This seems a very good and evenhanded discussion of the situation in Brazil, and especially so because we know from previous posts that Glenn really, really, really doesn't like Bolsonaro. I learned a lot about the situation. Here are some random thoughts on it.
I share Glenn's dislike of the "communist" label. I'm a conservative, but I really don't like the way way many on the right throw the term around blindly, much the way the left calls everything they don't like "white supremacist" or "Nazi." I actually even have trouble calling actual communists that, since the term has become so overused. But having said that, the term has several different and independent connotations. So it's not surprising that someone might refer to someone as a communist for displaying some but not all of these characteristics. I know little about Lula, and am not speaking about him here.
I'd say the most important communist traits are its totalitarian/oppressive nature, its religious need for global dominance, and its collectivist/centrally-planned economic system. All three of these are very dangerous, and during the Cold War we very much saw them as the antithesis of everything the American tradition represented. But ironically, our current crop of elites, the globalist crowd, despite being the top echelon of capitalist operators, loudly embrace many of the ideas that not that long ago we criticized the communists for. The globalists pretty clearly have a scary totalitarian vision, and the high-tech machinery to back them up. And globalism by nature implies imposing a unified rule over the whole planet, which is further evidenced by their disdain for local and national independence. And they also very much see central planning and monopoly as preferable to the chaotic markets. They even like to refer to themselves as socialists.
I bring this up to observe that the neoliberals (who are largely interchangeable with the globalist elites) are much more akin to the old-time communists than today's actual communists, who may be brutal and backwards, but tend to be localized and aren't part of the large international religious movement that 20th century communism was. They'll reliably destroy their own neighborhoods, but don't seem likely to threaten outsiders. The neoliberals, on the other hand, have power and lots of it, and are systematically accruing power, both in and out of govt. So, in my book, while a leader who seeks to align his or her country with the globalists/neoliberals may not actually be a communist in the technical sense, is nevertheless nor really all that different on a conceptual level. This is something that many conservatives in particular have difficulty digesting. We on the right are so used to thinking of capitalist enterprises as counterbalances to govt power that it's hard to recognize that it's the same people running both.
Regarding elections. Democracies run on faith. The general public needs to have trust in the system, otherwise they can't perform one of the most critical tasks in a democracy, which is to accept your losses. I have no idea what the complaints in Brazil are based on. But here in the US, we're increasingly seeing irregularities, which are undermining our faith. Irregularities are not proof of fraud, but they are problems. And when we see irregularities, we need to be able to audit, and get transparency.
A big lesson of 2020, and to lesser extent in the most recent elections, is that our system just doesn't provide any effective way of disputing an election. We seem to only have the courts, which are absolutely not the place to resolve disputes. We desperately need to enact reforms so that the vast majority of the population feels confident that our elections are fair. Which means lots and lots of transparency. Given how loudly the D's have screamed fraud over the past quarter century, and how disenchanted the R's have been over the last few years, you'd think that there would be a consensus that we need to do something. And yet, there clearly isn't.
"Regarding elections. ... But here in the US, we're increasingly seeing irregularities, which are undermining our faith. Irregularities are not proof of fraud, but they are problems. And when we see irregularities, we need to be able to audit, and get transparency."
Absolutely. The fact that we even considered to permit private companies with secret, proprietary software to run machines in our elections, in any way, is itself a jaw-dropping outrage. There are a dozen vectors for compromise in voting machines *alone* -- from design through manufacturing through delivery through provisioning through setup through validation. IMO, we need a constitutional amendment containing the *actual algorithms* to be used to even begin to stop this nonsense.
"Given how loudly the D's have screamed fraud over the past quarter century, and how disenchanted the R's have been over the last few years, you'd think that there would be a consensus that we need to do something. And yet, there clearly isn't."
The true ringleaders have absolutely no interest in eliminating FUD -- their careers thrive on the theatre. My favorite example is the political football Democrats have made with abortion, *for fifty years*, by focusing solely on (inappropriate legislation by) courts, rather than do the heavy lifting of passing legislation or a constitutional amendment to their and our liking.
There are several long running (20 years) projects to create open sourced election software systems. Given the latest block chain technology we have even more ways to ensure every vote was counted and the voter can verify that fact. Yet for all those years we STILL don't have such systems. I assess there are multiple forces at work to ensure it doesn't happen. First the proprietary system vendors want to make money and then the graft involved in the purchaser process for each State. Finally if there is corruption possible at least the party benefited would not want their party to end.
Thanks for the good info and points to consider here. More a political problem to solve than a technical problem.
Blockchain has potentially a number of very good uses. (I see it also applied to journalism in various ways.) Too bad it and its reputation have, thus far, been overwhelmed by token speculation, but that's human nature.
Happy New Year, Glenn! I can't thank you enough for the outstanding incisive journalism that you continue to present here, as well as on your excellent System Update program on Rumble. I am amazed at both the quality and quantity of your work and one of my resolutions for the new year is to do more than I already have to promote it.
You have already shown incredible bravery in critiquing the mainstream corporate media orthodoxy on a number of subjects -- most notably Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the gross exaggeration and false characterization of the January 6th incursion into the Capitol, the war in Ukraine (although I think you could do a bit more to expose the perniciousness of the U.S. and NATO and their responsibility for a war that actually began in 2014), the excesses of the transgender activist agenda and its promotion of cancel culture, and, most recently, the JFK assassination and the role of the CIA in same.
There is a lot more to be said about the latter two subjects, of course, and I was a bit frustrated to listen to Michael Tracey get confused about the difference between "sex" and "gender" on a recent program. On the TA agenda, I would strongly recommend looking at the work of two other real journalists, Jennifer Bilek (you know about following the money, right? -- see https://www.the11thhourblog.com/) and Carol Dansereau, who has done a thorough job of exposing the alarming and shocking teaching of gender ideology in our public schools -- see https://caroldansereau.substack.com/. I would also highly recommend the "Reality's Last Stand" Substack on this and related issues. https://www.realityslaststand.com/.
There are some other huge topics that I hope you eventually find the time -- and strength -- to examine. I would like to strongly propose two in particular. In each case, much like the subject of gender ideology, critics have exposed major flaws in the corporate media narrative, but the National Security State/military/Congressional/Media complex refuse to answer or engage the critics at all, but instead engage in name-calling, labeling, derision, and, above all, censorship and cancel culture tactics in order to control the narrative. In each case, if one actually carefully researches the issue, and adopts the philosophy of FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHERE IT LEADS -- as you have done on so many other topics -- one finds that there is much merit in the critics' views, and so many flaws in the dominant narrative that it cannot stand on the merits.
These are:
1) The dominant/official story about the 9/11 attacks. The work done by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (https://www.ae911truth.org/) and the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, of which I am a member (https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/) demonstrates, at the very least, that there needs to be a real, independent inquiry into what happened, and a serious official/legal investigation into the compelling evidence that the three buildings in New York were brought down by controlled demolition.
2) The strong, compelling scientific evidence showing that Big Pharma has completely controlled the regulatory response to COVID, suppressing more effective treatments than the fake "vaccine" that was pushed on people in the U.S. and around the world, and the growing body of evidence showing that the so-called vaccine actually causes more harm, adverse health impacts, and more mortality, than COVID itself. For this, there are many, many physicians, health-care practitioners, scientists and researchers who are doing the work and presenting credible, often peer-reviewed data and reports supporting this conclusion -- e.g., Peter McCullough, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Robert Malone, Pierre Khory, Aaron Kheriaty, Steve Kirsch (most of whom have Substacks), as well as the other experts who have presented evidence at the hearings conducted by Senator Ron Johnson, all of which are available on Rumble, and are well worth viewing.
To tackle either of these subjects is to invite more of the same derision upon yourself, but it will also help the people fighting the censorship/cancel culture regime reach critical mass and force real inquiry and debate on the merits of these issues. Please consider tackling these subjects in the New Year. Thank you for your consideration.
I also want to hear what liars are saying. It pays to know the directiob in which they are leading the flock.
I agree that the mainstream media does use truth at times. It cannot be avoided. The deception is in the use of half-truth. It's much more difficult to know what is being left out of the context. This is where independent journalism comes in.
So free speech should include the liars so they can expose themselves for what they are. They self-identify and then we can discount or at least scrutinize them as a habit. The side eye.
At a time within the memory of living men & women, Gore Vidal went to the trouble of pointing out "you never want to talk to an American audience about more than one idea ---it's okay to use more than one example to illustrate that idea ---but keep the number of illustrations to three, at most." For a change, Gore wasn't simply setting out to be clever ---he was dead serious. And smart people listened. So-- today we hear more or less smart folks talking about how you need to be with them [in the fight for "democracy"] or against them [fighting for something so unspeakably evil it's up to them to find a name for it]. All they need in defense of their thesis are three names --Chamberlain, Hitler and Churchill ---ready to be grafted into the appropriate sentences. As we all know --- no fate is too awful for a Hitler..... which is why, upon hearing Gaddafi had been knife raped to death, Hillary couldn't contain her giggles. And why no one had to take that other Hitler, Putin, seriously when he expressed horror over Hillary's reaction.
I want to personally thank the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN [I could go on with the list but you get the picture] for successfully shoving the level of the dialectic into the artificial turf.
As for labels it is incredible Glenn that you can say you do not like them on the one hand and then use them uncritically and incorrectly on the other:
“I consider Tucker Carlson to be a socialist,” Greenwald added.
I think the vision is, you know, you have this kind of right wing populism, which really is socialism, that says we should close our borders, not allow unconstrained immigration, and then take better care of our own working class people, and not allow this kind of transnational, global, corporatist elite to take everything for themselves under the guise of neoliberalism.
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait responded to Greenwald’s ideological assessment with a rebuttal column attacked the logic as flawed and superficial."
And the kind of right wing or fascist populism we see is not socialist. Who told you to say that Glenn?
Huey Long was no socialist.
The only reason Hitler added the word Socialist to his National Socialist party was due to the amount of socialist movements at the time and it was an attraction element.
Jack London would be seen as a ethno nationalist socialist in 1914, the year he died.
You say you deplore such general terms and then use them incorrectly and without shame.
I posted the below a couple of days ago. AFAIK there is no way to link to a comment in this primitive backward comments system.
"Russia had good military, indeed, existential, reasons for invading the Ukraine.
Russia believes that America is planning a preemptive decapitation strike on Russia.
The ABMs being deployed all over are central to that mission.
The entire so called arms race was America trying to get nuclear primacy, with Russia simply countering. And now they (arguably) have it.
Russia knows all this. Most of the world, Americans in particular? Not at all. That's down to decades of some of the worlds most persistent and effective propaganda.
I don’t see them go total destruction. There’s nothing to be gained from it and these people are motivated by greed. Nobody “wins” if they flip the chessboard. It’s as good as a concession anyways.
Glenn, I am pleased with this program. It opens up the kind of discussion that needs to happen. Given my hearing, I am even more pleased to read a transcript. Thank you for both.
I interrupted my reading after your comment about the Democrats claiming the 2000 election was stolen.
I don't give much, if any, any credence to what the Democrats say about election losses. They are incapable of self-reflection. However, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court when they stopped the vote recount in Florida. I don't know if that should be called a theft or not.
I apologize that I don't have the links or details at hand, but if you look into it, using non-mainstream media, the decision by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court was based on rather radical constitutional and legal principles. See also the dissenting opinions of the minority justices.
I think the SCOTUS decision said you can't recount only some of the ballots. Pushing the "hanging chad" malarkey was just the beginning of the now predictable "the election was stolen" cry we hear from the losing party every election.
OG election deniers. This prevailing view that Gore would have definitely won if their had been a recount is also flawed. I attached an article from the Chicago Tribune from 20 years ago. Depending upon how a recount would have been conducted, they theorize that Bush wins some of the time and Gore wins some of the time. It isn't settled at all.
No, not what I meant. Of course, the 14th amendment should apply to all voters. The problem is that the Supreme Court didn't seem to think that was important. The effect of their decision was to disenfranchise the voters whose ballots had not been counted.
If they Court had paid more attention to the 14th then they would have allowed the recount to continue. Later research indicated that Gore would have won Florida and the presidency. YMMV
Brother Jeb, as governor of Florida, had already put his thumb on the scales by disenfranchising a bunch of black and other minority voters who, it was assumed, would vote Democratic.
One can call all of that a theft of the election, but I think a better description is a soft coup by the Supreme Court.
I believe the earlier decision, you know the 7-2 one, dealt with exactly that, as the Florida Democrat Supreme Court judges were allowing different counties to count those elusive “hanging chads” different ways. The Supreme Court said equal protection required one standard. The 2nd part of the decision dealt with whether it was feasible for the counties to establish such a standard and count the votes in the remaining time, 2 days, I believe. A 5-4 majority on the Court basically said “You’ve screwed around long enough already, and we’re sick of your bullshit, first “butterfly” ballots, then hanging chads, after that what’s next?” The Court ended the charade. Whether Grow would have won if they had used a proper standard and recounted the votes, who knows? Its still open to debate. Maybe the Democrats wasted all their time chasing butterflies and Chads, and now they tell themselves bedtime stories about what coulda, woulda, shoulda been
Sadly, this is my very concern about Ron DeSantis. I have an uneasiness about how he has tackled DC during COVID and instituted these wonderful policies making Florida such an attractive state. He is highly decorated military and obviously has Intelligence connections...
These pro-democracy and pro-Individual sovereignty programs in Florida may be just the cover to promote him as the next Trump. It would be (has been) easy to propagandize him as something “desired” by the American populace, to reign in the ideas instilled by President Trump.
That is Making America Great Again involves reigning in the Intelligence State and empowering American Individualism.
Even if DeSantis doesn’t run or doesn’t win the same thing happens. DeSantis can not win without resting 90%+ of President Trump’s supporters and everyone really knows that won’t happen (even with Trump’s support), so the very suggestion of a DeSantis opposing Trump will lead to the END of the Republican Party...
DeSantis is a CIA operation, whether he knows it or not.
Russia had good military, indeed, existential, reasons for invading the Ukraine.
Russia believes that America is planning a preemptive decapacitation strike on Russia.
The ABMs being deployed all over are central to that mission.
The entire so called arms race was America trying to get nuclear primacy, with Russia simply countering. And now they (arguably) have it.
Russia knows all this. Most of the world, Americans in particular? Not at all. That's down to decades of some of the worlds most persistent and effective propaganda.
I don't know if you will read this but if so you can pass this onto the powers that be at Rumble. I was in France before Christmas and tried to login to watch your show to receive the message that Rumble had withdrawn its services to France because the French government require the removal of certain voices, which I know know from Glenn's remarks refers to RT, from the Rumble platform. This message from Rumble is in English and not French so it would help if Rumble wrote this in French since it is aimed at French people. They won't rise up unless they can read the reason in their own language.
The general line on Chamberlain was that he was appeasing Hitler for the sake of peace. However, Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer. He toured a concentration camp and inspected the SS. We are to expect Chamberlain didn't know about what they were actually up to in Germany? Or we are to expect that he knew and still valued 'peace'? There were many Nazi sympathizers in the UK and the US. It's more likely Chamberlain was one of them. Giving the Czech sovereignty, gold and military to Germany gave them the tools to over run Europe.
No one, to my knowledge, in the Bush administration that outed Valerie Plame Wilson, has been charged with releasing information of a national security nature, and certainly not with releasing such information that endangered someone's life. This makes it even more obvious and disgusting that the prosecution of Snowden is political, as was Plame's unmasking as an undercover agent.
1. It's shocking that you call Russia's actions unjustified. 2. I don't agree all countries lie to their people, ie. Cuba. 3. Maybe you could give some examples of RT giving false info. 4. Now I know why you don't call yourself Left. As a Marxist, I still proudly identify with that word.
This seems a very good and evenhanded discussion of the situation in Brazil, and especially so because we know from previous posts that Glenn really, really, really doesn't like Bolsonaro. I learned a lot about the situation. Here are some random thoughts on it.
I share Glenn's dislike of the "communist" label. I'm a conservative, but I really don't like the way way many on the right throw the term around blindly, much the way the left calls everything they don't like "white supremacist" or "Nazi." I actually even have trouble calling actual communists that, since the term has become so overused. But having said that, the term has several different and independent connotations. So it's not surprising that someone might refer to someone as a communist for displaying some but not all of these characteristics. I know little about Lula, and am not speaking about him here.
I'd say the most important communist traits are its totalitarian/oppressive nature, its religious need for global dominance, and its collectivist/centrally-planned economic system. All three of these are very dangerous, and during the Cold War we very much saw them as the antithesis of everything the American tradition represented. But ironically, our current crop of elites, the globalist crowd, despite being the top echelon of capitalist operators, loudly embrace many of the ideas that not that long ago we criticized the communists for. The globalists pretty clearly have a scary totalitarian vision, and the high-tech machinery to back them up. And globalism by nature implies imposing a unified rule over the whole planet, which is further evidenced by their disdain for local and national independence. And they also very much see central planning and monopoly as preferable to the chaotic markets. They even like to refer to themselves as socialists.
I bring this up to observe that the neoliberals (who are largely interchangeable with the globalist elites) are much more akin to the old-time communists than today's actual communists, who may be brutal and backwards, but tend to be localized and aren't part of the large international religious movement that 20th century communism was. They'll reliably destroy their own neighborhoods, but don't seem likely to threaten outsiders. The neoliberals, on the other hand, have power and lots of it, and are systematically accruing power, both in and out of govt. So, in my book, while a leader who seeks to align his or her country with the globalists/neoliberals may not actually be a communist in the technical sense, is nevertheless nor really all that different on a conceptual level. This is something that many conservatives in particular have difficulty digesting. We on the right are so used to thinking of capitalist enterprises as counterbalances to govt power that it's hard to recognize that it's the same people running both.
Regarding elections. Democracies run on faith. The general public needs to have trust in the system, otherwise they can't perform one of the most critical tasks in a democracy, which is to accept your losses. I have no idea what the complaints in Brazil are based on. But here in the US, we're increasingly seeing irregularities, which are undermining our faith. Irregularities are not proof of fraud, but they are problems. And when we see irregularities, we need to be able to audit, and get transparency.
A big lesson of 2020, and to lesser extent in the most recent elections, is that our system just doesn't provide any effective way of disputing an election. We seem to only have the courts, which are absolutely not the place to resolve disputes. We desperately need to enact reforms so that the vast majority of the population feels confident that our elections are fair. Which means lots and lots of transparency. Given how loudly the D's have screamed fraud over the past quarter century, and how disenchanted the R's have been over the last few years, you'd think that there would be a consensus that we need to do something. And yet, there clearly isn't.
"Regarding elections. ... But here in the US, we're increasingly seeing irregularities, which are undermining our faith. Irregularities are not proof of fraud, but they are problems. And when we see irregularities, we need to be able to audit, and get transparency."
Absolutely. The fact that we even considered to permit private companies with secret, proprietary software to run machines in our elections, in any way, is itself a jaw-dropping outrage. There are a dozen vectors for compromise in voting machines *alone* -- from design through manufacturing through delivery through provisioning through setup through validation. IMO, we need a constitutional amendment containing the *actual algorithms* to be used to even begin to stop this nonsense.
"Given how loudly the D's have screamed fraud over the past quarter century, and how disenchanted the R's have been over the last few years, you'd think that there would be a consensus that we need to do something. And yet, there clearly isn't."
The true ringleaders have absolutely no interest in eliminating FUD -- their careers thrive on the theatre. My favorite example is the political football Democrats have made with abortion, *for fifty years*, by focusing solely on (inappropriate legislation by) courts, rather than do the heavy lifting of passing legislation or a constitutional amendment to their and our liking.
There are several long running (20 years) projects to create open sourced election software systems. Given the latest block chain technology we have even more ways to ensure every vote was counted and the voter can verify that fact. Yet for all those years we STILL don't have such systems. I assess there are multiple forces at work to ensure it doesn't happen. First the proprietary system vendors want to make money and then the graft involved in the purchaser process for each State. Finally if there is corruption possible at least the party benefited would not want their party to end.
Thanks for the good info and points to consider here. More a political problem to solve than a technical problem.
Blockchain has potentially a number of very good uses. (I see it also applied to journalism in various ways.) Too bad it and its reputation have, thus far, been overwhelmed by token speculation, but that's human nature.
Math is math. But the crypto connection confuses. Shouldn't affect software developers.
Beyond sensible. Thank you, EG!
Thank you for indicating Episode number in the transcripts !!
See a Doctor Dave.
What the fuck did I just read? I'm new here, is this a thing?
Just ignore poor Dave -- he has started drinking again.
♫ We are the world... ♫
Our local paid troll, Dave, has started drinking again... -- just ignore him
Dave, I see you have started drinking again.
Happy New Year, Glenn! I can't thank you enough for the outstanding incisive journalism that you continue to present here, as well as on your excellent System Update program on Rumble. I am amazed at both the quality and quantity of your work and one of my resolutions for the new year is to do more than I already have to promote it.
You have already shown incredible bravery in critiquing the mainstream corporate media orthodoxy on a number of subjects -- most notably Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the gross exaggeration and false characterization of the January 6th incursion into the Capitol, the war in Ukraine (although I think you could do a bit more to expose the perniciousness of the U.S. and NATO and their responsibility for a war that actually began in 2014), the excesses of the transgender activist agenda and its promotion of cancel culture, and, most recently, the JFK assassination and the role of the CIA in same.
There is a lot more to be said about the latter two subjects, of course, and I was a bit frustrated to listen to Michael Tracey get confused about the difference between "sex" and "gender" on a recent program. On the TA agenda, I would strongly recommend looking at the work of two other real journalists, Jennifer Bilek (you know about following the money, right? -- see https://www.the11thhourblog.com/) and Carol Dansereau, who has done a thorough job of exposing the alarming and shocking teaching of gender ideology in our public schools -- see https://caroldansereau.substack.com/. I would also highly recommend the "Reality's Last Stand" Substack on this and related issues. https://www.realityslaststand.com/.
There are some other huge topics that I hope you eventually find the time -- and strength -- to examine. I would like to strongly propose two in particular. In each case, much like the subject of gender ideology, critics have exposed major flaws in the corporate media narrative, but the National Security State/military/Congressional/Media complex refuse to answer or engage the critics at all, but instead engage in name-calling, labeling, derision, and, above all, censorship and cancel culture tactics in order to control the narrative. In each case, if one actually carefully researches the issue, and adopts the philosophy of FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHERE IT LEADS -- as you have done on so many other topics -- one finds that there is much merit in the critics' views, and so many flaws in the dominant narrative that it cannot stand on the merits.
These are:
1) The dominant/official story about the 9/11 attacks. The work done by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (https://www.ae911truth.org/) and the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, of which I am a member (https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/) demonstrates, at the very least, that there needs to be a real, independent inquiry into what happened, and a serious official/legal investigation into the compelling evidence that the three buildings in New York were brought down by controlled demolition.
2) The strong, compelling scientific evidence showing that Big Pharma has completely controlled the regulatory response to COVID, suppressing more effective treatments than the fake "vaccine" that was pushed on people in the U.S. and around the world, and the growing body of evidence showing that the so-called vaccine actually causes more harm, adverse health impacts, and more mortality, than COVID itself. For this, there are many, many physicians, health-care practitioners, scientists and researchers who are doing the work and presenting credible, often peer-reviewed data and reports supporting this conclusion -- e.g., Peter McCullough, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Robert Malone, Pierre Khory, Aaron Kheriaty, Steve Kirsch (most of whom have Substacks), as well as the other experts who have presented evidence at the hearings conducted by Senator Ron Johnson, all of which are available on Rumble, and are well worth viewing.
To tackle either of these subjects is to invite more of the same derision upon yourself, but it will also help the people fighting the censorship/cancel culture regime reach critical mass and force real inquiry and debate on the merits of these issues. Please consider tackling these subjects in the New Year. Thank you for your consideration.
I also want to hear what liars are saying. It pays to know the directiob in which they are leading the flock.
I agree that the mainstream media does use truth at times. It cannot be avoided. The deception is in the use of half-truth. It's much more difficult to know what is being left out of the context. This is where independent journalism comes in.
So free speech should include the liars so they can expose themselves for what they are. They self-identify and then we can discount or at least scrutinize them as a habit. The side eye.
At a time within the memory of living men & women, Gore Vidal went to the trouble of pointing out "you never want to talk to an American audience about more than one idea ---it's okay to use more than one example to illustrate that idea ---but keep the number of illustrations to three, at most." For a change, Gore wasn't simply setting out to be clever ---he was dead serious. And smart people listened. So-- today we hear more or less smart folks talking about how you need to be with them [in the fight for "democracy"] or against them [fighting for something so unspeakably evil it's up to them to find a name for it]. All they need in defense of their thesis are three names --Chamberlain, Hitler and Churchill ---ready to be grafted into the appropriate sentences. As we all know --- no fate is too awful for a Hitler..... which is why, upon hearing Gaddafi had been knife raped to death, Hillary couldn't contain her giggles. And why no one had to take that other Hitler, Putin, seriously when he expressed horror over Hillary's reaction.
I want to personally thank the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN [I could go on with the list but you get the picture] for successfully shoving the level of the dialectic into the artificial turf.
As for labels it is incredible Glenn that you can say you do not like them on the one hand and then use them uncritically and incorrectly on the other:
“I consider Tucker Carlson to be a socialist,” Greenwald added.
I think the vision is, you know, you have this kind of right wing populism, which really is socialism, that says we should close our borders, not allow unconstrained immigration, and then take better care of our own working class people, and not allow this kind of transnational, global, corporatist elite to take everything for themselves under the guise of neoliberalism.
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait responded to Greenwald’s ideological assessment with a rebuttal column attacked the logic as flawed and superficial."
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/glenn-greenwald-describes-tucker-carlson-bannon-and-2016-era-trump-as-right-wing-socialists/
You cannot make it up.
And the kind of right wing or fascist populism we see is not socialist. Who told you to say that Glenn?
Huey Long was no socialist.
The only reason Hitler added the word Socialist to his National Socialist party was due to the amount of socialist movements at the time and it was an attraction element.
Jack London would be seen as a ethno nationalist socialist in 1914, the year he died.
You say you deplore such general terms and then use them incorrectly and without shame.
You’re reading…Jonathan Chait?
Also Glenn, Russia invaded Ukraine unjustifiably? Are they supposed to just let nato surround them? Shit, man. Unsubscribe.
This appears to be one of the few blind spots Glen has.
Military matters have never been his interest or his forté. I say this as someone who likes and respects Glenn and his work.
I posted the below a couple of days ago. AFAIK there is no way to link to a comment in this primitive backward comments system.
"Russia had good military, indeed, existential, reasons for invading the Ukraine.
Russia believes that America is planning a preemptive decapitation strike on Russia.
The ABMs being deployed all over are central to that mission.
The entire so called arms race was America trying to get nuclear primacy, with Russia simply countering. And now they (arguably) have it.
Russia knows all this. Most of the world, Americans in particular? Not at all. That's down to decades of some of the worlds most persistent and effective propaganda.
Russiagate was war propaganda.
#bigwarcoming"
You have a background in intelligence? You sound like you might.
I don’t see them go total destruction. There’s nothing to be gained from it and these people are motivated by greed. Nobody “wins” if they flip the chessboard. It’s as good as a concession anyways.
No, sir, but I have spent a lot of time, (decades) on this file.
I won't unsubscribe, but yeah. That's a very bad take.
I won’t either. That was a shit take for sure.
I am continually impressed by your POV and straightforward ability to bring solid examples to back up your reporting. Thank you.
Glenn, I am pleased with this program. It opens up the kind of discussion that needs to happen. Given my hearing, I am even more pleased to read a transcript. Thank you for both.
I interrupted my reading after your comment about the Democrats claiming the 2000 election was stolen.
I don't give much, if any, any credence to what the Democrats say about election losses. They are incapable of self-reflection. However, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court when they stopped the vote recount in Florida. I don't know if that should be called a theft or not.
I apologize that I don't have the links or details at hand, but if you look into it, using non-mainstream media, the decision by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court was based on rather radical constitutional and legal principles. See also the dissenting opinions of the minority justices.
I think the SCOTUS decision said you can't recount only some of the ballots. Pushing the "hanging chad" malarkey was just the beginning of the now predictable "the election was stolen" cry we hear from the losing party every election.
They went to hanging chads when the butterfly ballot BS wasn't working.
OG election deniers. This prevailing view that Gore would have definitely won if their had been a recount is also flawed. I attached an article from the Chicago Tribune from 20 years ago. Depending upon how a recount would have been conducted, they theorize that Bush wins some of the time and Gore wins some of the time. It isn't settled at all.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ballots-story.html
Radical constitutional and legal principles, like the 14th amendment should apply to all Florida voters?
No, not what I meant. Of course, the 14th amendment should apply to all voters. The problem is that the Supreme Court didn't seem to think that was important. The effect of their decision was to disenfranchise the voters whose ballots had not been counted.
If they Court had paid more attention to the 14th then they would have allowed the recount to continue. Later research indicated that Gore would have won Florida and the presidency. YMMV
Brother Jeb, as governor of Florida, had already put his thumb on the scales by disenfranchising a bunch of black and other minority voters who, it was assumed, would vote Democratic.
One can call all of that a theft of the election, but I think a better description is a soft coup by the Supreme Court.
I believe the earlier decision, you know the 7-2 one, dealt with exactly that, as the Florida Democrat Supreme Court judges were allowing different counties to count those elusive “hanging chads” different ways. The Supreme Court said equal protection required one standard. The 2nd part of the decision dealt with whether it was feasible for the counties to establish such a standard and count the votes in the remaining time, 2 days, I believe. A 5-4 majority on the Court basically said “You’ve screwed around long enough already, and we’re sick of your bullshit, first “butterfly” ballots, then hanging chads, after that what’s next?” The Court ended the charade. Whether Grow would have won if they had used a proper standard and recounted the votes, who knows? Its still open to debate. Maybe the Democrats wasted all their time chasing butterflies and Chads, and now they tell themselves bedtime stories about what coulda, woulda, shoulda been
Yes, the Democrats are very good at telling themselves fairy tales.
Maybe it wouldn't have been such a charade if we would just go back to hand-marked paper ballots, hand counted in public.
Sadly, that would require showing up, and we all know that's racist, ageist, and deceasist.
It doesn't matter who wins.
Apparently so. Just slightly alters the rate and method by which we devolve.
You're right, Bill. Political control remains with the Security State no matter who holds the office.
Yet, somehow, every four years, a new saviour arises in America.
That's my distinct belief after many decades of thought, research and observation.
US foreign policy for instance, never ever changes.
>> instead conditioned those payments on those people who wanted those payments, doing things like proving their children were vaccinated
Something something incentives, something something corruption
Sadly, this is my very concern about Ron DeSantis. I have an uneasiness about how he has tackled DC during COVID and instituted these wonderful policies making Florida such an attractive state. He is highly decorated military and obviously has Intelligence connections...
These pro-democracy and pro-Individual sovereignty programs in Florida may be just the cover to promote him as the next Trump. It would be (has been) easy to propagandize him as something “desired” by the American populace, to reign in the ideas instilled by President Trump.
That is Making America Great Again involves reigning in the Intelligence State and empowering American Individualism.
Even if DeSantis doesn’t run or doesn’t win the same thing happens. DeSantis can not win without resting 90%+ of President Trump’s supporters and everyone really knows that won’t happen (even with Trump’s support), so the very suggestion of a DeSantis opposing Trump will lead to the END of the Republican Party...
DeSantis is a CIA operation, whether he knows it or not.
Russia had good military, indeed, existential, reasons for invading the Ukraine.
Russia believes that America is planning a preemptive decapacitation strike on Russia.
The ABMs being deployed all over are central to that mission.
The entire so called arms race was America trying to get nuclear primacy, with Russia simply countering. And now they (arguably) have it.
Russia knows all this. Most of the world, Americans in particular? Not at all. That's down to decades of some of the worlds most persistent and effective propaganda.
Russiagate was war propaganda.
#bigwarcoming
Glenn,
I don't know if you will read this but if so you can pass this onto the powers that be at Rumble. I was in France before Christmas and tried to login to watch your show to receive the message that Rumble had withdrawn its services to France because the French government require the removal of certain voices, which I know know from Glenn's remarks refers to RT, from the Rumble platform. This message from Rumble is in English and not French so it would help if Rumble wrote this in French since it is aimed at French people. They won't rise up unless they can read the reason in their own language.
The general line on Chamberlain was that he was appeasing Hitler for the sake of peace. However, Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer. He toured a concentration camp and inspected the SS. We are to expect Chamberlain didn't know about what they were actually up to in Germany? Or we are to expect that he knew and still valued 'peace'? There were many Nazi sympathizers in the UK and the US. It's more likely Chamberlain was one of them. Giving the Czech sovereignty, gold and military to Germany gave them the tools to over run Europe.
No one, to my knowledge, in the Bush administration that outed Valerie Plame Wilson, has been charged with releasing information of a national security nature, and certainly not with releasing such information that endangered someone's life. This makes it even more obvious and disgusting that the prosecution of Snowden is political, as was Plame's unmasking as an undercover agent.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-exposure-of-valerie-plame/
1. It's shocking that you call Russia's actions unjustified. 2. I don't agree all countries lie to their people, ie. Cuba. 3. Maybe you could give some examples of RT giving false info. 4. Now I know why you don't call yourself Left. As a Marxist, I still proudly identify with that word.