The Brazilian firefighter, union leader, evangelical and ex-Congressman Cabo Daciolo was once embraced by the left, but is now vilified by them as a "hater" of LGBTs. Many vital lessons are here.
Thank you for posting this. As you say, there are many lessons here. As someone who has been a leftist all my life, I've come to similar conclusions myself over the past few years. Liberal used to mean open-minded, tolerance of opposing views, support for civil liberties and opposition to censorship. Now it means the opposite of all that. It's sad and disturbing to witness the degeneration of liberalism, and the so-called "Left." I have no problem being friends with people I don't agree with. If I only had friends who agreed with me 100% on every issue, I would be very lonely.
Best wishes for David's recovery, and a big hug to you, Glenn.
The two words may have different semantic meanings, but many people are both liberal and leftist. The two meanings are not mutually exclusive. It's not either/or. Both are shorthand linguistic labels, useful in some limited circumstances but also terribly un-useful and meaningless is many other situations, such as real life and human relationships, which is Glenn's point in this piece.
This confusion is why the phrase "classical liberal" has become popular. Wikipedia has a useful definition of "classical liberal": those who advocate and defend "civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech."
These days, the Libertarian Party is the only political faction representing classical liberalism.
Indeed, the language choices in use in the USA today - and the west generally - have long been manipulated for political gain. And, a single continuum of left vs right is simply not sufficiently descriptive. Even when we look at two axies, say adding an authoritarian and libertarian axis, a single person is often in very many places on that grid depending on the topic.
Liberal means you don't care if a squid wants to marry a Buick; believe in civil rights, equality for all; abortion should be legal up to the thirtieth month; legalizing street drugs; not attacking countries that haven't attacked us.
Leftist means spread the wealth, tax the rich, lift up people from poverty. Both Ls run along the same lines.
Gawd, I've probably posted that link a half dozen times here, but it's a fairly long and erudite article and covers the history of these terms being used in this conversation.
Abortion after birth is called murder, I have never known, or even heard of a “liberal” who thinks, let alone feels that murdering a human baby is OK. You are indeed one sick puppy.
In case you are unaware of reality normal gestation time is nine months, your contention of abortion where the baby is almost 2 years old is truly disgusting, you are a leftist not a liberal by showing you have absolutely no morals or human decency.
They are NOT liberals. Progressives stole the term "liberal" to hide what they were—their ugliness—after WW-2. Liberal means almost the opposite of what it has come to mean in the US. Think Classical Liberal (a term that was invented to indicate that one was a real liberal and not a neo liberal, read progressive, which was closely associated with policies mirroring Italian fascism).
I try to stay away from fights over semantics. Like, use whatever word you want as long as you are consistent. Really, IDC. But in modern politics, it seems that the powerful beneficiaries of the status quo have learned to use semantic confusion itself as a tool to divide and conquer the rest of us. Don't fall for the trap! An implicit lesson in GG's post is that we should all just quit with the political (and social) labeling, and instead focus our attention on timeless understandings of justice, and legal rights that apply *uniformly* to ALL individuals. *Principles*, NOT *tribes*. (And also re-learn that concentrated power is the enemy of these things -- something that the founders of the USA understood well.)
I trace the start of my disappointment with the civil dialogue to more than a decade ago when Glenn Beck would rant about the Nazis being Socialists. I'd always learned they were Fascists -- opposite end of the political spectrum. Beck would rant about power grabs by elected officials, while worse power grabs were being made by corporatists. The effect was that corporatists got an open field.
The Progressive Party was started by Theodore Roosevelt. Here's how he characterized his movement in The Progressive Principles:
"If on this new continent we merely build another country of great but unjustly divided material prosperity, we shall have done nothing; and we shall do as little if we merely set the greed of envy against the greed of arrogance, and thereby destroy the material well-being of all of us. To turn this government into either a government by a plutocracy or government by a mob would be to repeat on a larger scale the lamentable failures of a world that is dead."
Does that sound like a political philosophy to which you would object? And BTW, on corporatism, FDR had this to say:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Benito Mussolini said it better (translated, of course): "Fascism - which should be called corporatism - is the merger of state and business power, however achieved."
"Webster isn't always trustworthy" is an understatement. As popular politics goes, so goes the contemporary dictionary. I use the Random House American College Dictionary, the 1969 edition, and have been using it almost exclusively since then, tho I haven't looked up its definition of "Fascism" yet.
Many people have too much faith in the accuracy and veracity of dictionary definitions, and too many use dictionaries as authoritative, which is why stipulative definitions are necessary and dictionary definitions are debatable.
Consider the following contrasting definition (and comment) from Llewellyn H. Rockwell of the Mises institute:
"Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.
This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It’s true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed any more."
Also notice that a "police state" can function very efficiently without a "strongman" Mussolini-style figurehead (see the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand for a few contemporary examples). "Exalting nation and race" is mere window dressing, camouflage which is apparently no longer necessary as most people are willing to roll over for the police/executive state.
Excellent. Beautiful. Thank you! Especially the observation re. nation and race being window dressing.
Eve Smith has adopted the term Neofascism to describe the current American system. I think there is some value to making the distinction. Before coming across her term, I was calling it "Stealth Fascism." Not as good, but trying to get at the same idea, I think.
While that is a helpful start at a definition, I'll underscore Bull Hubbard's excellent reply by asking you this: If we go by Webster's criteria, how is it that Joseph Stalin was not a Fascist? Yet everyone believes Hitler was a Fascist but Stalin was a Socialist.
"National Socialism", what the Nazis called their political ideology. So, fascism is socialism, just another form similar to communism, that is to say TOTALITARIAN socialism and/or communism, not the egalitarian and/or utopian forms of same. In this case, though, because it is run by the "Fourth Reich", the globalists or global deep state shadow government, it is international rather than simply national, what the Third Reich desired but didn't attain because they were only meant to be a trial run for the "Fourth Reich" putsch today. They are literally, and quite successfully, taking over the ENTIRE world, not just a few countries, but the majority of them, if not eventually all of them.
With Catholicism being behind it all, as they supported Hitler (and so did, the U.S. and Britain, secretly), and Catholicism already "owning" most of the world's countries, it is relatively easier to bring it about, particularly with the inroads of the United Nations, etc., and global governance. It's all very stealthy, incremental and insidious. We are literally already under Orwell's "1984" in real life, being ratcheted-up little by little, more and more. Most people are wage-slaves, plugged-in, not interacting or standing for anything (certainly not True Liberty and Freedom), who hear nothing because they have their earphones on, and are glued to their modern-day "telescreens", programming them more and more to be mindless, shuffling-around-senselessly, automatons (think of the movie, "1984", and that's what we have today), and with everything they do, say and write being monitored by "Big Brother", using massive supercomputers. What it really comes down to is Satanism taking over completely, through global totalitarian socialism.
When an innocent journalist who disclosed the "Fourth Reich's" war crimes, Julian Assange, can be imprisoned falsely as a "spy" and "terrorist" (or "aider and abetter of 'terrorism'") by the actual, real terrorists, the global(ist) deep state shadow, international slave-state government, in a maximum security prison without a speedy trial, FOR YEARS, you know we and the entire world are frakked, being incrementally locked-down under totalitarian socialism, especially in the Western, so-called "democratic" countries, that we are already under the Big Brother "Fourth Reich", and that it is only going to get worse and worse, as we've seen for the past twenty years in particular.
Most Americans, Brits, Europeans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, etc., have been so effectively brainwashed, dumbed-down, programmed, stupefied and made so they won't stand up for True Freedom and Liberty, that they are clueless as to the prison fences and walls that are being built around them, imprisoning them; and, very much like Palestine, closing in around them, ethnically cleansing them, and gradually shrinking them into an ever more manageable mass-ghetto prison, preparing them to peacefully march to their own demise in the present-day concentration camps where they will be exterminated, and "love it". In short, most Westerners already love their mass-open-air imprisonment. They're already enslaved under totalitarian socialism, and don't know it.
Words have meanings, if you do not define their meaning when trying to have an intelligent conversation, then an intelligent conversation is impossible.
I agree that common definitions are important. In case you missed it, for these topics, here's a good place to start on the political labels in use in the USA today:
I am, by profession, intimately familiar with both the great need for, and the surprising difficulty of, nailing down precise definitions and a common understanding. Can you tell me what in my post makes you think otherwise?
To the contrary, one of my points was that the post to which I was replying was not being all that precise about the political label "progressive." Which is it, Theodore Roosevelt progressive, or Kamala Harris "progressive"? They are not the same. And when the term is used that loosely, one should avoid categorizing people with it.
Nope. Progressives are the GOOD guys, always were, always have been.
What's happened is that the Neo-Liberals, who HATE Progressives, as do their counterparts, the Neo-Conservatives, have simply attempted to coopt the term in order to stamp out GENUINE progressivism. For example, Hillary hilariously attempted to claim SHE is a Progressive during the 2016 campaign - I just about fell out of my chair laughing!
We'd best keep to the GENUINE definitions instead of propagandized ones. For a good read on that, try:
I believe 'Liberal' has an actual foundation to it, and 'Left' tends to be more of a fashion statement, supported more by students and Hollywood types.
I also believe that a global class has infiltrated the 'Left' and is marching the lemmings off the cliff.
This was a lovely article and I wish more of the 'Left' had the attention span to read it.
A few points: Your use of "left" is all pucked up - and it's not your fault, it's primarily the fault of the Neo-Liberals who have been trying to crush the genuine left by claiming the term. You're actually thinking of Neo-Liberals.
Further, this is just false: " 'Liberal' has an actual foundation to it, and 'Left' tends to be more of a fashion statement, " Please see the link I've already posted a half dozen times in this very thread! It covers the actual history of these terms and carries them through from inception to the present.
Liberalism has been defined and is now dying. Biden is Weimar. But people like Greenwald while seeking to stop debate about what he calls identity politics talks only about 'identity politics'.
Look at the posts. Any mention of public policy needs?
No, just adulation for Greenwald and a semantic walk through hell.
And he supports the Third Position, a very dangerous left-fascist alliance. Look at his history defending Nazis pro bono. Wonder of this comment too will be disappeared.
You pay fifty bucks to Greenwald and he censors your comments.
Beautiful and moving, Glenn. Thank you for your courage, for the perspective that flows from it and the principles you hold fast to. God bless your family, and may the love for acceptance of so many others that you inspire in so many give you and your family strength and comfort.
I believe this has all resulted from social media's support of adolescent and toxic interaction, coupled with anonymous trolling.
When I'm particularly depressed at what passes for journalism anymore I pull up some of the old Firing Line interviews with Buckley in which two incredibly diverse opinions will battle it out for 60 minutes in a very civil manner, both making valid points. Why can't someone resurrect a similar format for a future show?
"Why can't someone resurrect a similar format for a future show?"
The most likely answer is that the ultra-rich, who control the media, simply don't want genuine discussions of issues.
Discussions like that are invariably about public policy and public policy is the red-meat of politics. So, it seems clear that the powers that be - the self-proclaimed masters of mankind - don't think THEY need us thinking about genuine policy issues because maybe then they might be forced to either do what we want or cede some of their hoarded and coveted power.
In support of that, ever notice how candidates these days run on the hate or fear of "the other guy?" Frankly, most of the time, both the D and R candidates suck. Both "bases", on whole, feel somewhat forced into voting for a "lesser evil" candidate. ... That's less true for the Rs than the Ds in the last 10 years or so, but I hear it from just about everybody.
Note how rare it is that a candidate REALLY gets into POLICY during a campaign. It's so rare, we notice when it does happen. Typically there's ONE policy point that's usually (damned near 100% of the time) just a talking point that'll rally one's base and that they know they won't be able to deliver on later - or perhaps not care if they do or don't, and it might even be completely made up, such as the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 POTUS election.
Today’s political culture doesn’t allow for civil discussion. I too miss respectful debate, hearing both sides of an issue and determining which side presented the better case. Modern debate-if you can call it that-awards points and praise for hurling ad hominem attacks, derogatory terms ending in “ism” or “phobic” or beginning with “anti”, and shouting down the opposition. When the dust clears nothing is learned except that hatred and disrespect is alive and well. Our political parties and media enthusiastically encourage it. Most of us know the world presented on TV is vastly different than what we experience daily, yet there are so many of our fellow countrymen who prefer to live in “Reality TV” land.
Glenn, this is Xanthro from Salon.com. You and I used to spar (that is a polite way of putting it) in the comments section.
I'm very sorry to hear about your spouse. I have gone through something very similar, ICU for months, endless surgeries and coma. I've developed an extensive contact list of specialists at UCLA Medical, and if there is anything you need, I'm willing to help.
Sometimes it's helpful just to know what to expect, and that medical setbacks are common, but do not preclude a final positive outcome.
Thanks for the empathetic message and offer to help. I may take you up on it, though we were lucky enough to have some connected people arrange some of the best specialists in the US who have been helping from the start (including one at Cedar-Sinai in LA). And David has a great medical team in Brazil, too. I still have very high hopes for and confidence in David's recovery. It's just exhausting because we thought we were past the worst parts and we saw him getting better, and then had to endure a full week of setbacks and complications that have the potential to be dangerous, but it seems so far things have been working themselves out and he'll be back on the recovery path soon. Thanks again. If you want to drop me an email, that'd be appreciated. Sorry to hear what you went through: i know how tough it is.
Glenn, is David taking the supplement, NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine)? It is indicated to combat the insidious effects of graphene oxide (I'll bet his doctors haven't blood-tested him for that) in the "vaccines", if David has been "vaccinated". Quercetin is also an important supplement in responding to the harmful effects of the "vaccines". All of nothing but the very best to you and yours.
I went back to Salon a while back where I noticed that all our comments, arguments, insults and expositions in reply to Glenn's articles - comments that Glenn has always said he valued tremendously, are now gone.
That happened to me at Twitter too, where I was banned for life and where everything I ever said there has been completely eradicated forever.
“Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you; not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.”
Salon went to a new commenting system, and didn't bring over any of the previous comments. Last I checked, the old ones still existed, but you needed the older links. I'll see if I can find one of the links.
Everyone's comments on the old system were orphaned and became pretty hard to find.
You and your family have been on my mind since you announced David’s illness. What a heavy load you carry now, but you are strong, brave, and important. So do your best as you always do. I wish I was close in proximity to do what old ladies do best.....bring casseroles to families who are experiencing medical crisis. Glad you took the time to tell the beautiful story of an unlikely friendship, and the importance and wisdom of working together for understanding and for the good of the country.
I suppose the fundamental, slightly old-fashioned point, is that however passionately we believe something, we might be wrong, and so if we meet a decent person who believes something else, we should respect, and then reflect. It doesn’t mean we were wrong but, at the very least, why might they feel differently? Reducing human complexity to playground binary is hardly a basis for progress…
With respect, I don’t quite agree with your description of or reference to the “fundamental, slightly old-fashioned point.” Taking Mr Greenwald’s descriptions of Cabo Daciolo at face value, Daciolo supports and shows love for David Miranda and prays for him not because he (Daciolo) thinks he might be wrong about “same-sex marriage”, etc.
If you were to ask Daciolo whether he thinks he might be wrong about such issues, and whether that is the reason why he relates to Miranda the way he does, I believe he would answer both questions with an emphatic “No”. It is Daciolo’s adherence to the Gospels, as he understands them, that explains his behavior, not some doubt about their validity. I believe this is one of the main points that Greenwald makes.
I guess you're right although the "old-fashioned" principle that Richard Beale mentioned remains worthwhile too. And I am not entirely sure that the Gospels themselves deserve the entire credit for the humane way that Daciolo understands them.
If only this sentiment could be sincerely embraced by the left and the right. Maybe David and Cabo’s friendship will be that catalyst. Hoping David will experience a complete recovery. He is needed by family and friends.
Thank you Glenn for taking time to write, and yes, you are entirely right - the left has been highjacked by globalist powers and no longer supports workers or legitimate ecological concerns, but only divisive identity politics, depopulation, and in fact many overtly fascistic policies.
I used to comment on WAPO, and honestly was amazed by the conformity of thought, so opposite of Liberal, Progressive or even Left, just plain old identity conformity.
It's a shame .
My thoughts of peace to you , your husband and kids .
This is very moving and meaningful in the context of today's discourse. A perspective we should all be more mindful of. Thank you, and I wish your husband as rapid a recovery as possible.
Please don't worry about your professional obligations. Anyone familiar with your writing should know that your sense of responsibility for your work far outweighs anyone else's expectations of you. No one is concerned about that. Take care of yourself and your kids.
Thank you for posting this. As you say, there are many lessons here. As someone who has been a leftist all my life, I've come to similar conclusions myself over the past few years. Liberal used to mean open-minded, tolerance of opposing views, support for civil liberties and opposition to censorship. Now it means the opposite of all that. It's sad and disturbing to witness the degeneration of liberalism, and the so-called "Left." I have no problem being friends with people I don't agree with. If I only had friends who agreed with me 100% on every issue, I would be very lonely.
Best wishes for David's recovery, and a big hug to you, Glenn.
Rob, there is a vast difference between “leftist” and “liberal” I wonder which you really are, a leftist or a liberal.
Blessings
The two words may have different semantic meanings, but many people are both liberal and leftist. The two meanings are not mutually exclusive. It's not either/or. Both are shorthand linguistic labels, useful in some limited circumstances but also terribly un-useful and meaningless is many other situations, such as real life and human relationships, which is Glenn's point in this piece.
This confusion is why the phrase "classical liberal" has become popular. Wikipedia has a useful definition of "classical liberal": those who advocate and defend "civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech."
These days, the Libertarian Party is the only political faction representing classical liberalism.
Indeed, the language choices in use in the USA today - and the west generally - have long been manipulated for political gain. And, a single continuum of left vs right is simply not sufficiently descriptive. Even when we look at two axies, say adding an authoritarian and libertarian axis, a single person is often in very many places on that grid depending on the topic.
There have been several attempts at improving this and it's also a topic in the article I've already been pointing to - namely: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
I'm both of those Ls. And a sprinkling of a third L, "Libertarian," thrown in.
No, you are just confused. Leftist and liberal ( their meaning) are mutually exclusive terms.
Liberal means you don't care if a squid wants to marry a Buick; believe in civil rights, equality for all; abortion should be legal up to the thirtieth month; legalizing street drugs; not attacking countries that haven't attacked us.
Leftist means spread the wealth, tax the rich, lift up people from poverty. Both Ls run along the same lines.
Actually, historically, liberals and leftists were strongly opposed. And, again, it's in this article:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Gawd, I've probably posted that link a half dozen times here, but it's a fairly long and erudite article and covers the history of these terms being used in this conversation.
Abortion after birth is called murder, I have never known, or even heard of a “liberal” who thinks, let alone feels that murdering a human baby is OK. You are indeed one sick puppy.
In case you are unaware of reality normal gestation time is nine months, your contention of abortion where the baby is almost 2 years old is truly disgusting, you are a leftist not a liberal by showing you have absolutely no morals or human decency.
They are NOT liberals. Progressives stole the term "liberal" to hide what they were—their ugliness—after WW-2. Liberal means almost the opposite of what it has come to mean in the US. Think Classical Liberal (a term that was invented to indicate that one was a real liberal and not a neo liberal, read progressive, which was closely associated with policies mirroring Italian fascism).
I try to stay away from fights over semantics. Like, use whatever word you want as long as you are consistent. Really, IDC. But in modern politics, it seems that the powerful beneficiaries of the status quo have learned to use semantic confusion itself as a tool to divide and conquer the rest of us. Don't fall for the trap! An implicit lesson in GG's post is that we should all just quit with the political (and social) labeling, and instead focus our attention on timeless understandings of justice, and legal rights that apply *uniformly* to ALL individuals. *Principles*, NOT *tribes*. (And also re-learn that concentrated power is the enemy of these things -- something that the founders of the USA understood well.)
I trace the start of my disappointment with the civil dialogue to more than a decade ago when Glenn Beck would rant about the Nazis being Socialists. I'd always learned they were Fascists -- opposite end of the political spectrum. Beck would rant about power grabs by elected officials, while worse power grabs were being made by corporatists. The effect was that corporatists got an open field.
The Progressive Party was started by Theodore Roosevelt. Here's how he characterized his movement in The Progressive Principles:
"If on this new continent we merely build another country of great but unjustly divided material prosperity, we shall have done nothing; and we shall do as little if we merely set the greed of envy against the greed of arrogance, and thereby destroy the material well-being of all of us. To turn this government into either a government by a plutocracy or government by a mob would be to repeat on a larger scale the lamentable failures of a world that is dead."
Does that sound like a political philosophy to which you would object? And BTW, on corporatism, FDR had this to say:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Merriam-Webster defines Fascism well:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Benito Mussolini said it better (translated, of course): "Fascism - which should be called corporatism - is the merger of state and business power, however achieved."
Webster isn't always trustworthy.
"Webster isn't always trustworthy" is an understatement. As popular politics goes, so goes the contemporary dictionary. I use the Random House American College Dictionary, the 1969 edition, and have been using it almost exclusively since then, tho I haven't looked up its definition of "Fascism" yet.
Many people have too much faith in the accuracy and veracity of dictionary definitions, and too many use dictionaries as authoritative, which is why stipulative definitions are necessary and dictionary definitions are debatable.
Consider the following contrasting definition (and comment) from Llewellyn H. Rockwell of the Mises institute:
"Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.
This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It’s true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed any more."
Also notice that a "police state" can function very efficiently without a "strongman" Mussolini-style figurehead (see the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand for a few contemporary examples). "Exalting nation and race" is mere window dressing, camouflage which is apparently no longer necessary as most people are willing to roll over for the police/executive state.
Excellent. Beautiful. Thank you! Especially the observation re. nation and race being window dressing.
Eve Smith has adopted the term Neofascism to describe the current American system. I think there is some value to making the distinction. Before coming across her term, I was calling it "Stealth Fascism." Not as good, but trying to get at the same idea, I think.
At least on these points, we agree!
While that is a helpful start at a definition, I'll underscore Bull Hubbard's excellent reply by asking you this: If we go by Webster's criteria, how is it that Joseph Stalin was not a Fascist? Yet everyone believes Hitler was a Fascist but Stalin was a Socialist.
"National Socialism", what the Nazis called their political ideology. So, fascism is socialism, just another form similar to communism, that is to say TOTALITARIAN socialism and/or communism, not the egalitarian and/or utopian forms of same. In this case, though, because it is run by the "Fourth Reich", the globalists or global deep state shadow government, it is international rather than simply national, what the Third Reich desired but didn't attain because they were only meant to be a trial run for the "Fourth Reich" putsch today. They are literally, and quite successfully, taking over the ENTIRE world, not just a few countries, but the majority of them, if not eventually all of them.
With Catholicism being behind it all, as they supported Hitler (and so did, the U.S. and Britain, secretly), and Catholicism already "owning" most of the world's countries, it is relatively easier to bring it about, particularly with the inroads of the United Nations, etc., and global governance. It's all very stealthy, incremental and insidious. We are literally already under Orwell's "1984" in real life, being ratcheted-up little by little, more and more. Most people are wage-slaves, plugged-in, not interacting or standing for anything (certainly not True Liberty and Freedom), who hear nothing because they have their earphones on, and are glued to their modern-day "telescreens", programming them more and more to be mindless, shuffling-around-senselessly, automatons (think of the movie, "1984", and that's what we have today), and with everything they do, say and write being monitored by "Big Brother", using massive supercomputers. What it really comes down to is Satanism taking over completely, through global totalitarian socialism.
When an innocent journalist who disclosed the "Fourth Reich's" war crimes, Julian Assange, can be imprisoned falsely as a "spy" and "terrorist" (or "aider and abetter of 'terrorism'") by the actual, real terrorists, the global(ist) deep state shadow, international slave-state government, in a maximum security prison without a speedy trial, FOR YEARS, you know we and the entire world are frakked, being incrementally locked-down under totalitarian socialism, especially in the Western, so-called "democratic" countries, that we are already under the Big Brother "Fourth Reich", and that it is only going to get worse and worse, as we've seen for the past twenty years in particular.
Most Americans, Brits, Europeans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, etc., have been so effectively brainwashed, dumbed-down, programmed, stupefied and made so they won't stand up for True Freedom and Liberty, that they are clueless as to the prison fences and walls that are being built around them, imprisoning them; and, very much like Palestine, closing in around them, ethnically cleansing them, and gradually shrinking them into an ever more manageable mass-ghetto prison, preparing them to peacefully march to their own demise in the present-day concentration camps where they will be exterminated, and "love it". In short, most Westerners already love their mass-open-air imprisonment. They're already enslaved under totalitarian socialism, and don't know it.
Words have meanings, if you do not define their meaning when trying to have an intelligent conversation, then an intelligent conversation is impossible.
I agree that common definitions are important. In case you missed it, for these topics, here's a good place to start on the political labels in use in the USA today:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Exactly. But we tend to use terms in such a way that we think people have the same definition as we do.
It is Socratically necessary to ask people to define their terms and to do the same for the definition becomes the criteria.
I am, by profession, intimately familiar with both the great need for, and the surprising difficulty of, nailing down precise definitions and a common understanding. Can you tell me what in my post makes you think otherwise?
To the contrary, one of my points was that the post to which I was replying was not being all that precise about the political label "progressive." Which is it, Theodore Roosevelt progressive, or Kamala Harris "progressive"? They are not the same. And when the term is used that loosely, one should avoid categorizing people with it.
Kamala Harris is no more a Progressive than I'm from Alpha Centari.
Just because someone calls themself something doesn't mean they ARE that thing. People should remember that!
Let's keep to the NON-Propagandized definitions, shall we? (I at least try and also try and help others do the same.)
Great quotes, thanks, and you aren't wrong in your own statements!
While ya'all are playing scrabble the ruling class is organizing an international fascist movement.
Ever think of organizing instead of journalist celebrity worship?
WOAH BABY! HOLD THE PHONE!
Nope. Progressives are the GOOD guys, always were, always have been.
What's happened is that the Neo-Liberals, who HATE Progressives, as do their counterparts, the Neo-Conservatives, have simply attempted to coopt the term in order to stamp out GENUINE progressivism. For example, Hillary hilariously attempted to claim SHE is a Progressive during the 2016 campaign - I just about fell out of my chair laughing!
We'd best keep to the GENUINE definitions instead of propagandized ones. For a good read on that, try:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
I believe 'Liberal' has an actual foundation to it, and 'Left' tends to be more of a fashion statement, supported more by students and Hollywood types.
I also believe that a global class has infiltrated the 'Left' and is marching the lemmings off the cliff.
This was a lovely article and I wish more of the 'Left' had the attention span to read it.
A few points: Your use of "left" is all pucked up - and it's not your fault, it's primarily the fault of the Neo-Liberals who have been trying to crush the genuine left by claiming the term. You're actually thinking of Neo-Liberals.
Further, this is just false: " 'Liberal' has an actual foundation to it, and 'Left' tends to be more of a fashion statement, " Please see the link I've already posted a half dozen times in this very thread! It covers the actual history of these terms and carries them through from inception to the present.
Greenwald is a fomenter of the Third Position. Look it up, know it for it is very, very dangerous.
I looked it up. I think you are entirely wrong on this concerning Greenwald.
Liberal still means all that, but the dems have walked away from almost everything that they once (kind of, sometimes) stood for.
Liberalism has been defined and is now dying. Biden is Weimar. But people like Greenwald while seeking to stop debate about what he calls identity politics talks only about 'identity politics'.
Look at the posts. Any mention of public policy needs?
No, just adulation for Greenwald and a semantic walk through hell.
Big hug to you and yours Glenn.
All of this semantic bickering has led us down the road to fascism and Greenwald though he says he abhors this discussion, won't stop.
You rarely hear him speak of issues of class.
He is a grift.
And he supports the Third Position, a very dangerous left-fascist alliance. Look at his history defending Nazis pro bono. Wonder of this comment too will be disappeared.
You pay fifty bucks to Greenwald and he censors your comments.
That is what we call progreessive
Beautiful and moving, Glenn. Thank you for your courage, for the perspective that flows from it and the principles you hold fast to. God bless your family, and may the love for acceptance of so many others that you inspire in so many give you and your family strength and comfort.
Yeah, Greenwald is now getting the high fives by born agains.
He was always overrated but now is comedy.
This may be the most important piece Glenn has ever published.
Certainly one of most deeply personal.
I believe this has all resulted from social media's support of adolescent and toxic interaction, coupled with anonymous trolling.
When I'm particularly depressed at what passes for journalism anymore I pull up some of the old Firing Line interviews with Buckley in which two incredibly diverse opinions will battle it out for 60 minutes in a very civil manner, both making valid points. Why can't someone resurrect a similar format for a future show?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMv4XsL-1lU&t=2834s
"Why can't someone resurrect a similar format for a future show?"
The most likely answer is that the ultra-rich, who control the media, simply don't want genuine discussions of issues.
Discussions like that are invariably about public policy and public policy is the red-meat of politics. So, it seems clear that the powers that be - the self-proclaimed masters of mankind - don't think THEY need us thinking about genuine policy issues because maybe then they might be forced to either do what we want or cede some of their hoarded and coveted power.
In support of that, ever notice how candidates these days run on the hate or fear of "the other guy?" Frankly, most of the time, both the D and R candidates suck. Both "bases", on whole, feel somewhat forced into voting for a "lesser evil" candidate. ... That's less true for the Rs than the Ds in the last 10 years or so, but I hear it from just about everybody.
Note how rare it is that a candidate REALLY gets into POLICY during a campaign. It's so rare, we notice when it does happen. Typically there's ONE policy point that's usually (damned near 100% of the time) just a talking point that'll rally one's base and that they know they won't be able to deliver on later - or perhaps not care if they do or don't, and it might even be completely made up, such as the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 POTUS election.
Today’s political culture doesn’t allow for civil discussion. I too miss respectful debate, hearing both sides of an issue and determining which side presented the better case. Modern debate-if you can call it that-awards points and praise for hurling ad hominem attacks, derogatory terms ending in “ism” or “phobic” or beginning with “anti”, and shouting down the opposition. When the dust clears nothing is learned except that hatred and disrespect is alive and well. Our political parties and media enthusiastically encourage it. Most of us know the world presented on TV is vastly different than what we experience daily, yet there are so many of our fellow countrymen who prefer to live in “Reality TV” land.
Really? Buckley, who fawned over J Edgar Hoover and the CIA, lost it when Gore Vidal called him a crypto-Nazi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU8poEKj3Kk
Why?
Glenn, this is Xanthro from Salon.com. You and I used to spar (that is a polite way of putting it) in the comments section.
I'm very sorry to hear about your spouse. I have gone through something very similar, ICU for months, endless surgeries and coma. I've developed an extensive contact list of specialists at UCLA Medical, and if there is anything you need, I'm willing to help.
Sometimes it's helpful just to know what to expect, and that medical setbacks are common, but do not preclude a final positive outcome.
Thanks for the empathetic message and offer to help. I may take you up on it, though we were lucky enough to have some connected people arrange some of the best specialists in the US who have been helping from the start (including one at Cedar-Sinai in LA). And David has a great medical team in Brazil, too. I still have very high hopes for and confidence in David's recovery. It's just exhausting because we thought we were past the worst parts and we saw him getting better, and then had to endure a full week of setbacks and complications that have the potential to be dangerous, but it seems so far things have been working themselves out and he'll be back on the recovery path soon. Thanks again. If you want to drop me an email, that'd be appreciated. Sorry to hear what you went through: i know how tough it is.
Glenn, is David taking the supplement, NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine)? It is indicated to combat the insidious effects of graphene oxide (I'll bet his doctors haven't blood-tested him for that) in the "vaccines", if David has been "vaccinated". Quercetin is also an important supplement in responding to the harmful effects of the "vaccines". All of nothing but the very best to you and yours.
I went back to Salon a while back where I noticed that all our comments, arguments, insults and expositions in reply to Glenn's articles - comments that Glenn has always said he valued tremendously, are now gone.
That happened to me at Twitter too, where I was banned for life and where everything I ever said there has been completely eradicated forever.
“Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you; not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.”
― George Orwell
Salon went to a new commenting system, and didn't bring over any of the previous comments. Last I checked, the old ones still existed, but you needed the older links. I'll see if I can find one of the links.
Everyone's comments on the old system were orphaned and became pretty hard to find.
Thanks, good to know they still exist, even if effectively, they do not.
You can be sure the NSA has them!
I hope that the same will be true some day for Salon, Twitter, YouTube, CNN, etc.
Keep your OWN archive!
I remember you! Sorry for your troubles.
I enjoyed reading this immensely. I continue to pray for your husband's recovery. You are one of the bravest people in the Media.
Yes! Speaking truth to power, in both Brazil and the U.S., is both difficult and dangerous. Few are willing to take the risks.
Thank you for sharing. I am praying for David and your entire family. God Bless You 💙
You and your family have been on my mind since you announced David’s illness. What a heavy load you carry now, but you are strong, brave, and important. So do your best as you always do. I wish I was close in proximity to do what old ladies do best.....bring casseroles to families who are experiencing medical crisis. Glad you took the time to tell the beautiful story of an unlikely friendship, and the importance and wisdom of working together for understanding and for the good of the country.
I suppose the fundamental, slightly old-fashioned point, is that however passionately we believe something, we might be wrong, and so if we meet a decent person who believes something else, we should respect, and then reflect. It doesn’t mean we were wrong but, at the very least, why might they feel differently? Reducing human complexity to playground binary is hardly a basis for progress…
I believe Chesterton is quoted saying, "It is not bigotry to believe I am right. It is bigotry if I am unable to imagine how I could be wrong."
With respect, I don’t quite agree with your description of or reference to the “fundamental, slightly old-fashioned point.” Taking Mr Greenwald’s descriptions of Cabo Daciolo at face value, Daciolo supports and shows love for David Miranda and prays for him not because he (Daciolo) thinks he might be wrong about “same-sex marriage”, etc.
If you were to ask Daciolo whether he thinks he might be wrong about such issues, and whether that is the reason why he relates to Miranda the way he does, I believe he would answer both questions with an emphatic “No”. It is Daciolo’s adherence to the Gospels, as he understands them, that explains his behavior, not some doubt about their validity. I believe this is one of the main points that Greenwald makes.
I guess you're right although the "old-fashioned" principle that Richard Beale mentioned remains worthwhile too. And I am not entirely sure that the Gospels themselves deserve the entire credit for the humane way that Daciolo understands them.
Holy hell, glad to hear from you again, Mr. Greenwald.
If only this sentiment could be sincerely embraced by the left and the right. Maybe David and Cabo’s friendship will be that catalyst. Hoping David will experience a complete recovery. He is needed by family and friends.
Thank you Glenn for taking time to write, and yes, you are entirely right - the left has been highjacked by globalist powers and no longer supports workers or legitimate ecological concerns, but only divisive identity politics, depopulation, and in fact many overtly fascistic policies.
This is such a perfect metaphor for the nasty divisions being stoked by the Western left in many countries. Tribal affiliations trump all.
For. me, there is no "Left" left.
I used to comment on WAPO, and honestly was amazed by the conformity of thought, so opposite of Liberal, Progressive or even Left, just plain old identity conformity.
It's a shame .
My thoughts of peace to you , your husband and kids .
This is very moving and meaningful in the context of today's discourse. A perspective we should all be more mindful of. Thank you, and I wish your husband as rapid a recovery as possible.
Please don't worry about your professional obligations. Anyone familiar with your writing should know that your sense of responsibility for your work far outweighs anyone else's expectations of you. No one is concerned about that. Take care of yourself and your kids.
Wow, if I could be dictator for a day I would require everyone in the USA to read this writing.
Welcome back, Glenn ❗️
... continued prayers from me for your husband.