voting", as is surely happening in massive numbers this cycle, that has created this present circumstance where the main parties can give us such crappy alternatives - lesser evil voting combined with the idiotic idea we only have two parties.
A small aside; what's the image you're using as your avatar?
Why the fuck are you spending 20 minutes writing an anti-Trump scree on an article where Glenn proves an article was suppressed by Trumps actual opponents?
Unicorn?
:fistbump:
I should have also mentioned that you stated it perfectly in your original comment. It took guts to comment on, what I would guess is, a predominantly left leaning audience. Kudos!
"Everyone wins from good journalism." Amen, brother. Amen.
+1
AMEN!
Former Bernie supporter turned Tulsi supporter, and I think freely-expressed divergent opinions are the foundations of a healthy democracy. Speaking of Bernie, how many houses is that dude up to now?
Tulsi was the best candidate either party had - and by far.
I’m libertarian/fiscal conservative and Tulsi is amazing. What the Dems did to her is criminal. They were scared and used the Russia boogeyman to discredit her. She has supporters on all sides because she actually has the “character” and “integrity” that all these asshats politicians on both sides claim to have.
I’m republican and would cross party lines to vote for Tulsi.
Or, possibly, Andy Chang
I've noticed that most of this division seems to original with the internal DNC establishment taking its cues routinely from Hillary Clinton - not only despite the fact that she lost, but almost seemingly BECAUSE she lost.
I put this down to the party's too-deep reliance on the Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts, which really started over Bill's impeachment with the "Move On" effort aimed at getting the party faithful to pay for his legal bills. The DNC's mentality of circling the wagons around the Clintons and asserting constantly that they did nothing wrong whatsoever inoculated them against both criticism and scrutiny.
The result was perhaps inevitable: a corrupt money machine, with a political party effectively beholden to it in no small way.
HRC actually had the collusion of the media to portray Trump as a pied-piper candidate in order to establish a platform that gave her a chance to fraud her way into the Oval Office, and it was such an effective psyop that the party adopted it as their platform.
Vote blue, or Boogeyman Trump will destroy your life.
Bah.
Bah.
Wool woven into lies to cover our eyes.
I will say this about Trump: he exposed the deepstate.
I'm hoping he burns it to the ground.
Yes. There's absolute, without a doubt, election fraud. The math and 3am vote dumps coupled with the obvious stupidity required to believe that voting by mail is secure on top of the black-box-voting bullshit...
Man... If he outs the blatant electoral fraud and secures the vote again... I'll kiss his ugly ass right on the lips.
Clintons created a corrupt money scheme that was a replay of the old "house negro/field negro" mechanism designed to keep blacks 'don on the D party establishment plantation". Profoundly disgusting
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/
"down on the plantation"
But she makes the unforgivable sin, just like Ron Paul -- she talks about bringing the troops home and ending the wars. It's the same reason they hate Donald Trump. War is good for business. Billions of unaccountable dollars shoveled out the door to the politically connected. What's not to love (if you're one of them)?
I'm actually pro-war, anti-stupidity - and what BushCo did (followed by ObamaCo) was moronic in the extreme. PBS' expose on the subject confirmed my worst fears: that none of them, not even their "viceroys" in-country, bothered to do any research into Iraq's society or history. They just... apparently thought knocking over Saddam and then handing it all over to the first smiling gent with a nice handshake would take care of it. Afghanistan? Even worse!
A war which ends a great evil is not a bad war, but a war which both fails to end that evil and which perpetrates more evil in the process should be anathema to anyone.
Trump called it before I did, and bless him for it.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
They knew more than you probably can fathom.
That's why they are going after Trump.
I hope he declassifies everything.
Jocko Willink did a 5 part Utube series called "The Unraveling" with military intel officer Darryl Cooper. Fascinating discussion on the Iraq War with insights you may not be aware of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBF_vgyTn5c
Well, having served (and eyewitnessed a friendly-fire incident that wound up in front of Congress), I have a number of insights of my own -;)
Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" , which some argue is the best piece of writing in american history, lays out a straightforward case that connects slavery to imperialism/war to big govt.
Unfortunately, by the Spanish-American war of 1898, the traditional Jacksonian-populist "isolationism" of america was lost to what became Wilson's "progressive" internationalism (imperialism lite)
The early version of the Deep State came into existence at that time to represent the interests of imperial elements in the USA*, and everything has been mostly fvcked up since then, with the exception of a 1945-1971/73.
---
* Deep State explained:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
― Edward Bernays, Propaganda
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/275170.Edward_L_Bernays
Exactly right. War is not only good for business but also, it makes for plenty of "fun and games" for The Capitalists Invisible Army.
Let's not talk about Gabbard in the past tense. She's got a lot of years ahead of her.
Not in the Democratic party, I'm afraid. There is no longer a place for her deeply held anti-war beliefs. She just won't shut up about it! (That's a good thing)
I did the same, Eric. Glenn is one of the most intellectually consistent people I have ever read. We disagree on most policies, I'm sure, but there is too much to appreciate about him to not pony up.
Same. I think all Americans want both sides of the story, freedom of speech and no censorship
I don't think they all want it, but I certainly do think they all need it.
I am a small c conservative as well and Trump supporter. By that I mean I hold dear the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Glenn earned my trust from his reporting on the collaboration of the media and police state federal entities (CIA/FBI/DOJ et al).
No one is safe when those in power use it to crush freedom of expression and chip away at our Bill of Rights.
Amen. I want hard-hitting journalism, equally applied against both sides. Anything else is just hackish and I'm not interested.
I am a 100% leftie and don't support anyone. Subscribed because I love free speech and good journalism whichever direction it comes from. Press on, sir and THANK YOU!!!!!!
100% conservative and do not support Trump at all, but I want to say its time we put integrity back into journalism, and stopped all the manipulation. News is something someone somewhere doesn't want published. Everything else is advertising.
It is incredibly hard to stand up to the left. I am sorry that I was so awful to you in 2016 you blocked me on Twitter but I was just in a tribal bubble. It took me a long time to get myself out of it and how I did it was to unaddict my brain to the dopamine hit I got every time I got into some dumb Twitter war. I can't believe no one cares that we have arrived at the point of censorship in this country. It snuck up on us, right? The clickbait model altered how news was presented, then social media turned it into a confirmation feedback loop. I didn't realize it until the Tom Cotton op-ed in the New York Times. At that point I realized we were manufacturing a narrative we wanted to be true and not reporting on any kind of reality Americans could plainly see. You were 100% right in your interview with Joe Rogan. I so admire your fearlessness and I humbly and deeply apologize for any terrible things I said about you prior.
Wow! Sasha, this type of apology is rare and so refreshing. I admire your self-awareness and examination. You give me hope today!
Thanks. It has been a bit of a nightmare though because a lot of people are angry with me. But the problem is once you see how things really are it is hard to go back to the way they were. But I am grateful for Glenn who is one of the few still willing to be honest with people - we need that balance. We should be trusted with information, regardless of if Trump won or not in 2016. If we continue this way, can you imagine how future elections will be?
Sounds a lot like what I heard during the Ron Paul days.
Once you see how it really is, you can't unsee it. And for many of us that means being scorned by those who get their "news" from the headlines.
Good for you Sasha. No matter what your heartfelt views are, truth and freedom are the only path forward. It takes each of us thought and experience to realize it. I’m glad you did.
I agree. Welcome to the fight Sasha! The Fight for TRUTH!
I should say the same to Matt. He was against the war in Iraq while my brother was over there. Ergo, in my own ideological bubble, Matt was against my brother. Tribalism is a helluva drug.
I will forever be ashamed at the fact that I permitted other people to exploit my patriotism and core principles to the extent that I could believe that another American would wish my brother ill, simply because of who occupied the White House.
Social Media has simply flipped the script, and given us what we have here; not just a "failure to communicate", but a deliberate, ratings-driven attempt to replace the Soviets and 80's Iranians as The Enemy with each other.
Sasha! I was part of that tribal bubble too. It is a great feel of joy to read your comment.
I think you mean liberal, not left. A common mistake that serves, wittingly or not, to further marginalize the actual left.
The word "liberal" is rooted in the latin "liber", which means free, and is the root of the word "liberty".
People who now call themselves "liberal" generally favor a large government that interferes with and controls nearly every aspect of people's lives.
This is the <b>opposite</b> of freedom.
It's not that liberals favor large government (a disingenuous right wing talking point), it's that they favor war crimes, put up war criminals for office, support mass incarceration, support the terrorist states of Israel and Saudi Arabia, forgive torture, practice censorship, jail journalists for revealing war crimes, worship predatory wall street denizens, deport millions, while always movingto the right (at least since Reagan) and fully support the fascist surveillance state... so not much different than conservatives.
more incoherent drivel.
to the extent that "leftism" is influenced by marxism, it is daft and never succeeded in international class revolution because it has a crappy model of human nature that disregarded and misunderstood patriotism/tribalism.
leftists favor large govt (totalitarian state-socialism), war crimes (against capitalism in the very few radical-left countries that still exist), war criminals in office (most leftist-socialists are dictatorial and they ban a free press, imprison and torture political dissidents), support other left-terrorist states, or aligned terrorist states such as Iran, China, etc.
There are usually large refugee populations that flow out of leftist-totalitarian states.
China is arguably the largest left-totalitarian state that has the worst surveillance state.
e.pierce, you're an obvious propaganda victim - sorry to break it to you, but someone has to.
John Kelly's right about liberalism in the USA today not being anything on "the left," but I'd even go a bit further and call those people Neo-Liberals... The use of the term "liberal" as a self description in the USA is a waining usage of the word simply because of the confusion of people like you who think the word means something else.
Instead, what WERE, back in the '70s and likely going back pretty far, self-described "liberals" now call ourselves to distinguish more clearly and eschew the term "liberal" for this very reason.
Progressives are the genuine left, Neo-Liberals are not - they're right-of center and are much like "neo-conservatives" in a great many respects with a few minor differences regarding sexuality, for example.
The ACTUAL left, the USA tends to like, a lot, but as the ultra-rich are against the interests of The People, they propagandize and confuse people about it. And you have non-Progressives, like Hillary Clinton - the very definition of a Neo-Liberal - trying to claim the label Progressive, further confusing people. But Hillary did that not to confuse but to attempt to fool Progressives into voting for her.
Anyway, Progressives have given us a lot of things we take for granted today like the 5 day work week and 2 day weekend, the 8 hour work day, among many others. And, there are today - and have been increasingly growing in support since at least 2016 - super-majorities (2/3 or more support) for a whole slate of progressive policies. That's because Progressive Policies support The People.
I'm not too versed in progressive policies...i can get behind progressive policies more than i can get behind a progressive govt, like socialism, which has 100% failed in large countries and would be doomed to fail in America, and to the extent that we have it here, it's been more of a failure than a success. But wouldn't you say by taking a look at some progressive policies, in places like Seattle, that it's been a failure? I mean that's just the vibe i'm getting. By failure I mean it leads to a moral vacuum. Basically my question is, what are progressive policies, and have they worked? Beyond 5 day work weeks.
So here we are on the dark web again Art.
"Instead, what WERE, back in the '70s and likely going back pretty far, self-described "liberals" now call ourselves to distinguish more clearly and eschew the term "liberal" for this very reason."
Most of us hippies had a simple politics and would not recognize the orgins of liberalism and it's range of ideologies. I eventually pegged my "actual" ideology as social democrat anarchist and no doubt mangled the term in the process. Not a syndicalist.
You might recall I advocate a highly dimensional "Rational Political Spectrum" approach. It fits the model Art.
As Randolph Bourne so wisely observed, "War is the health of the State."\
https://mises.org/library/brilliance-randolph-bourne
And no one adores and worships the state more than "liberals", who are really just collectivists, a.k.a. leftists.
As are those you call conservatives.
You are grossly mistaken. Liberals are right wing in every way except rhetorically. Leftists are anti-war, anti-torture, and pro free press. Leftists are against the horrific excesses of predatory (I know, redundant) capitalism which creates massive poverty, inequality, and suffering. Liberals talk a lot of hope and change garbage and always follow whatever charlatan will lead them further right in order to compete with the fascists and war mongers on the right. Scratch a liberal and you will see an American flag dripping blood.
"Leftists are anti-war, anti-torture, and pro free press."
Oh, you mean leftists like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty, Castro, Guevara, Mugabe, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam?
Statements such as yours are why those of us in the reality-based community consider leftism a cognitive and moral mental disorder that would be hilarious were it not so ubiquitous.
Everything you criticize on this thread is caused by the State, including what you've been brainwashed into believing is capitalism but is really a form of socialism, what Mussolini (another anti-war leftist) called "corporatism".
the predatory excesses of capitalism is what we're doomed to in want of a better system...there isn't. Every progressive dream has wrought more horror than the next when played out in real time. It's just the absolute truth. It's a nice ideal, but a terrible reality. Capitalism can work, in a moral society. Right now, I'd say we're doomed either way, short of a miracle.
The problem is that the same "leftists" who are anti-war and pro free press, are also telling everyone how effective their heady crystals are at protecting their energy, and the actually rational DNC members know that they have the #'s to keep telling lies and getting away with it.
John Kelly you are literally just making shit up here.
Nope.
Both parties the same.
Look at the Bush/Cheney regime.
They want you to believe that they are rivals. They are the same.
The truth is far more sinister, the Liberal elite and the media have conspired for decades to position the DNC as the party of tolerance, and rights for all. Meanwhile, they are the actual party whom only 1 member voted for freeing the slaves from.
Doublespeak.
Incoherent drivel.
There is such a large overlap between what is currently held as "liberal" and "left" in the USA that most people do not care about the difference, and can only discuss the difference with long explanations of the difference (which has changed a lot over time).
What you seem to be claiming is that the "left" is more radical, and "liberals" more middle class and moderate.
---
historically (medieval/classical) liberalism co-emerged with the medieval church's ban on cousin marriage, replacement of in-clan marriage with the nuclear family, expanding sea and river trade, tech disruption (printing press, windmills, improved farming methods, clocks, sextants, etc.), Constitutional law, market trade networks (Hansa, German Free Cities), increasing literacy and numeracy of peasant classes, an expanding urban middle class, increasing wealth, eventually industrialization.
Liberalism included King George, but it has evolved through several other stages (note Henry David Thoreau's oppoistion to slavery, empires and big govt), and has increasingly become anti-religion, anti-rural, anti-populist, anti-"white", pro-big-govt, etc.
Liberal values are potentially supported by all classes that believe in the rule of law.
---
In the original definition, the "left" was the 3rd Estate (commoners) in the French National Assembly, 1789. That included bourgeois scribes, lower bureaucrats, shopkeepers and merchants.
Yes, the original "left" included capitalist commoners.
The "right" was alter and crown.
---
Typically after the industrial revolution the "left" became associated with radical anti-capitalist ideologies from labor unionism to classical anarchism to marxism to "progressivism"
These days in the USA there is a traditional left, various kooks and marginalized types, and the cultural left (cultural Maoists) that use Critical Race Theory and other debunked and discredited idiocies.
Another ignoramus heard from. The smearing, erasure, and marginalizing of the left by those conflating leftists with war mongers, capitalist piggies, and torture enablers is nearly unbiquitous and certainly by design. If you can smear and marginalize, you do not have to engage with or cover anything to do with the actual left. This is obvious to anyone who has consumed any corporate media at all. Outside of the goose-stepping little fascist opportunist Tucker Carlson, there have been no anti-war voices on cable in ages.... even weak sauce like Carlson's is a shock to the system that is only allowed because FOX knows there is no danger of any of its viewers growing a brain box with all electrically charged fleshy bits functioning.
A middle aged lady from Nepal whose family have been pro-democracy reformers for a couple of generations (recently attacked by actual Maoists) remarked that the "struggle sessions" that are being used by the Cultural Left/SJWs deeply sickened her because they were carried out by the same kind of far left scum personalities (people with psych dysfunctions) as the Maoists in Nepal.
Leftists are almost invariably delusional nut jobs, and more radical left they are, the more delusional and psycho.
When they get into power, things go very wrong very quickly.
Let's define the word leftist. The key word you use is "radical", not leftist.
Radical is part of the word "extremist" and extremists left and right is where the damage comes from, the violence, the nut crazies.
America doesn't really know much about leftist since the goalposts have been moved and AOC is a Leftist as is Bernie and they are just yesterday's center.
Terminology is how a psychopathic president finished destroying the "truth" with the dumbdown tool twitter that was originally designed for people with low IQs and short attention spans. It suited him and his public deserved better, but he was "president" so the whole world was obliged to follow into the abyss!
You didn't actually define "leftist", you just vomited out blather, and contradicted yourself.
I described the (european) history of "leftism" in another subthread, comparing it to classical liberalism, "alter and crown" conservatism, fascism, etc.
Trump came to power as a result of the failures of the left to deliver on promises of real, structural reforms to the working classes for at least 75 years.
Since the 1980s the left has failed to even hold onto FDR's reforms.
Beyond the left-vs-right narrative is a far worse problem, the "Blue church" information ecosystem (hierarchies of curated expertise) that came into existence aprx 100 years ago after the industrial revolution is crumbling and becoming increasingly disrupted and corrupted as a result of network effects, and interactive learning.
The true horror is that the mindless squabbling between "left" and "right" is incapable of solving real problems that threaten the foundations of western civilization, the US Constitution and so forth.
"struggle sessions" in the USA
Plenty of leftists have been warmongers, capitalist piggies, and torture enablers. You complain about smearing and marginalizing while dedicating most of your post to doing exactly that. Shameful display.
explain Orwell's observation that the various factions on the left in the Spanish Civil War were usually more interested in killing each other off than trying to beat the "fascists".
your ignorance is astonishing
"The best thing about socialists is they eventually start shooting each other."
~ Yuri Maltsev
lol, correct.
to be fair, some of the socialists in NW europe have been forced by their multi-party political systems to slowly learn how to hold to responsible positions because they have actually been in power (unlike american leftists that are stuck in infantile protest subcultures), and learned what is the worse bs about their ideology and have rejected it.
you clearly have significant brain damage, and/or a psychiatric dysfunction. as expected since that is the case with 99% of "leftists"
So, in the USA, the vast majority of "conservatives" are actually "liberals" in the sense that they believe in the rule of law, Constitutional order, and market economics.
European "conservatives" (or the "right") range from actual "alter and crown" Monarchists to so called fascists to USA style pro-capitalist traditionalists (opposed to socialism).
Europe is weird.
lol
The thinking of most people in the USA is based on WASP narratives. The obvious example are that some Catholics have been educated in the systematics of church tradition. (I personally look at religion from an evolutionary-anthropological perspective, religion is part of cultural adaptations to survival challenges.)
My kids are dual citizens, USA/Spain, and I've informally studied european history for 25 years, I have an extended family of in-laws that range from anarcho-communists to "mainstream" socialists to pro-business types (formerly Catalan Convergència i Unió, supporters) to Opus Dei members.
A lot of the basic ideology (and sociology) of different groups maps into particularism vs universalism. Ethno-nationalism vs Marxist universalism vs Religious supra-nationalist universalism.
sorry typo: "obvious example" should have been "obvious exception"
The "incoherent drivel" is yours, and is based on propaganda.
Did you psych med prescription run out? They also have meds for very tiny p3nis syndrome.
e.pierce, your interest in my genitalia is amusing but I'm not gay and I'm not into RWNJs either, so you're out of luck. From comments my ladyfriends have made, non-gay men who bring up penis size usually aren't well endowed, so maybe you should take your own advice.
As for meds, if you continue on with that propaganda you're consuming, you're going to come to a crisis of you own someday, if you haven't already.
It was a metaphor for your intellectual impotence, incoherence, irrelevance, idiocy, imbecility, insanity, and inane, pompous, vacuously varicose drivel, babble, gibberish and blather.
All of which billows forth in an endless plume of toxic gas from your echo chamber within an ideological cesspool.
Again:
*** GET A REFILL ON YOUR PSYCH MEDS ***
ASAP!
Your insane micro-p3nis jousting is like a tiny person riding around on a dwarf pony at a Renaissance Faire dressed as a rainbow unicorn trying desperately to get some attention by farting as loud as possible.
I have no interest in your genitalia or your continued mental delusions, hallucinations, brain sewage and endless trail of psychological diarrhea across various subthreads.
Welcome aboard the common sense reality train. Glad to have you.
Incredible post, Sasha. I commend you.
Guess who brought on all this censorship? It wasn’t Conservatives. Now, can you tell me who did?
So now that you realize Glenn was right, even though you wouldn't have prior, what would it have taken for you to believe Glenn back then?
Subscribed not because I agree with your opinions but because I support your honesty and integrity.
Same. Though I'm sure there's plenty Glen and an anarcho-capitalist like myself can find common ground on.
Just wanted to say that I wanted to support you before, but could not bring myself to support the Intercept. Now that you are independent, I'm behind you 100%.
Same for me.
As well for me.
Glenn, I instantly subscribed with no hesitation and I will circle back and make sure my Intercept subscription is cancelled. I was also wondering what in the world was going on there, as most of the other writers there abandoned every shred of journalistic integrity and became blinded and utterly consumed by their hatred of Trump. Although I lean conservative and have many policy areas that do not align with some of your views, I have the highest respect for your intellectual and journalistic integrity. And for that reason I will read the things you write and give them serious consideration, because I at least know that you gather all the facts, present your findings truthfully and let the chips fall where they may. As a conservative I must also say that a vibrant and honest Classical Liberal opposition is necessary and good to the health of our nation (and the world). The suppression of free speech is the death-knell of a free society. We are witnessing the silencing of journalists who have very solid evidence on corrupt politicians (Biden laptop scandal) while the flimsiest anonymous accusations and being sold as front-page news ("Anonymous" NYC article...Trump accused of calling dead US soldiers "Suckers and Losers".....I could provide so many examples).
Press Forward ! You will find yourself supported by many people on the Left and Right who simply want the Truth without agenda and who are willing to even change their own positions when confronted with good solid honest reporting ( I know I have on several things).
>As a conservative I must also say that a vibrant and honest Classical Liberal opposition is necessary and good to the health of our nation (and the world). The suppression of free speech is the death-knell of a free society.
Bravo!
The left needs right and right needs left for balance or everyone gets pushed over a ledge.
I have long said that Conservatism is about "Tried and True" while Liberalism is about "Thinking Outside the Box". Too much of one is stagnation, too much of the other is anarchism. A balance must be struck and kept, and honest self-reflection by both must be at the core of it.
Dynamic equilibrium, systems theory
Every time the Intercept and Guardian put their hand out when logging into their site, I couldn't help but laugh. I'll happily pay for quality journalism but that rubbish ain't it.
If you figure out how to cancel your Intercept subscription, please share. They don't make it obvious on the website.
I am a libertarian. I disagree with much of what Glenn Greenwald says. However, I have found his reporting to be honest, insightful, and based on verifiable fact. While I often disagree with Mr. Greenwald's conclusions, I have never questioned his integrity.
Perhaps this is the new model we all should strive for -- helping journalists deliver news, rather than helping massive media corporations deliver narrative. Avoiding paying a few dollars a month to read 'free' news is penny wise and pound foolish. In the end, we pay much more for a media landscape barren of anything like honest attempts to deliver the news.
I am not politically aligned, I only care about two things, truth and avoiding war. The Intercept left both long ago. Proud to support you.
Just subscribed, as a libertarian I don’t always agree with you Glenn but I have always trusted you were telling the truth and expressing what you believe, I am happy to support you here and any other endeavor you engage in. Good luck and god bless your wonderful family of humans and dogs!
Dogs and humans, really, if you do the math.
Cute quip but the humans come first; Greenwald loves them more. The reason that there are dozens of dogs is that Greenwald sees good reason to take care of that many at his place AND can handle doing so; adding dozens of humans to his family would be a more unmanageable proposition.
Glenn. Have followed/read your work for years. The world has gone mad and unfortunately what should be the primary bulwark against that trend toward madness (an independent and well functioning press) seems to be leading the charge. I’m genuinely sad that your creation abandoned its founding principles, but I’m proud to support you in your next endeavor and will continue to be an avid reader of your work. Good luck. You have allies.
Subscribed. And I'm not even a liberal. But you, sir, are a REAL journalist.
I've also subscribed to Matt Taibbi's writing. He and Glenn are fighting for our country, I don't agree with either of their politics, but I'm from a generation that was at ease with differing viewpoints. Their fight to save journalism makes them heroes in my book.
I am also a former progressive who is voting for Donald Trump.
As a gay minority, I was told that the DNC had my interests at heart.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Their deconstructionist identity politics has sown immeasurable harm in our country and our world. They have sought to foment micro-tribalist instincts among each of us, hoping that we would 1) tear each other apart so that they don't have to, and 2) stoke anti-patriotic emotions in the electorate.
I have subscribed to you because you have the kind of big, hairy balls that get me "literally shaking right now."
I'm really happy to see sane people realizing the GOP doesn't hate anyone, including gay people.
I'd say it's more about having largely discarded the excessive power the Religious Right used to inveigh upon the party, with just about everyone still dating to that era now in their 80s and up. Principled conservatism never had to rely on religious dogma to exist in the first place... and we are seeing a resurgence because we still defend the basic civil liberties that "progressives" now routinely argue must be done away with "for the greater good".
I might have substituted 'brass' for 'hairy', but otherwise I concur :)
Honestly, is sounds like you are describing both parties. The answer is not to switch between Democrats and Republicans, but to vote for neither of them. Republicans don’t have your interests at heart any more than the Democrats do. They both suck.
My first subscription ever, to honor your courage and for FREEDOM.
Commend you, mate. Your own publication? Wankers. Took real courage but you are on the right side of history.
I support him but of course history will tell, it's literally too early…
I mean time will tell.
instantly subscribed. good luck glenn
You’ve been a hero of mine since the Unclaimed Territory days.
It’s wild to see so many people vilifying and rejecting you for your “change over time,” when the quality I most associate you with is moral and ethical consistency.
I’m glad to be able to support your writing directly; I stopped reading The Intercept after Hasan’s article smearing anti-war activists as Assad fanboys, and every time I’ve checked in since then, I’ve felt like I was reading the edgelord version of MSNBC.
It’ll be nice to (possibly?) see some comment threads that aren’t filled, like your Twitter threads, with morons calling you “comrade” and a “Putin puppet.” (So: hello to all of the rest of you, too!)
Well said! Was once an Intercept subscriber, but as you succinctly put, their journalistic quality all but evaporated. This is a seismic cultural shift we are living through, and it's shifting in a decidedly alarming direction towards non-sense, tribe-over-reason, label-over-fact and a seeming complete blindness to self-awareness of bias. At least I hope it's blindness, for that leaves hope it will be realised and course-corrected. But I have to recognise it could be wanton blindness, which would be beyond troubling.