In the U.S. corporate media, the surest way to advance is to loyally spread lies and deceit from the U.S. security state. Bertrand is just the latest example.
Her being 28 yo is part of the problem. It took me years and years of practice before I was able to become a competent dentist and gunslinger. Nothing, but nothing, can make up for experience. And she has precious little of it.
I'd feel much better if all our media were cynical 55 yo chain-smoking men.
In defense of younger people, John, I will point out that many older people react the exact same way as these younger female journalists do, and many older people in politics and journalism make the same errors as the younger ones do and do not display thicker skins. I concur that experience is important, but mere quantity of time in a certain business often does not guarantee thickness of skin or learning to do the right thing. Some people are natural critical thinkers or developed a lot of worldly experience beginning at a younger age. Just saying, my friend.
No, no, you were just providing a public service, giving her the opportunity to show her fans that she could take what she was dishing. Or, it's live by the "sword,".... Either way, I think she's toast.
Wow, Glenn - you've certainly generated a healthy dose of hate tweets! I loved how Taylor Lorenz tries to brush you off, like she's too big for you. Hilarious and cringe-worthy. I think they hate you so much because they know deep down that you're right. You're calling them out for destroying Journalism, and because the criticism is spot-on, and coming from heavyweights like you, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Tracey, it hurts them bone-deep. Because they are on the younger side (except for the middle-aged Taylor Lorenz), they use magical thinking to turn themselves into victims. Probably victims of violence - violence perpetrated on them by you! You hurt their feelings, after all! Again, hilarious and cringe-worthy reactions from the Twitterverse.
Clearly most posters on these threads are anti free speech and anti reality. It's dismaying to scroll through so much hate. Does no one understand what Glenn is doing his best to communicate?
They *do* know what Glenn is trying to communicate, which is precisely why they get so angry at him. He is a threat to their anti-free speech and anti-reality agenda, plain and simple.
What's to criticize about Tulsi Gabbard? She's brilliant, pragmatic, advocated for the same basic social programs that Europe and Scandinavia enjoys, and most importantly, as a veteran military officer she spoke against the carnage created by US interventionist foreign policy.
My main problem with her is anti-2a. I care about 4 things - free speech, right to bear arms, anti-forever wars, anti-critical race theory/identity politics. I am willing to compromise or even have discussions on shit like taxes and health care. But I don't entertain anyone against 1A or 2A.
But Ms. Gabbard, imo, isn't a gun-grabber at heart. I could be wrong, but I think she would "modify." Look, she certainly isn't a "culture" warrior. She isn't the typical Democrat. She is an out-sider. We should welcome her type with open arms, imo.
Well well another DNC PR piece in a comment section showing the lies of the media and the DNC.
Tulsi got called a russian then shut her damned mouth until she was told to open it again. F her. Another lifer politician who puts party above people.
Megyn Kelly is an opportunist - I put her in same bucket as Ben Shapiro. She started speaking out against identity politics ONLY when she herself became a victim after her unfair firing. But she was willing to exploit it for her advantage with Trump during the 2016 debates.
Back in 2016, nobody had heard of CRT and identity politics. What are you talking about? Besides, if you can't tolerate her, you will not tolerate anyone else on this side of the spectrum. Which is all we need. More infighting. Trump was an idiot to attack her. He accomplished nothing by that. Just made himself more popular to a rightwing minority and unpopular with moderates.
No, their critics get to claim they engage in self-loathing, or have squandered the gains made during second wave feminism, elevating themselves at the pleasure of and to profit powerful white men. These women are the worst sellouts of all and must therefor be treated with extreme prejudice.
The world would be a better and safer place if Tulsi Gabbard were president. To watch her brilliant performance during the one debate they allowed her on in which she humiliated Kamala Harris by stating her public record of being a cruel prosecutor, and also had the courage to speak on foreign policy which Sanders has to this day avoided and then watch the DNC and the liberal media destroy her campaign was painful.
I seriously wish she would sit down with some people from the gun owners community and get her views on 2A challenged. She seems to have a functioning brain, just can't stand anyone anti-2a.
Are you high? She bended the knee and endorsed a lifelong politician warmonger police stater in Joe Biden about 2 weeks after her own party used McCarthyism on her.
Shes a joke like Bernie and proved she can toe the line like a good little jackboot.
Ashli Babbitt is the 3 time Air Force veteran who got shot at Capitol Hill on Jan 6th while the politicians who sent her overseas to fight wars for them hid under desks.
It's like they planned it. I can just hear the planning: "Ok, look guys, we need someone to get it early on, so it will appear serious enough for us to use it."
The Twitter comment about how Snowden will be living in what sounds like a 1980s vision of the Soviet Union is interesting. You can easily jump on Google Earth and “roam” the streets of any Russian town or city and get a decent view of what a lot of people’s living arrangements are. They do seem to incorporate wildflowers into their landscaping a lot. The horrors!
I think they'd probably not be happy with the result. We might or might not "win" by some morbid definition, but their Twitter dream world would be gone forever.
Absolutely fascinating to see these these twitter wars. There is a lone voice here and there asking to evaluate the arguments on their merits (what Glenn actually wrote and if true or not), but the vast majority just steamrolls over and is endlessly about gender, age, who has the "right" to call out whom - all about the woke pecking order and "hierarchy of oppression", nothing about the actual facts.
These twitter comments are all part of a manufactured propaganda framework, some comments intentionally seeded by malicious actors, others from those gullible enough to be hoodwinked by the seeded comments.
It's as though the reaction is fully scripted in advance. Probably just have the plug the variable into the old computer and the tweets and articles write themselves.
Excellent take-down of the pervasive "alternate-fact" purveyors and their masters. Would really enjoy reading your take on this morning's Senate sub-committee hearing on social-media algorithms; especially the testimony of the 'ethics' witness Mr. Harris.
Do those hearings ever achieve anything? All I have been seeing for past decade is hearings and grandstanding but nobody ever gets held accountable. And if they really get working, they make things worse.
For those of us that are interested in gaining a better understanding of the causes and possible solutions to our society's problems, we have learned to ignore the partisan "grandstanding" and focus on the substantive discourse of both those on the dais and at the witness desk. Hapless complaining and repetitive criticisms of the bad actors, within or outside of government, are not the stuff of productive achievement on our part either.
I wish republican politicians or even Bernie had the balls like Glenn does when they get called mean words. Right now, they run at the very first sight of someone calls them some mean word and they give up their principles.
no. you now what disgusts me? people like john mccain and mitt romney stabbing us in the back and selling us out for 30 years, just for a few belly rubs and head pats from the beltway news cycle.
my metaphor was disgusting, because these people are disgusting. we've played nice for three decades and been crapped on every step of the way. I'm done with that shit and I have no patience for those that still think you can convince lying traitors to be your friend.
DC beltway attracts power mongers and other assorted psychopaths like moths to a flame. the most evil among us are in positions of power. this must be reversed.
Let's be clear, we aren't talking about journalists. That's not the line of work.
This is counter-intelligence.
As William Casey allegedly said: "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
Operation Mockingbird was discovered and documented by Congress' Church Committee in 1975; that program placed CIA operatives in high positions throughout mainstream media.
NOTHING was done to ensure this did not continue.
Treating CNN or NPR or FOX or any of that as "news" or "journalism" is like calling our actions in Vietnam or Iraq or West Africa during the slave trade "humanitarian." It is a pretense that should be abandoned.
Our narrative is being constructed; our enemies labeled; our heroes fabricated; our consent manufactured. Glenn and others have documented this ad nauseum for years. This is not, as people often claim, corporations making shit up because "it sells." It doesn't. The "news" part of these media empires is spittle in a bucket of profits; its value is in its ability to shape the world for the other, more profitable ventures.
Our mainstream media empire is an intelligence asset. Full stop. And "reporters" like Natasha Bertrand and Rachel Maddow are either direct employees or themselves assets. They aren't arrogant. They aren't bad journalists. They aren't lazy or unprofessional. They do a job and they do it reasonably well. It's just a different job than most Americans believe.
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling.
I don't believe that that 73-76% represents media "trust," but instead the approval of today's media "capture" by the State. Of course, both interprets are astoundingly alarming.
Glenn's invaluable; when he gets shut down, then we'll know the whip has really come down.
Normally, I don't give many people money; I figure I deserve my dollars more than anyone else. I made Glenn one of the exceptions -- and I'm glad I did.
Same here. I don't even agree with him that often but a clear, unalloyed voice is almost completely missing in the current landscape and has to be supported.
I don't ever want to find myself in an echo chamber, and Sullivan is my guarantee that I won't. I agree with him less frequently than I agree with Matt or Glenn, but that's exactly why I pay for his reporting.
I am disappointed in Sullivan. He knows how to remain calm and rational and make good arguments. Decades ago I remember reading his article on the conservative's arguments for gay marriage. He changed my opinion on the matter. He just lets himself become unhinged when it comes to Trump and his supporters.
I'm also partial to Sharyl Attkisson. She has an interesting way of learning things. She finds people involved in issues, asks them questions, and then reports her findings. It's like she really wants to learn what someone has to say. Extraordinary!
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are great too - a Canadian lawyer and an American lawyer. Their weekly live streams are outstanding. I pay for their Locals board membership too.
Same here. Add Taibbi and McWhorter. Funny thing is I wouldn't agree with half their policy positions, but am proud to support those who are willing to speak up and who stand up for those great planks this whole experiment rides on. I also recently bought a CD (I'll likely never play!) from a rapper...I don't even like rap, but Tom MacDonald has some hard hitting work on YouTube. Another voice who should be rewarded for having the stones to take the heat and speak up.
Same here. Hate rap. However, I listen to each of Tom MacDonald’s songs at least once and send him money simply because he has the integrity to call it all out. He also is self supporting and has spurned the recording industry vultures.
I truly don't understand why there are only about three journalists who will call this kind of garbage out. The rest of them know that they're despised and no one trusts anything that they say, why don't they care? Even prostitutes take pride in their profession, why not the presstitutes?
Keep smearing their noses in it, Glenn. Maybe someday they'll clean up their broken industry, but I sincerely doubt it. There's too much money to be made by selling lies.
Deep down most "journalists" such as Natasha Bertrand, Rachel Maddow, et al understand their role is as propagandists for the deep state, although they would never admit to it. As crazy and naive as it sounds, I think Natasha and her ilk in the msm truly believe the spin/disinformation they convey on a daily basis is for the greater good.
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling. And since 95% of media is registered democrats, they are doing exactly what their base is buying.
Idk, I am right leaning but I don't watch/trust FOX either. Fox may have a few right leaning hosts but outside the 8pm-11pm window, they aren't right leaning. Weekends are even worse. Anecdotal but I also have quite a few right leaning friends who feel like same and don't watch FOX. A lot of us are supporting independent journalists - even of opposite politics as long as they are anti-establishment. One of the reasons I support Glenn.
Not to nitpick on Gallup* in particular, I have a simmering distrust of polling in general .. . and lies, damned lies and statistics more specifically.
Polling is not an exact science.
*At best .. . "The political polarization that grips the country is reflected in partisans' views of the media, which are now the most divergent in Gallup's history. Recent Gallup/Knight Foundation polling has shown that although Americans increasingly see bias in news coverage, they nonetheless believe that an independent media is key to democracy." ~from the link
Might I commend this piece of writing to your journalist reservoir; both the author and the subject of his treatise may well deserve your enhanced awareness and listing.
Trump’s greatest achievement wasn’t an all-time record breaking economy; it was the exposure of the intelligence agencies and the permanent government writ large as being in bed with the Democratic Party. FDR warned what would happen if the federal government ever unionized. It’s all pro-Dem top to bottom. Lois Lerner didn’t need a memo over at the IRS. None of them need direction. There are plenty of lone wolf lefties throughout the bureaucracy and now even in uniform. Strangely, in a profound juxtaposition, the enlisted ranks are becoming more Republican while the brass is more Democratic. We effectively have one party rule even when the opposition controls the executive and both houses of the legislature. That’s just the way it is and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I remember when I trusted and believed in the government. Now I don’t believe anything they say without proof. I guess I should’ve taken the blue pill.
That's 100% true, and your kitty is awesome. I remember during the early 2000s, we libertarians had tons of allies on the left. War on Drugs, ending actual wars, warrantless wiretapping, upholding civil liberties. At that point it was clear that the GOP was the biggest offending party.
But it turns out all those positions were simply political posturing to hurt Bush. When Obama got elected, all that stuff disappeared without a trace.
Libertarianism is NOT Anarchy (unregulated "capitalism"; scare quotes because "unregulated Capitalism" is an oxymoron, and "regulated Capitalism" is redundant.)
Libertarians want maximum individual freedom, caging the agent of individual security (the State, with its military, to defend from threats originating OUTSIDE the borders, and its police, to defend from threats originating within the borders, and its courts of law, to determine guilt and adjudicate contractual disputes in a properly REGULATED free market economy, all of which is beautifully espoused (Declaration) and effectively implemented (Constitution)).
The ONLY reason libertarians don't refer to themselves as Capitalists today, is the State-minded have effectively besmirched a fine descriptive word, and fooled the People into thinking Capitalism means its opposite, crony-Capitalism, the coining of which term was part of the foolery. The State must be corralled, ever-vigilantly, by the People, because the State hates individual freedom, and wants to destroy Capitalism, the system of maximum individual freedom. The over-bearing State creates monopolies by protecting them from competition, thereby co-opting private sector corporations, who also naturally detest competition. The free market destroys naturally occuring local monopolies with naturally occuring competition through the beautiful free market pricing and profit feedback loops. The looting of the capital markets (stealing INDIVIDUAL capital) and looting of INDIVIDUAL income/property with unConstitutional tax structure is done by the State. The State stole from the People in '09 (bail-outs of Big Banking and GM, entities that the free market is perfectly suited to reforming) and in '20 (unfairly picking winners and losers in a used, mild, State-caused pandemic, and then allowed to bail-out those created losers with our children's freedom (public debt)).
Sorry to spew my opinion at you. I believe we are both classical liberals, but I think your definitions are partly to blame for leading us astray of Classical Liberalism, another wonderful phrase that means Capitalism, properly defined.
If that is in fact an honest question, the United States is an empire by any reasonable definition of the word. Look up the words "full spectrum dominance", for instance.
"full spectrum dominance"? Good grief. Sounds like other peoples have realized the benefit of relatively free trade with what still is the wealthiest, most productive, free-est, least economically-corrupt, not to mention magnanimous and friendly and goodwill-spreading, not to mention environmentally-cleanest, not to mention generous with help defending against REAL empires, peoples/nation that has ever existed. Where do the poor the world over risk their children's lives just for a chance. I could go on, but you get my point.
Oh, we have our problems, boy do we, and the future is unwritten, but:
"the United States is an empire by any reasonable definition of the word."?!?!
Sorry that I couldn't just say, "I disagree." You don't deserve my emotional response (the substance of which I stand by).
The United States is none of the things you describe, by any measure. Start by looking at the prison population, which is abnormally high for such a magnificently free country.
Then one might look at our unending wars of aggression, or will you tell us about how Iraq was chock-a-block with WMDs, how the people of Yemen are begging for genocide, etc.,.etc
Having global interests (like an interest in freedom and civil rights the world over) does not an empire make. An empire must expand State control geographically, physically taking control of more population, or removing them. Tell me, when was the last case of a Western Civilization nation forcefully (i.e. not by indiginent choice) empiring, i.e claiming jurisdictional control over someone else's dirt by force and fiat?
We are not an empire today. China and Russia (maybe Iran, but THAT's kinda funny) are today's obvious empires.
He's too lazy and is happy getting stoned in Kalorama. It's the cabal that put Obama in place. He was as much of an empty suit as Biden, but he was great on the teleprompter, mouthing someone else's words.
Getting stoned is the only thing he did which I support. But, I'd pass him my doobie if he'd lend me his ear. I'd ask him who's really running things, anyway. I think he would say, truthfully, he does not know, either, he's just playing his part. I'd take a deep toke, pass the roach (or hold it for him, or use his clip, his is probably monogrammed), and tell him THAT was his problem all along.
Sometime in the next few years, the People are going to realize (because history does tend to repeat, learning must take repetition) the State is their eternal enemy, and take action. The State doesn't stand a chance. That's what the control/secrecy freaks fear most: Will their gig last their tenure, or is their gig up.
Why wouldn't it be? Who and what would stop the CIA (in league with global corporate agendas) from doing so?
I'd assume the GOP too -- including making it a punching bag that permits the Democrats to turn liberal voters into campaigners for censorship. If it weren't for extremists in the GOP (and Trump, of course), it would have been impossible to turn the binary thinking up to 11. Heck, probably couldn't have passed off a Biden victory in a non-Trump environment either.
(Tulsi, Ron Paul, DJT), imo. (Sorry to hijack your spot on opinion.)
I really did believe, even as I voted for him in '16, that DJT would empire and war like the cameras were on him preening at the Statist podium. Boy, did he prove me wrong.
At least Trump, despite all his flaws, told you exactly what he wanted to do even if you criticized him for it. Democrats on the other hand will tell you one thing while doing the opposite.
Another great achievement of President Trump was to prevent the four or five likely Republican party nominees from loosing comfortably to the Clinton team.
The top ranks of the US military were decimated by Obama. Over 200 flag officers (generals) were fired/forcibly retired during his administration for daring to be patriots who love America.
Obama or not, the Pentagon and its minions are well-fattened to this very day. Too much so. So fucking top-heavy it's no wonder this country is tipping over right off its "Exceptional" plinth.
Any president who wants to truly address international shenanigans (Obama didn't want to, he chose to placate the existing structure) would have to fire lots of people in the military and intelligence services. It's clear that if you want to reform these powers as president, they have potential to successfully undermine your presidency. If I were an incoming president, I would work to find out who was willing to do that in the recent past and I would fire those people.
The enlisted men come from one strata of society while brass from another strata. What do you think are the chances that at some point the enlisted will not take orders from the brass? Too far fetched?
Thank you, Glenn. I keep asking this, but what's really in this for Bertrand - and the others like her in the media? Having been in the media for 30 years I just don't get it. My theory is this: it used to be that really smart people went into the media. Sometimes they were corrupt, sometimes they really cared about reporting the truth, sometimes they were drunks wanting a paycheck while writing their novel. But now the people going into media are the pencils who aren't simply not the sharpest, but the pencils in the stack who never ever got sharpened ever. But still I ask, why would you go into the field of reporting if you didn't have a drive to report the truth or that novel you're working on. It's a pathetic career choice to be Bertrand. She's a courtier who'll be thrown to the recyclable heap when she's no longer useful, while Rachel Maddow won't take her calls and will have her millions. But I feel that way about Maddow, too. She's doing propaganda and the people she's doing it for don't respect mere millionaires, only trillionaires. Btw, I just received and started reading Securing Democracy - this book should be read by everyone.
My guess is Natasha buys her own BS. She's a young woman early into her career who's being showered with praise and promotions from those above her. In her mind, she must be doing something right. And remember, nobody is the villain in their won life story.
Let's be fair (and here I will be accused, myself, of misogyny). She's also cashing in at the right time. If Natasha looked like Lotte Lenya, she never gets this opportunity.
If San Francisco reduces its voting age to, say, 14 (you think I'm joking?), the kids should organize and vote in an 18 yr. old mayor. What delicious spectacle that would be.
I loved "won." It indicates one's pride in achievement, regardless of legitimacy. it brings out the sadness of an indoctrinated and mis-mentored and used once-innocent young skull full of mush.
Seems like with all the money spent on a journalism degree, the school could at least send her on her way with a box of sharpened pencils. Alas, probably no room what with all the trophies.
Many readers are asking themselves just why would "journalists" do what Bertrand, Goldberg, etc. do... Beside the obvious motives -- money and career.
A possible answer is -- "in shared interests" ---- to analyze how many among them are "beloved Bibi's" Likudniks and have they ever addressed the Gaza open air concentration camp and terror on Palestinians in apartheid Israel.
The US administrations are sadistic regimes - irrespective if under Obama, Trump, and Biden -- that thrive on the misery of nations. Syria, for example, was once a self-sufficient country -- before America decided (remember 17 years ago !!) that secular socialist Syria needs “democracy and freedom”.
CIA aligned itself even with Al Qaeda (!?!) for regime change -- who else has been weekly bombing Syria -- for years.....??
It was Woodward and Bernstein. Every reporter rather than doing hard investigative reporting started cozying up to intelligence agency sources to feed them their scoops.
The answer is: The same thing that was "in it" for a renaissance courtier, whose job description also consisted of flattering those in power and coming up with elaborate justifications for their actions.
To answer your question: Power and prestige, some money to go with it. Honestly I do not see what the mystery is.
The line between government and media is so blurred, she is more of a government advocate.
The article actually notes right from the beginning- this is how people are advancing their careers. This isn’t new. How do you think a “journalist” in north korea advances her career? Her status and security?
The money and perks aren't what they used to be for journalists. They're just servants rewriting dozens of press releases. So I still don't understand. They could go right into PR and make way more. It's like when I see the young female journalists fawning over Jen at the WH press conferences, thanking her for cookies. How can they stay awake?
You forgot these types LOVE to hob knob with 'important"(sic) people-- get invited to the right parties etc. Just like in the kings court days-- true apparatchiks
yeah some time ago and without anyone noticing mainstream journalism passed a tipping point where the best people generally don't want to be involved in it anymore. everything since is accelerating consequences
Exactly. The recruitment and grooming of these people has been going on for a LOOOOOOOONG time. I can remember interacting with Karl Rove when he was head of the National College Republicans in a battle with the National Young Republicans in the late 70's early 80's. These folks are identified and brought along at least from college and made part of the team. No limit to where they can go or the power they can wield.
Its like the CIA or MI5 recruiting young wayward men (and now women) who had daddy problems. I was lucky enough to hear John Le Carre be interviewed years ago in London-- he was asked about recruitment (not his but the general theory) and I never forget what he said. " They look for young men who are poor (he was) lost and have father/authority issues " Hence Bill Clinton.
“Now, as to what is happening in the other areas of Russian behavior and Mr. Trump's association - there, I think we follow the money trail. I think it's perfectly possible that Trump was taken into what I call a honey trap - that he had ladies found for him, and he misbehaved in Russia. I don't think - if that film was shown tomorrow worldwide, Trump would get away with it.“
Your articles are becoming declarations of the obvious Glenn. When are you going to stop calling them “media” and journalists? They are properly termed propagandists.
You realize that word means bureaucrat do you? There's no more negative connotation to it in Russian (it comes from "apparat" that you could translate as bureaucracy) than there is to a bureaucrat.
Yes I do 😊 Lots of Russian friends here in Toronto. My understanding from them (and they use the term) is it is a derogatory term for a snivelling upwardly mobile bureaucrat. Maybe thats just the view of Russians from Moscow and Belarus.
Lucky for me they are both really nice. Though they laugh (rightfully so!) at the North American response to the government edicts about the "virus". I remind them what babies (young and inexperienced) we are here in North America- no wars (accept at creation) on our lands, no famine, no Chernobyl etc. They scoff and snort at the govt.
Me, too! Strictly speaking an "apparatchik" must be a Communist, according to my Merriam-Webster, but I love it so I use it for the over-important bureaucrat and the staff (non-political) appointments and officers (the "gears") of the Deep State. However, it's an ugly word if pronounced properly (accent on 1st and 3rd syllables), so I pronounce it like I imagine a Frenchman would (accent on 2nd and 4th, 4th pronounced like "cheek"). So beautiful that way.
That would dispose of the terms "media" and "journalists" as being propagandists for one thing or another is their function to begin with. It's people like Glenn that we need to come up with a proper term for.
As the state grows increasingly and irreversibly powerful, individuals positions themselves to be part of that power. In this case, instead of reporting news or investigating for truth, the primary activity of journalists is *signaling* to the government via the content of their articles - allegiance to their masters.
This is not limited to media. This is happening everywhere and set aflame by social media. Prominent academics are signaling with their own writings/research in order to be appointed to government roles. Scientists are signaling in order to get on the government gravy train of grants and financial support.
This tactic insures no words ever need to be spoken. Since after all, lying as a journalist, or academic, or CEO, or anything- in order to secure own’s own position in the new politburo would be among the most infernally evil things one could do. Signaling creates plausible deniability that only needs to pass the test of other liars competing for the same spot in the same politburo.
The really interesting thing to me since Glenn published this, is that of all the predictable tweets slamming him, none of them deny the facts as laid out in the article - not a one.
Similar to how everyone was focussed on who hacked/leaked the DNC emails instead of what were the contents of those emails. Similar treatment to Hunter's emails.
I'm looking forward to many breathless articles declaring that Glenn put Bertrand in literal danger of being killed by ... well, it doesn't matter ... and needs to be immediately removed from Substack. Because safety.
The CIA (and the FBI for that matter) need to be legally eliminated. JFK’s alleged quote to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds” comes to mind. These agencies are an abomination and antithetical to a healthy democratic Republic. This article about their journalistic hirelings and stooges again shows why. The sad news is that with their alliance with the democrat party, corporate media and big tech; along with their masterful duping of half the electorate, they are not going anywhere. Congratulations Gina, Allen (from his sauna in the 7th level of hell) is very proud of you. 😈
You know, I used to think anything but Oswald a a lone gunman was crazy. I really fell in with Posner’s “Case Closed”. Now, a few years later, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not at all beyond the realm of possibility that the President was removed by the hard core cold warriors who were convinced JFK was going soft on the communists, and was going to get rid of them, if they didn’t get him first. They believed they were saving the country. I want to believe otherwise, but it’s getting harder to do so. Now, almost 60 years later I think this cabal (Ike’s MIC) has metastasized into the monster we have today.
No, but it hardly matters what we think. When even progressive darling Ocasio-Cortez is smartly leveraging corporate Internet giants to wage war against political adversaries, and they greedily comply, then no one on earth is going to stop them. Democrats, and more and more "progressives," are happily thriving in the oligarchy they used to caution against.
Again, who is empiring today? Who is amassing massive standing armies today? How does a free people, today, fight their own State, which, like all States, naturally hates individual freedom, AND survive today's Statist empires?
I stand corrected , though according to Wikipedia, Age of Imperialism began around 1750 - early enough for pikes and muskets to be common on the battlefield. In any case, my point remains - we cannot automatically expect methodologies that worked 100-200 years ago to work now.
Who is empiring today? So you think the people today are going to survive today's empiring States the same way the people did in the Age of Imperialism? Sounds to me like "unilateral disarmament."
So far what I have seen is that government can spend as much money it wants on education or intel agencies - it never achieves anything good. So how about just not take so much tax money and leave people alone?
More of a black pilled liberal (which is basically conservative now a days). Once you realize that a liberal utopia isn’t achievable because human nature is greedy, you s get black pilled.
New, properly corralled and controlled agencies, constantly audited and inspected and perhaps even "spied" on by other citizen supervised agencies (checks and balances, right?) to ensure that all IC operates under this unwavering first principle:
You work for the people, not the State.
Call me crazy, but with today's technology, I say privatize intelligence gathering. It would make it much easier to expose and penalize, and therefore minimize (instead of institutionalize), the inevitable abuse of civil rights.
Today's IC is a failed, archaic, Statist system that has it's origins in the last martial-law-like episode (WW II). Why would we expect it to be non-Statist and individual-freedom-protecting? Why would anyone be surprised at its utter failures today after 80 years of slow, Statist creep in all things. The enemy of the State is the people.
Call me a crazy simpleton, but I believe first principles ARE simple.
Good suggestions. I think there would also need to be term limits for the Congress; and limits to how long you can be a federal employee (no more than 10 years?); and strict limits on lobbyists (like if you served in Congress or were a federal employee you can never be a paid lobbyist). I know I’m dreaming but there needs to be a continual flushing out of the hordes of permanent state bureaucrats who can’t help but suck at the teat of the citizenry. Give them all a nice and reasonable exit bonus, and out you go!
I used to like term limits. But they ARE anti-freedom. And they soothe the people who believe in them (a vast majority today?) into the complacent bliss of ignorance. The Majority needs to get what they want so they are invested in paying attention and correcting their judgments. Term limits are NOT a check and balance to creeping Statism, only an aware, invested, majority of people can do that. THIS is what old Ben Franklin meant, of course, when he supposedly and famously answered the woman's question with his own:
I disagree with you about term limits but gave you a like regardless because you make me maybe re-consider my position on it. Right now my position is that politicians don't want to rock the boat much because they know their constituents are fools and complacent. Pelosi has been getting re-elected despite her own state being in absolute shit.
Thanks, and you're one of the few I heart even when your posts don't quite meet my "stickler-standards." Really, I sound like I am trying to change minds, but I am just trying to use an intelligent forum to "perfect" my own opinions, if that makes sense.
The ultimate power is within the People, but the People are peaceful and fat and don't want to take back their birthright from the usurping State.........yet.
A longer conversation would be warranted, but in short, a totally new one with a very limited portfolio specific to defined intelligence gathering activity, and collation and dissemination to the President. I would also reduce the total amount of intelligence agencies from the 17 or so today to something less. Also severely rein in any ability to conduct military type operations and assassinations, and any domestic surveillance operations by the CIA and NSA. To the extent needed to actually defend against real foreign threats to domestic US, a limited in powers successor to the FBI.
"This Committee was organized shortly thereafter and has conducted a year-long investigation into the intelligence activities of the United States Government, the first substantial inquiry into the intelligence community since World War II.
The inquiry arose out of allegations of substantial wrongdoing by intelligence agencies on behalf of the administrations which they served. A deeper concern underlying the investigation was whether this Government's intelligence activities were governed and controlled consistently with the fundamental principles of American constitutional government-that power must be checked and balanced and that the preservation of liberty requires the restraint of laws, and not simply the good intentions of men.
Our investigation has confirmed that properly controlled and lawful intelligence is vital to the nation's interest. A strong and effective intelligence system serves, for example, to monitor potential military threats from the Soviet Union and its allies, to verify compliance with international agreements such as SALT, and to combat espionage and international terrorism.
These, and many other necessary and proper functions are performed by dedicated and hard working employees of the intelligence community.The Committee's investigation has, however, also confirmed substantial wrongdoing. And it has demonstrated that intelligence activities have not generally been governed and controlled in accord with the fundamental principles of our constitutional system of government."
Doesn't that sound familiar? That's the preface to the Church Committee report, circa 1975. The reforms were supposed to prevent the repeat of what happened in the 50s and 60s. And yet - here we are. Given the goals stated, I don't think these violations of 'our constitutional system of government' are avoidable. At best, they are inevitable side effect of agencies design to do their work far from the public eye, and any oversight agency is doomed to regulatory capture. At worst...well, at worst these agencies may be suborned by other interests, and violations become a 'feature, not a bug'.
"Oversight is meaningless without accountability." Almost perfect.
I say, oversight (a form of accountability) is impossible without constant attention from the people. The Church Committee was excellent oversight. The People, so enriched and happified by the success of relatively-free-market-Capitalism, forgot to pay attention, and the People's eternal enemy, the State, took full advantage.
Wake up, peeps, before we have to spill blood to recage the eternal enemy!!
For all, if you haven't read Sharyl Atkkisson's book "Slanted: how to love censorship and hate journalism," it explains all of this is 'the narrative.' It sucks, but it helps to understand. Journalism, in the mainstream, is dead. Thanks Glenn!
ABSOLUTELY accurate, and this *is the crux of the problem. I have friends who are journalists, and the dilemma is FAR more financial than it is idealistic for the journalists in my circle of friends. Physical newspapers are already a historical anachronism, with only weak vestiges remaining.
When I got out of the military in 1971, there were over 1,500 independently owned *major newspapers. At that time, the law prevented the same people from owning more than *one news media outlet in the same "area of interest" (or physical marketplace, as we may say today). So, you could not own a newspaper *and a radio/TV station in the same area.
There was another law, called "Truth in Advertizing" enforcing the fact that, if you presented *one Political POV over the air, *you had to provide and pay for *equal time for someone to present the *opposite Political POV. This law alone had the effect that *nobody paid for strictly Political POV programming in those days.
The Republicans (look it up) succeeded in *gutting the "Truth In Advertizing" laws long before there *WAS a Rush Limbaugh Show in the '90s, much less all of the little *clonesters who have popped up subsequent to that.
As Steve, via his recommendation of Sharyl Atkkission shares with us above, journalism as we Boomers have known it, is *ALREADY dead and buried. The danger is in our old-fashioned belief that what appears in media today IS what journalism used to be. Even tho, going back to the halcyon days of Yellow Journalism cashed in on by Randolph Hearst and others, "journalism" has had only *brief days of being an *actual source of news, rather than a blistering source of propaganda ever since the days of Johannes Gutenberg.
Today in the U.S., ALL media (newspapers, radio, TV, major portions of the internet), are owned by FOUR major corporations. We can read into *that statistic whatever we will, but suffice it to say, that even the *idea of insisting upon access to truth and the "real story" is pretty much a Fairy Tale in these modern media times.
News is not even SUPPOSED to be what it once was, and the only ones seemingly not "in on" that fact ARE the majority of the consumers of "news" from the MSM.
Thus, not only the popularity of writers such as GG and Taibbi, but the NECESSITY of such writers, and the *indispensable NEED for such business models as substack and other such outlets which *allow these writers to be available to us UNCENSORED.
I enthusiastically agree with other commenters on this queue indicating that, whether or not we always *agree with these writers, (bcuz most of us are *not "Dittoheads) we want ACCESS to these writers, uncut, unmodified, and uncensored !
Gratitude due to both the authors *And to the business models such as substack !
Just to add, that just because most of us are not Limbaugh fans, does not mean that a (vast) majority of Limbaugh fans "want ACCESS to these writers, uncut, unmodified, and uncensored!" too.
Very, very well noted ! However, I am obliged to allow the Limbaugh fans to express their own opinions if they are able to do so at all now that the Rushster has "shuffled off this mortal coil...".
Although, on a site where readers contribute for the pleasure of *reading the writers we favor, I have no immediate expectation of encountering any vast overabundance of the "Rush Riders". ;-D
I've been waiting for you to specifically write on Natasha Bertrand. I have followed her writing very closely since the beginning of Russiagate and, in my opinion, is the most blatantly dishonest reporter on the topic. Unlike Marcy Wheeler, who just plainly has a loose grip on reality and appears to believe the imaginary connections she makes, Natasha Bertrand's writing and its obvious coordination with other messengers demonstrates that Bertrand is no true believer, she is just a propagandist with transactional ethics posing as a journalist.
When we finally get to see the journalists that accepted direct cash payments from Fusion GPS, I won't be surprised if she and Ali Watkins are both among the recipients.
> Placing a Story: We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.
There's a difference between a source of information and a source of misinformation and I think it is telling that "reporters" like Greg Gordon and Peter Stone don't reveal the name of their source for the made-up Prague/Cohen claims. Journalists should burn sources that knowingly lie to them. Propagandists don't.
I forwarded this article to what I believe is an intelligent person. Her response was "He doesn't seem like a very happy person and I hope he gets the help he needs"...I'm serious! It's astounding what people say and believe these day's. It's SHOCKING. I'M SHOCKED
Linda, I've been there. All I can say is, after a while, you'll stop being shocked.
If you're like me, there will come a time when seeing someone rationally consume information that goes against their preconceived notions and change their mind is the only thing that's truly shocking.
Don't stop forwarding articles though. People can ignore the truth, but they can't un-hear it.
"...change their mind is the only thing that's truly shocking"
Indeed. And I've been looking to get shocked but totally in vain. Hence my proclamations about stupidity of the people and misapplication of the term "intelligence".
She's projecting. One has to be a nut job to believe russiagate nonsense and then also fall for the bounty story. Since when did Taliban require to be given money to attack Americans? Any reasonable person would have had that as the very first thought and concluded it was nonsense. Or how does a police officer get "head bashed by a mob" and then his mother and family still say he called them saying he's fine? All these stories stank from the beginning and only insane people can fall for it again and again.
"To believe the "Russian bounties" hoax, one has to believe that "Russia" is not incredibly malevolent but also seeks to damage its own interests." should read "not ONLY incredibly malevolent."
Yep. That's another thing which showed to be people who fell for the bounty story didn't have any critical thinking in place because if Russia really was putting bounties, that should be more reason to leave and get troops out of harms way - not do the exact opposite.
First, Bertrand's loyalty is NOT to the mythical "national security," it's to the Democratic Party and left-wing propaganda. That's what she is, a propagandist. She's not a "journalist," she's a political hack. After all, her background is political science, not "security," whatever that is. Second, the CIA and other government agencies became leftwing after Jimmy Carter started letting people in who would have been considered security risks under previous administrations. Brennan is a classic example - the man is an admitted communist. Third, she's always been associated with leftist media. So CNN hired her, who cares? Who watches CNN anyway? I don't watch any of them. I don't have cable anymore. Personally, I wonder if Glenn, Matt and other leftists are starting to realize that they gave allegiance to people with an agenda they no longer agree with.
We have never watched CNN and the only time we’re forced to listen to it is when one or the other of our children channel it to pummel us about not getting “vaccinated.” I digress, but this is too rich: I was reading yesterday about the pros and cons of Ivermectin, the chief con being that it is not approved by the FDA for COVID application. Knife please: I’ve got some hypocrisy to cut.
If she were CIA, you'd never know. No one outside the loop would.
The best evidence is that such bullshit gets promoted and anyone looking into such matters gets suppressed. It's the massive financial objective to create a consistent (and wrong) narrative that makes it look "national security" (which, of course, is nothing of the sort).
She's also not "left.' She's a fascist. She is propaganda MARKETED TO THE LEFT, which is different.
All major media is right-wing / corporatist / fascist; it gets labeled left or right based on the AUDIENCE.
hmmmmm so you are telling me I (a right leaning person) hate the main stream media because they are right wing? wut? By that logic, Trump was a left winger and AOC is right wing?
You would be better off simply calling them establishment cronies instead of assigning every bad thing as the other political side.
Not a fascist. A communist. If fascist governments had killed more people than communist governments had, they would instead be fascists. But I am splitting hairs.
Be careful, Glenn. Soon they'll be calling you a misogynist.
Bullying a young 28-year-old woman (who does national security reporting for the largest and most toxic corporate outlets).
Her being 28 yo is part of the problem. It took me years and years of practice before I was able to become a competent dentist and gunslinger. Nothing, but nothing, can make up for experience. And she has precious little of it.
I'd feel much better if all our media were cynical 55 yo chain-smoking men.
Only if we could learn dentistry on twitter by posting orange man bad a few times
if you live in a blue precinct, you probably can. who the hell would know any better?
Hopefully the ones you fixed teeth for when you were 28 don't read this forum :)
He doesn't have to worry about the his practice targets.
The unfortunate ones, indeed.
In defense of younger people, John, I will point out that many older people react the exact same way as these younger female journalists do, and many older people in politics and journalism make the same errors as the younger ones do and do not display thicker skins. I concur that experience is important, but mere quantity of time in a certain business often does not guarantee thickness of skin or learning to do the right thing. Some people are natural critical thinkers or developed a lot of worldly experience beginning at a younger age. Just saying, my friend.
How Dare You !!!!
If she wants to play in the big leagues, she must take a bullet or two up there!
GG was "packing", wasn't he! But careful with THOSE metaphors.
taking a bullet metaphorically.
What about "up there"?
Yup. Definitely harassment! In fact, you're words are making her unsafe.
Words and paras will break her bones, but truth will never grab her.
literally shaking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reminds me of how people treat AOC. She’s young and not very sharp but people hold her in very high regard. God forbid you point out her inadequacies.
I never found any inadequacies in her. In fact, I'd say she's way, way above average for a politician. My secret? Always watched her on mute.
If you can't stand the heat, don't work in a kitchen.
for fbi and cia, the younger and more naive, the better.
No, no, you were just providing a public service, giving her the opportunity to show her fans that she could take what she was dishing. Or, it's live by the "sword,".... Either way, I think she's toast.
Like the breakfast I bully every morning.
It's subconscious misogyny that you aren't even aware of. Get it? So stop denying. /sarc/
Surely you are an incel, GG! Why, she refused to date you? You don't like her simps? /sarc/
You called it (not that it was hard):
https://mobile.twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1387090778946744325
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1387096762352033794
Wow, Glenn - you've certainly generated a healthy dose of hate tweets! I loved how Taylor Lorenz tries to brush you off, like she's too big for you. Hilarious and cringe-worthy. I think they hate you so much because they know deep down that you're right. You're calling them out for destroying Journalism, and because the criticism is spot-on, and coming from heavyweights like you, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Tracey, it hurts them bone-deep. Because they are on the younger side (except for the middle-aged Taylor Lorenz), they use magical thinking to turn themselves into victims. Probably victims of violence - violence perpetrated on them by you! You hurt their feelings, after all! Again, hilarious and cringe-worthy reactions from the Twitterverse.
Clearly most posters on these threads are anti free speech and anti reality. It's dismaying to scroll through so much hate. Does no one understand what Glenn is doing his best to communicate?
They *do* know what Glenn is trying to communicate, which is precisely why they get so angry at him. He is a threat to their anti-free speech and anti-reality agenda, plain and simple.
Twitter is insane. Apparently we’re all misogynists and Neo Nazis. I had no idea.
Welcome to club.
Lol. It’s so ridiculous.
Omfg I just looked at those replies 🤢🤮
I spent some of the happiest years of my life as a Russian Bot.
Wow. Those comments make my brain hurt.
No engagement. Any criticism must be a product of your ego, regardless of what you write or what the subject of your criticism has done.
It's a plastic world.
I'm genuinely curious about how your critics view Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Tulsi Gabbard, Ashli Babbitt, and Amy Coney Barrett...
Would criticism of their political worldviews = misogyny?
What's to criticize about Tulsi Gabbard? She's brilliant, pragmatic, advocated for the same basic social programs that Europe and Scandinavia enjoys, and most importantly, as a veteran military officer she spoke against the carnage created by US interventionist foreign policy.
My main problem with her is anti-2a. I care about 4 things - free speech, right to bear arms, anti-forever wars, anti-critical race theory/identity politics. I am willing to compromise or even have discussions on shit like taxes and health care. But I don't entertain anyone against 1A or 2A.
Yep. Those two were the first two purposely.
But Ms. Gabbard, imo, isn't a gun-grabber at heart. I could be wrong, but I think she would "modify." Look, she certainly isn't a "culture" warrior. She isn't the typical Democrat. She is an out-sider. We should welcome her type with open arms, imo.
She is less compromised than many of her peers.
This is the only valid credit I've seen in this thread about her.
Well well another DNC PR piece in a comment section showing the lies of the media and the DNC.
Tulsi got called a russian then shut her damned mouth until she was told to open it again. F her. Another lifer politician who puts party above people.
Megyn Kelly is an opportunist - I put her in same bucket as Ben Shapiro. She started speaking out against identity politics ONLY when she herself became a victim after her unfair firing. But she was willing to exploit it for her advantage with Trump during the 2016 debates.
I guess that makes you a misogynist, too?
Literally shaking!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back in 2016, nobody had heard of CRT and identity politics. What are you talking about? Besides, if you can't tolerate her, you will not tolerate anyone else on this side of the spectrum. Which is all we need. More infighting. Trump was an idiot to attack her. He accomplished nothing by that. Just made himself more popular to a rightwing minority and unpopular with moderates.
No, their critics get to claim they engage in self-loathing, or have squandered the gains made during second wave feminism, elevating themselves at the pleasure of and to profit powerful white men. These women are the worst sellouts of all and must therefor be treated with extreme prejudice.
No. "Misogyny" is a counterattack that only the favored may employ, as they are, by definition, above criticism.
The disfavored must put on their big girl pants and suck it up.
Love Megyn, Candace and Tulsi. Not enough info on the other 2.
The world would be a better and safer place if Tulsi Gabbard were president. To watch her brilliant performance during the one debate they allowed her on in which she humiliated Kamala Harris by stating her public record of being a cruel prosecutor, and also had the courage to speak on foreign policy which Sanders has to this day avoided and then watch the DNC and the liberal media destroy her campaign was painful.
She is pure and true in a world of twisted lying scum. I am center right and gave her money for her run because i trusted her.
same
You're a good man, Andrew.
I seriously wish she would sit down with some people from the gun owners community and get her views on 2A challenged. She seems to have a functioning brain, just can't stand anyone anti-2a.
That would be a great idea, and it would surprise me, come campaigning time, that she did not do it.
Are you high? She bended the knee and endorsed a lifelong politician warmonger police stater in Joe Biden about 2 weeks after her own party used McCarthyism on her.
Shes a joke like Bernie and proved she can toe the line like a good little jackboot.
Ashli Babbitt is the 3 time Air Force veteran who got shot at Capitol Hill on Jan 6th while the politicians who sent her overseas to fight wars for them hid under desks.
"Executed" is the correct word. Watch the video.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/video-shows-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-in-the-capitol/ar-BB1cAzWs
It's like they planned it. I can just hear the planning: "Ok, look guys, we need someone to get it early on, so it will appear serious enough for us to use it."
Tulsi is a rising star in the World Economic Forum young hopefuls....these are posted on site. Schwab is very proud of them.
Bwaaa!!! They can’t address the criticism so ad hominem.
The Twitter comment about how Snowden will be living in what sounds like a 1980s vision of the Soviet Union is interesting. You can easily jump on Google Earth and “roam” the streets of any Russian town or city and get a decent view of what a lot of people’s living arrangements are. They do seem to incorporate wildflowers into their landscaping a lot. The horrors!
As with China, Russia's true crime is not being woke. For that alone, woke propagandists are inciting a final world war.
Not exactly. Their true crime is not letting their governments get bought by our guys.
Oh it is bought alright. It's getting it cleaned little by little what gets the US upset.
Yes, the part doing the cleaning is what I was referring to.
I think they'd probably not be happy with the result. We might or might not "win" by some morbid definition, but their Twitter dream world would be gone forever.
Badge of Honor.
Absolutely fascinating to see these these twitter wars. There is a lone voice here and there asking to evaluate the arguments on their merits (what Glenn actually wrote and if true or not), but the vast majority just steamrolls over and is endlessly about gender, age, who has the "right" to call out whom - all about the woke pecking order and "hierarchy of oppression", nothing about the actual facts.
A Medi-eval court of royal coutesans and debutantes, the stuff of media fantasy today.
I wonder how many media types subscribe to your Substack, Glenn, simply so they can be the first to attack you on Twitter.
“I figured out a way how to monetize social justice warriors” - Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan dying laughing.
Julia Ioffe: "We see you, Glenn."
So old, so Y2K. She really still is the braided child in her avatar.
"Oh, Glenn, you're so not in the club!!!!!"
These twitter comments are all part of a manufactured propaganda framework, some comments intentionally seeded by malicious actors, others from those gullible enough to be hoodwinked by the seeded comments.
How effective can it possibly be if most people don't even pay attention?
It's as though the reaction is fully scripted in advance. Probably just have the plug the variable into the old computer and the tweets and articles write themselves.
Relevant funny video by Ryan Long (one of the best channels):
https://youtu.be/I7VEx2dviNk
Excellent take-down of the pervasive "alternate-fact" purveyors and their masters. Would really enjoy reading your take on this morning's Senate sub-committee hearing on social-media algorithms; especially the testimony of the 'ethics' witness Mr. Harris.
As Usual,
EA
Do those hearings ever achieve anything? All I have been seeing for past decade is hearings and grandstanding but nobody ever gets held accountable. And if they really get working, they make things worse.
Re: CNNisFakeNews Apr 28 @~10 AM PCT
For those of us that are interested in gaining a better understanding of the causes and possible solutions to our society's problems, we have learned to ignore the partisan "grandstanding" and focus on the substantive discourse of both those on the dais and at the witness desk. Hapless complaining and repetitive criticisms of the bad actors, within or outside of government, are not the stuff of productive achievement on our part either.
As Usual,
EA
Fair point. I will wait to see some accountability before having any hope again.
Did you, perchance, "...see some accountability..." in Mr. Harris's testimony and answers to credible questioning?
As Usual,
EA
I wish republican politicians or even Bernie had the balls like Glenn does when they get called mean words. Right now, they run at the very first sight of someone calls them some mean word and they give up their principles.
Bernie? What a joke! Hes a proven liar and media shilled for Hillary after calling for an end to the "elite". Bernie Sanders is a con artist.
He probably taught Natasha a few tricks!
repubes disgust me. the tuck their manginas bend over grab the ankles and ask for more. those cowards make me sick.
Your metaphor disgusts me. Your language hurts the cause.
Are you a neo-liberal plant?
no. you now what disgusts me? people like john mccain and mitt romney stabbing us in the back and selling us out for 30 years, just for a few belly rubs and head pats from the beltway news cycle.
my metaphor was disgusting, because these people are disgusting. we've played nice for three decades and been crapped on every step of the way. I'm done with that shit and I have no patience for those that still think you can convince lying traitors to be your friend.
DC beltway attracts power mongers and other assorted psychopaths like moths to a flame. the most evil among us are in positions of power. this must be reversed.
Glenn treats objects like women, man.
As if by command, they do exactly what you predicted. You should change your handle to "Nostradamus."
Too late...
Let's be clear, we aren't talking about journalists. That's not the line of work.
This is counter-intelligence.
As William Casey allegedly said: "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
Operation Mockingbird was discovered and documented by Congress' Church Committee in 1975; that program placed CIA operatives in high positions throughout mainstream media.
NOTHING was done to ensure this did not continue.
Treating CNN or NPR or FOX or any of that as "news" or "journalism" is like calling our actions in Vietnam or Iraq or West Africa during the slave trade "humanitarian." It is a pretense that should be abandoned.
Our narrative is being constructed; our enemies labeled; our heroes fabricated; our consent manufactured. Glenn and others have documented this ad nauseum for years. This is not, as people often claim, corporations making shit up because "it sells." It doesn't. The "news" part of these media empires is spittle in a bucket of profits; its value is in its ability to shape the world for the other, more profitable ventures.
Our mainstream media empire is an intelligence asset. Full stop. And "reporters" like Natasha Bertrand and Rachel Maddow are either direct employees or themselves assets. They aren't arrogant. They aren't bad journalists. They aren't lazy or unprofessional. They do a job and they do it reasonably well. It's just a different job than most Americans believe.
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so". ~ Mark Twain
And it did, does, and will work.
Less and less so though.
Unfortunately, Americans aren't learning. Only Republicans and some independents seem to be learning as shown by this Gallup poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling.
I don't believe that that 73-76% represents media "trust," but instead the approval of today's media "capture" by the State. Of course, both interprets are astoundingly alarming.
Most of them ARE dupes, though.
Glenn's invaluable; when he gets shut down, then we'll know the whip has really come down.
Normally, I don't give many people money; I figure I deserve my dollars more than anyone else. I made Glenn one of the exceptions -- and I'm glad I did.
Same here. I don't even agree with him that often but a clear, unalloyed voice is almost completely missing in the current landscape and has to be supported.
Me too.
Taibbi, Greenwald, and Sullivan are my source of news, and I'm glad I'm spending money on them!
I use to follow Sullivan, but his Trump derangement syndrome articles were too much for me.
I don't ever want to find myself in an echo chamber, and Sullivan is my guarantee that I won't. I agree with him less frequently than I agree with Matt or Glenn, but that's exactly why I pay for his reporting.
Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate is a good alternative.
Ditto
I am disappointed in Sullivan. He knows how to remain calm and rational and make good arguments. Decades ago I remember reading his article on the conservative's arguments for gay marriage. He changed my opinion on the matter. He just lets himself become unhinged when it comes to Trump and his supporters.
I'm also partial to Sharyl Attkisson. She has an interesting way of learning things. She finds people involved in issues, asks them questions, and then reports her findings. It's like she really wants to learn what someone has to say. Extraordinary!
Sharyl is awesome! I wish she had a Substack newsletter. I don’t click on any twitter stuff anymore so hard to catch up.
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are great too - a Canadian lawyer and an American lawyer. Their weekly live streams are outstanding. I pay for their Locals board membership too.
Same here. Add Taibbi and McWhorter. Funny thing is I wouldn't agree with half their policy positions, but am proud to support those who are willing to speak up and who stand up for those great planks this whole experiment rides on. I also recently bought a CD (I'll likely never play!) from a rapper...I don't even like rap, but Tom MacDonald has some hard hitting work on YouTube. Another voice who should be rewarded for having the stones to take the heat and speak up.
Same here. Hate rap. However, I listen to each of Tom MacDonald’s songs at least once and send him money simply because he has the integrity to call it all out. He also is self supporting and has spurned the recording industry vultures.
Well said.
I truly don't understand why there are only about three journalists who will call this kind of garbage out. The rest of them know that they're despised and no one trusts anything that they say, why don't they care? Even prostitutes take pride in their profession, why not the presstitutes?
Keep smearing their noses in it, Glenn. Maybe someday they'll clean up their broken industry, but I sincerely doubt it. There's too much money to be made by selling lies.
The rest of them aren't journalists at all, but as you said, presstitutes. Media whores.
I love the term "presstitutes".
I think it's fear, self-doubt and careerism. Eventually the people with a moral journalistic compass get weeded out of the profession.
Deep down most "journalists" such as Natasha Bertrand, Rachel Maddow, et al understand their role is as propagandists for the deep state, although they would never admit to it. As crazy and naive as it sounds, I think Natasha and her ilk in the msm truly believe the spin/disinformation they convey on a daily basis is for the greater good.
....when the rest of us just know it's selling their souls to the devil.
Because unfortunately you are wrong about "no one trusts anything that they say, why don't they care".
Only Republicans and some independents seem to be learning as shown by this Gallup poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling. And since 95% of media is registered democrats, they are doing exactly what their base is buying.
Except if that poll specified FOX the exact opposite results would occur.
That is to say no majority truly trusts our press (no way, not possible) but as long as they lie for my side I'll look the other way.
Idk, I am right leaning but I don't watch/trust FOX either. Fox may have a few right leaning hosts but outside the 8pm-11pm window, they aren't right leaning. Weekends are even worse. Anecdotal but I also have quite a few right leaning friends who feel like same and don't watch FOX. A lot of us are supporting independent journalists - even of opposite politics as long as they are anti-establishment. One of the reasons I support Glenn.
Not to nitpick on Gallup* in particular, I have a simmering distrust of polling in general .. . and lies, damned lies and statistics more specifically.
Polling is not an exact science.
*At best .. . "The political polarization that grips the country is reflected in partisans' views of the media, which are now the most divergent in Gallup's history. Recent Gallup/Knight Foundation polling has shown that although Americans increasingly see bias in news coverage, they nonetheless believe that an independent media is key to democracy." ~from the link
This is a symptom of a failing country. It always happens this way.
So true! Becomes the Ministry of Propaganda
You think that medieval courtiers got ahead by calling rulers out?
You think prostituts attract more johns by telling them that the only way they'll get laid is if they pay for the privilege?
Why would they call themselves out?
Re: Jay Apr 27 @~8 PM PCT
Might I commend this piece of writing to your journalist reservoir; both the author and the subject of his treatise may well deserve your enhanced awareness and listing.
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/04/11/a-history-how-the-espionage-act-ensnared-julian-assange/
As Usual,
EA
They don't advance when they don't toe the line in the eyes of their seniors who did.
Trump’s greatest achievement wasn’t an all-time record breaking economy; it was the exposure of the intelligence agencies and the permanent government writ large as being in bed with the Democratic Party. FDR warned what would happen if the federal government ever unionized. It’s all pro-Dem top to bottom. Lois Lerner didn’t need a memo over at the IRS. None of them need direction. There are plenty of lone wolf lefties throughout the bureaucracy and now even in uniform. Strangely, in a profound juxtaposition, the enlisted ranks are becoming more Republican while the brass is more Democratic. We effectively have one party rule even when the opposition controls the executive and both houses of the legislature. That’s just the way it is and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I remember when I trusted and believed in the government. Now I don’t believe anything they say without proof. I guess I should’ve taken the blue pill.
At this point, the Democrats might simply be a front for the intelligence agencies, like the media is.
To be fair, the spooks don't care about party so much as they about Empire.
Just that Team D happens to be a more hospitable host at this time. They'll get their wars, but they'll have to do more human rights talk first.
Team R was the better vehicle for empire around the tine of 9/11.
That's 100% true, and your kitty is awesome. I remember during the early 2000s, we libertarians had tons of allies on the left. War on Drugs, ending actual wars, warrantless wiretapping, upholding civil liberties. At that point it was clear that the GOP was the biggest offending party.
But it turns out all those positions were simply political posturing to hurt Bush. When Obama got elected, all that stuff disappeared without a trace.
FYI, the pic is a selfie.
In that case, I love YOU! And admire your typing skills! Most felines don't have the patience for editing.
LOL!!
I make a lot of typos.
You sound like a pig trying to shmooz a lesser-equal into, I don't know, spying on the sneaky mice (pigs aren't so capable, eh?)
LOL!
The L party isn't much better than other politicians, that's true. I find it hard to vote for anybody, to be honest.
Libertarianism is NOT Anarchy (unregulated "capitalism"; scare quotes because "unregulated Capitalism" is an oxymoron, and "regulated Capitalism" is redundant.)
Libertarians want maximum individual freedom, caging the agent of individual security (the State, with its military, to defend from threats originating OUTSIDE the borders, and its police, to defend from threats originating within the borders, and its courts of law, to determine guilt and adjudicate contractual disputes in a properly REGULATED free market economy, all of which is beautifully espoused (Declaration) and effectively implemented (Constitution)).
The ONLY reason libertarians don't refer to themselves as Capitalists today, is the State-minded have effectively besmirched a fine descriptive word, and fooled the People into thinking Capitalism means its opposite, crony-Capitalism, the coining of which term was part of the foolery. The State must be corralled, ever-vigilantly, by the People, because the State hates individual freedom, and wants to destroy Capitalism, the system of maximum individual freedom. The over-bearing State creates monopolies by protecting them from competition, thereby co-opting private sector corporations, who also naturally detest competition. The free market destroys naturally occuring local monopolies with naturally occuring competition through the beautiful free market pricing and profit feedback loops. The looting of the capital markets (stealing INDIVIDUAL capital) and looting of INDIVIDUAL income/property with unConstitutional tax structure is done by the State. The State stole from the People in '09 (bail-outs of Big Banking and GM, entities that the free market is perfectly suited to reforming) and in '20 (unfairly picking winners and losers in a used, mild, State-caused pandemic, and then allowed to bail-out those created losers with our children's freedom (public debt)).
Sorry to spew my opinion at you. I believe we are both classical liberals, but I think your definitions are partly to blame for leading us astray of Classical Liberalism, another wonderful phrase that means Capitalism, properly defined.
Oligarchs and their servants and wannabes will embed themselves anywhere they can.
Contemplate The Iron Law Of Oligarchy and its corollary, The Iron Law Of Institutions.
I’m interested to know what you’re referring to by “Empire”.
If that is in fact an honest question, the United States is an empire by any reasonable definition of the word. Look up the words "full spectrum dominance", for instance.
It was an honest question. Apologies if it came across as a troll. Appreciate the reply and I'll take a look at reference you cited.
"full spectrum dominance"? Good grief. Sounds like other peoples have realized the benefit of relatively free trade with what still is the wealthiest, most productive, free-est, least economically-corrupt, not to mention magnanimous and friendly and goodwill-spreading, not to mention environmentally-cleanest, not to mention generous with help defending against REAL empires, peoples/nation that has ever existed. Where do the poor the world over risk their children's lives just for a chance. I could go on, but you get my point.
Oh, we have our problems, boy do we, and the future is unwritten, but:
"the United States is an empire by any reasonable definition of the word."?!?!
Sorry that I couldn't just say, "I disagree." You don't deserve my emotional response (the substance of which I stand by).
The United States is none of the things you describe, by any measure. Start by looking at the prison population, which is abnormally high for such a magnificently free country.
Then one might look at our unending wars of aggression, or will you tell us about how Iraq was chock-a-block with WMDs, how the people of Yemen are begging for genocide, etc.,.etc
Having global interests (like an interest in freedom and civil rights the world over) does not an empire make. An empire must expand State control geographically, physically taking control of more population, or removing them. Tell me, when was the last case of a Western Civilization nation forcefully (i.e. not by indiginent choice) empiring, i.e claiming jurisdictional control over someone else's dirt by force and fiat?
We are not an empire today. China and Russia (maybe Iran, but THAT's kinda funny) are today's obvious empires.
Your definition is idiosyncratic, to put it mildly.
...(T)he inside job! http://www.ae911truth.org (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
Maybe but I’m thinking the party is the real power...or whoever is really controlling the party. My guess: Obama
He's too lazy and is happy getting stoned in Kalorama. It's the cabal that put Obama in place. He was as much of an empty suit as Biden, but he was great on the teleprompter, mouthing someone else's words.
Ya that hopey changey thing-- sorry to use Sarah Palin's line but in retrospect she was right
For me, not just in retrospect.
Getting stoned is the only thing he did which I support. But, I'd pass him my doobie if he'd lend me his ear. I'd ask him who's really running things, anyway. I think he would say, truthfully, he does not know, either, he's just playing his part. I'd take a deep toke, pass the roach (or hold it for him, or use his clip, his is probably monogrammed), and tell him THAT was his problem all along.
Sometime in the next few years, the People are going to realize (because history does tend to repeat, learning must take repetition) the State is their eternal enemy, and take action. The State doesn't stand a chance. That's what the control/secrecy freaks fear most: Will their gig last their tenure, or is their gig up.
the party is a collection of powerless hacks, hired from central casting, with a few real people (enough to make things look real but pose no threat).
It's a tool, not an engineer.
And if the People don't use the Party as their tool, the Party will use them as tools, because fools are nothing but tools.
AOC is the latest tool added to the toolbox.
Why wouldn't it be? Who and what would stop the CIA (in league with global corporate agendas) from doing so?
I'd assume the GOP too -- including making it a punching bag that permits the Democrats to turn liberal voters into campaigners for censorship. If it weren't for extremists in the GOP (and Trump, of course), it would have been impossible to turn the binary thinking up to 11. Heck, probably couldn't have passed off a Biden victory in a non-Trump environment either.
Yep. While the REAL anti-war people (Tulsi, Ron Paul) get labeled as foreign agents. Sure is a coincidence!
(Tulsi, Ron Paul, DJT), imo. (Sorry to hijack your spot on opinion.)
I really did believe, even as I voted for him in '16, that DJT would empire and war like the cameras were on him preening at the Statist podium. Boy, did he prove me wrong.
At least Trump, despite all his flaws, told you exactly what he wanted to do even if you criticized him for it. Democrats on the other hand will tell you one thing while doing the opposite.
I have seen quite a few politicians and executives in their native environments.
Their behavior is indistinguishable from that of high-functioning sociopaths. Keep in mind that power is to sociopaths what catnip is to cats.
Another great achievement of President Trump was to prevent the four or five likely Republican party nominees from loosing comfortably to the Clinton team.
Love my country, hate my government
A recipe for freedom.
The top ranks of the US military were decimated by Obama. Over 200 flag officers (generals) were fired/forcibly retired during his administration for daring to be patriots who love America.
Obama or not, the Pentagon and its minions are well-fattened to this very day. Too much so. So fucking top-heavy it's no wonder this country is tipping over right off its "Exceptional" plinth.
Hmm Second World War a bit different then now.
Any president who wants to truly address international shenanigans (Obama didn't want to, he chose to placate the existing structure) would have to fire lots of people in the military and intelligence services. It's clear that if you want to reform these powers as president, they have potential to successfully undermine your presidency. If I were an incoming president, I would work to find out who was willing to do that in the recent past and I would fire those people.
These "lone" wolf Statists-at-heart are the rule now. That's the scary development of the last decade.
You give Trump waaaayyy too much credit. Google “Frank Church”…Democrat…from Idaho.
Maybe the USA would have better Dems if the right would stop assassinating them.
The enlisted men come from one strata of society while brass from another strata. What do you think are the chances that at some point the enlisted will not take orders from the brass? Too far fetched?
Thank you, Glenn. I keep asking this, but what's really in this for Bertrand - and the others like her in the media? Having been in the media for 30 years I just don't get it. My theory is this: it used to be that really smart people went into the media. Sometimes they were corrupt, sometimes they really cared about reporting the truth, sometimes they were drunks wanting a paycheck while writing their novel. But now the people going into media are the pencils who aren't simply not the sharpest, but the pencils in the stack who never ever got sharpened ever. But still I ask, why would you go into the field of reporting if you didn't have a drive to report the truth or that novel you're working on. It's a pathetic career choice to be Bertrand. She's a courtier who'll be thrown to the recyclable heap when she's no longer useful, while Rachel Maddow won't take her calls and will have her millions. But I feel that way about Maddow, too. She's doing propaganda and the people she's doing it for don't respect mere millionaires, only trillionaires. Btw, I just received and started reading Securing Democracy - this book should be read by everyone.
My guess is Natasha buys her own BS. She's a young woman early into her career who's being showered with praise and promotions from those above her. In her mind, she must be doing something right. And remember, nobody is the villain in their won life story.
Let's be fair (and here I will be accused, myself, of misogyny). She's also cashing in at the right time. If Natasha looked like Lotte Lenya, she never gets this opportunity.
Liars are ugly people regardless of what they look like.
I know several girls here in Canada who voted for Trudeau twice because he looks cute..........
If San Francisco reduces its voting age to, say, 14 (you think I'm joking?), the kids should organize and vote in an 18 yr. old mayor. What delicious spectacle that would be.
Could an 18 year old be any worse than the last few SF Mayors? Free Mountain Dew might just be the solution to $hitting in the streets!
Don’t give them ideas Tim!!! There’s never a stupid idea they didn’t like!
Misogyny requires intent, so as long as you don't work for the NYT, you should be in the clear.
"own" life story
The original reads nicely.
I loved "won." It indicates one's pride in achievement, regardless of legitimacy. it brings out the sadness of an indoctrinated and mis-mentored and used once-innocent young skull full of mush.
Her seniors also taught her how to cry "harassment!" anytime she gets called out.
A paycheck and lots of cocktail parties. Oh and being part of the ruling élite, obviously. POWER is a hell of a drug.
Right on!
Seems like with all the money spent on a journalism degree, the school could at least send her on her way with a box of sharpened pencils. Alas, probably no room what with all the trophies.
How would the journalism school raise funding -- the illustrious (sic) alumni-- LOL!
If the establishment is good at nothing else, it is very good at determining whom to buy off, whom to co-opt, whom to ignore, whom to neutralize.
Decades of increasing practice of spreading rot, much like an even stealthier non-novel coronavirus.
Many readers are asking themselves just why would "journalists" do what Bertrand, Goldberg, etc. do... Beside the obvious motives -- money and career.
A possible answer is -- "in shared interests" ---- to analyze how many among them are "beloved Bibi's" Likudniks and have they ever addressed the Gaza open air concentration camp and terror on Palestinians in apartheid Israel.
The US administrations are sadistic regimes - irrespective if under Obama, Trump, and Biden -- that thrive on the misery of nations. Syria, for example, was once a self-sufficient country -- before America decided (remember 17 years ago !!) that secular socialist Syria needs “democracy and freedom”.
CIA aligned itself even with Al Qaeda (!?!) for regime change -- who else has been weekly bombing Syria -- for years.....??
It was Woodward and Bernstein. Every reporter rather than doing hard investigative reporting started cozying up to intelligence agency sources to feed them their scoops.
You asked "What's in it for Bretrand?"
The answer is: The same thing that was "in it" for a renaissance courtier, whose job description also consisted of flattering those in power and coming up with elaborate justifications for their actions.
As accurate a parallel as any could possibly be. That's because in both cases the source is way too much entrenched Statism.
To answer your question: Power and prestige, some money to go with it. Honestly I do not see what the mystery is.
The line between government and media is so blurred, she is more of a government advocate.
The article actually notes right from the beginning- this is how people are advancing their careers. This isn’t new. How do you think a “journalist” in north korea advances her career? Her status and security?
The money and perks aren't what they used to be for journalists. They're just servants rewriting dozens of press releases. So I still don't understand. They could go right into PR and make way more. It's like when I see the young female journalists fawning over Jen at the WH press conferences, thanking her for cookies. How can they stay awake?
"The pencils that never get sharpened."
Public education indoctrinated paint jobs.
Just another corporate drone playing for the big promotion, pay raise and power. It’s all too common.
You forgot these types LOVE to hob knob with 'important"(sic) people-- get invited to the right parties etc. Just like in the kings court days-- true apparatchiks
yeah some time ago and without anyone noticing mainstream journalism passed a tipping point where the best people generally don't want to be involved in it anymore. everything since is accelerating consequences
I was sort of waiting for Glenn to tell us how we can buy signed copies of Securing Democracy. Did I miss my chance?
Look no further than our supposed VP who started out as a high priced call girl and slept her way into power.
She WAS Willie's squeeze and she's an empty-suit, opportunistic, political whore, but "high priced call girl"?
That's a subtle distinction...
Nurse Kamala?
Ouch.
Exactly. The recruitment and grooming of these people has been going on for a LOOOOOOOONG time. I can remember interacting with Karl Rove when he was head of the National College Republicans in a battle with the National Young Republicans in the late 70's early 80's. These folks are identified and brought along at least from college and made part of the team. No limit to where they can go or the power they can wield.
Its like the CIA or MI5 recruiting young wayward men (and now women) who had daddy problems. I was lucky enough to hear John Le Carre be interviewed years ago in London-- he was asked about recruitment (not his but the general theory) and I never forget what he said. " They look for young men who are poor (he was) lost and have father/authority issues " Hence Bill Clinton.
Unfortunately, LeCarre bought the Russia hoax, lock stock and barrel.
Smiley would have frowned at his creators naivety.
Reference please
“Now, as to what is happening in the other areas of Russian behavior and Mr. Trump's association - there, I think we follow the money trail. I think it's perfectly possible that Trump was taken into what I call a honey trap - that he had ladies found for him, and he misbehaved in Russia. I don't think - if that film was shown tomorrow worldwide, Trump would get away with it.“
NPR interview if I recollect correctly.
I dunno, I don't think any of the Cambridge Spies were poor.
Burgess and MacLean were British diplomats, for instance.
Words from Le Carre-- also there are many spies we don't/didn't know of.
Oh, i believe that he said it, I can think of plenty of counter-examples however.
Is there a YouTube or transcript of the Le Carre interview. Would love to read/see it thx
I saw him in 2002 at the National Theatre in London with my Uncle . He was discussing his career-- not sure if it was filmed.
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-circus-ringmaster/894619/
Thx I’ll google around and see if I can find. Thx for the tip
CNN in general is deranged
Your articles are becoming declarations of the obvious Glenn. When are you going to stop calling them “media” and journalists? They are properly termed propagandists.
I have to say they are apparatchiks ( I LOVE that word-- you may notice)
You realize that word means bureaucrat do you? There's no more negative connotation to it in Russian (it comes from "apparat" that you could translate as bureaucracy) than there is to a bureaucrat.
Yes I do 😊 Lots of Russian friends here in Toronto. My understanding from them (and they use the term) is it is a derogatory term for a snivelling upwardly mobile bureaucrat. Maybe thats just the view of Russians from Moscow and Belarus.
Yeah, stay away from those 🙄. The Muscovites especially are a snotty bunch for no reason at all. The "bulbashi" should be a bit more mellow.
Lucky for me they are both really nice. Though they laugh (rightfully so!) at the North American response to the government edicts about the "virus". I remind them what babies (young and inexperienced) we are here in North America- no wars (accept at creation) on our lands, no famine, no Chernobyl etc. They scoff and snort at the govt.
They better be nice. Tell them I'll come get them if they turn nasty as we here on the forum stand up for each other!
Me, too! Strictly speaking an "apparatchik" must be a Communist, according to my Merriam-Webster, but I love it so I use it for the over-important bureaucrat and the staff (non-political) appointments and officers (the "gears") of the Deep State. However, it's an ugly word if pronounced properly (accent on 1st and 3rd syllables), so I pronounce it like I imagine a Frenchman would (accent on 2nd and 4th, 4th pronounced like "cheek"). So beautiful that way.
That would dispose of the terms "media" and "journalists" as being propagandists for one thing or another is their function to begin with. It's people like Glenn that we need to come up with a proper term for.
As the state grows increasingly and irreversibly powerful, individuals positions themselves to be part of that power. In this case, instead of reporting news or investigating for truth, the primary activity of journalists is *signaling* to the government via the content of their articles - allegiance to their masters.
This is not limited to media. This is happening everywhere and set aflame by social media. Prominent academics are signaling with their own writings/research in order to be appointed to government roles. Scientists are signaling in order to get on the government gravy train of grants and financial support.
This tactic insures no words ever need to be spoken. Since after all, lying as a journalist, or academic, or CEO, or anything- in order to secure own’s own position in the new politburo would be among the most infernally evil things one could do. Signaling creates plausible deniability that only needs to pass the test of other liars competing for the same spot in the same politburo.
All an inevitable result of 1) human nature, coupled with 2) way too much public power sloshing around a private-oriented nation.
The really interesting thing to me since Glenn published this, is that of all the predictable tweets slamming him, none of them deny the facts as laid out in the article - not a one.
Similar to how everyone was focussed on who hacked/leaked the DNC emails instead of what were the contents of those emails. Similar treatment to Hunter's emails.
That would keep them in the news.
I'm looking forward to many breathless articles declaring that Glenn put Bertrand in literal danger of being killed by ... well, it doesn't matter ... and needs to be immediately removed from Substack. Because safety.
The CIA (and the FBI for that matter) need to be legally eliminated. JFK’s alleged quote to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds” comes to mind. These agencies are an abomination and antithetical to a healthy democratic Republic. This article about their journalistic hirelings and stooges again shows why. The sad news is that with their alliance with the democrat party, corporate media and big tech; along with their masterful duping of half the electorate, they are not going anywhere. Congratulations Gina, Allen (from his sauna in the 7th level of hell) is very proud of you. 😈
Eisenhower and Kennedy saw what was happening and tried to warn us.
Yes. And apparently every successive President got the message.
Did the IC hire the hit job? Was LBJ "handled" into SE Asia? What a kook I am?
You know, I used to think anything but Oswald a a lone gunman was crazy. I really fell in with Posner’s “Case Closed”. Now, a few years later, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not at all beyond the realm of possibility that the President was removed by the hard core cold warriors who were convinced JFK was going soft on the communists, and was going to get rid of them, if they didn’t get him first. They believed they were saving the country. I want to believe otherwise, but it’s getting harder to do so. Now, almost 60 years later I think this cabal (Ike’s MIC) has metastasized into the monster we have today.
You and me.
You think?
and Kennedy was killed
Fair enough - but which agency would you task with gathering intelligence?
Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are already doing it for Democrats.
I don't see that as an end state worth pursuing, and I am guessing you don't either. :|
No, but it hardly matters what we think. When even progressive darling Ocasio-Cortez is smartly leveraging corporate Internet giants to wage war against political adversaries, and they greedily comply, then no one on earth is going to stop them. Democrats, and more and more "progressives," are happily thriving in the oligarchy they used to caution against.
progressive darling? she is hardly progressive
And yet she is a darling of progressives.
How did we survive the Age of Imperialism without an alphabet soup of unelected and unaccountable spy agencies?
Same way we survived Age of Imperialism with muskets and pikes. That doesn't mean that it would work just as well in modern days.
I think you misunderstand when the Age of Imperialism happened.
Incidentally, many European countries of that time were busy amassing empires, and most had massive standing armies.
Again, who is empiring today? Who is amassing massive standing armies today? How does a free people, today, fight their own State, which, like all States, naturally hates individual freedom, AND survive today's Statist empires?
I stand corrected , though according to Wikipedia, Age of Imperialism began around 1750 - early enough for pikes and muskets to be common on the battlefield. In any case, my point remains - we cannot automatically expect methodologies that worked 100-200 years ago to work now.
Contemplate Celine's First Law.
Yesss but with AR-15
Millions of them.
Who is empiring today? So you think the people today are going to survive today's empiring States the same way the people did in the Age of Imperialism? Sounds to me like "unilateral disarmament."
How about taking half the money and using it for -- say -- I dont know education????
So far what I have seen is that government can spend as much money it wants on education or intel agencies - it never achieves anything good. So how about just not take so much tax money and leave people alone?
Hooray! Another conservative. I believe we should have a tax freeze for a few years and, a small government.
More of a black pilled liberal (which is basically conservative now a days). Once you realize that a liberal utopia isn’t achievable because human nature is greedy, you s get black pilled.
If we do that, we would be spending more money for education and less money for national intelligence. Now what?
Less education and more intelligence.
New, properly corralled and controlled agencies, constantly audited and inspected and perhaps even "spied" on by other citizen supervised agencies (checks and balances, right?) to ensure that all IC operates under this unwavering first principle:
You work for the people, not the State.
Call me crazy, but with today's technology, I say privatize intelligence gathering. It would make it much easier to expose and penalize, and therefore minimize (instead of institutionalize), the inevitable abuse of civil rights.
Today's IC is a failed, archaic, Statist system that has it's origins in the last martial-law-like episode (WW II). Why would we expect it to be non-Statist and individual-freedom-protecting? Why would anyone be surprised at its utter failures today after 80 years of slow, Statist creep in all things. The enemy of the State is the people.
Call me a crazy simpleton, but I believe first principles ARE simple.
Good suggestions. I think there would also need to be term limits for the Congress; and limits to how long you can be a federal employee (no more than 10 years?); and strict limits on lobbyists (like if you served in Congress or were a federal employee you can never be a paid lobbyist). I know I’m dreaming but there needs to be a continual flushing out of the hordes of permanent state bureaucrats who can’t help but suck at the teat of the citizenry. Give them all a nice and reasonable exit bonus, and out you go!
I used to like term limits. But they ARE anti-freedom. And they soothe the people who believe in them (a vast majority today?) into the complacent bliss of ignorance. The Majority needs to get what they want so they are invested in paying attention and correcting their judgments. Term limits are NOT a check and balance to creeping Statism, only an aware, invested, majority of people can do that. THIS is what old Ben Franklin meant, of course, when he supposedly and famously answered the woman's question with his own:
"We give you a Republic, if you can keep it!"
I disagree with you about term limits but gave you a like regardless because you make me maybe re-consider my position on it. Right now my position is that politicians don't want to rock the boat much because they know their constituents are fools and complacent. Pelosi has been getting re-elected despite her own state being in absolute shit.
Thanks, and you're one of the few I heart even when your posts don't quite meet my "stickler-standards." Really, I sound like I am trying to change minds, but I am just trying to use an intelligent forum to "perfect" my own opinions, if that makes sense.
If you can keep it. That is what it comes down to. I will have to think on what you passionately say about term limits. Thanks!
The ultimate power is within the People, but the People are peaceful and fat and don't want to take back their birthright from the usurping State.........yet.
Agreed
A longer conversation would be warranted, but in short, a totally new one with a very limited portfolio specific to defined intelligence gathering activity, and collation and dissemination to the President. I would also reduce the total amount of intelligence agencies from the 17 or so today to something less. Also severely rein in any ability to conduct military type operations and assassinations, and any domestic surveillance operations by the CIA and NSA. To the extent needed to actually defend against real foreign threats to domestic US, a limited in powers successor to the FBI.
"This Committee was organized shortly thereafter and has conducted a year-long investigation into the intelligence activities of the United States Government, the first substantial inquiry into the intelligence community since World War II.
The inquiry arose out of allegations of substantial wrongdoing by intelligence agencies on behalf of the administrations which they served. A deeper concern underlying the investigation was whether this Government's intelligence activities were governed and controlled consistently with the fundamental principles of American constitutional government-that power must be checked and balanced and that the preservation of liberty requires the restraint of laws, and not simply the good intentions of men.
Our investigation has confirmed that properly controlled and lawful intelligence is vital to the nation's interest. A strong and effective intelligence system serves, for example, to monitor potential military threats from the Soviet Union and its allies, to verify compliance with international agreements such as SALT, and to combat espionage and international terrorism.
These, and many other necessary and proper functions are performed by dedicated and hard working employees of the intelligence community.The Committee's investigation has, however, also confirmed substantial wrongdoing. And it has demonstrated that intelligence activities have not generally been governed and controlled in accord with the fundamental principles of our constitutional system of government."
Doesn't that sound familiar? That's the preface to the Church Committee report, circa 1975. The reforms were supposed to prevent the repeat of what happened in the 50s and 60s. And yet - here we are. Given the goals stated, I don't think these violations of 'our constitutional system of government' are avoidable. At best, they are inevitable side effect of agencies design to do their work far from the public eye, and any oversight agency is doomed to regulatory capture. At worst...well, at worst these agencies may be suborned by other interests, and violations become a 'feature, not a bug'.
So which trailers were hung as a result of the Church Committee’s revelations? Oversight is meaningless without accountability.
"Oversight is meaningless without accountability." Almost perfect.
I say, oversight (a form of accountability) is impossible without constant attention from the people. The Church Committee was excellent oversight. The People, so enriched and happified by the success of relatively-free-market-Capitalism, forgot to pay attention, and the People's eternal enemy, the State, took full advantage.
Wake up, peeps, before we have to spill blood to recage the eternal enemy!!
NONE! Bugger off!
For all, if you haven't read Sharyl Atkkisson's book "Slanted: how to love censorship and hate journalism," it explains all of this is 'the narrative.' It sucks, but it helps to understand. Journalism, in the mainstream, is dead. Thanks Glenn!
ABSOLUTELY accurate, and this *is the crux of the problem. I have friends who are journalists, and the dilemma is FAR more financial than it is idealistic for the journalists in my circle of friends. Physical newspapers are already a historical anachronism, with only weak vestiges remaining.
When I got out of the military in 1971, there were over 1,500 independently owned *major newspapers. At that time, the law prevented the same people from owning more than *one news media outlet in the same "area of interest" (or physical marketplace, as we may say today). So, you could not own a newspaper *and a radio/TV station in the same area.
There was another law, called "Truth in Advertizing" enforcing the fact that, if you presented *one Political POV over the air, *you had to provide and pay for *equal time for someone to present the *opposite Political POV. This law alone had the effect that *nobody paid for strictly Political POV programming in those days.
The Republicans (look it up) succeeded in *gutting the "Truth In Advertizing" laws long before there *WAS a Rush Limbaugh Show in the '90s, much less all of the little *clonesters who have popped up subsequent to that.
As Steve, via his recommendation of Sharyl Atkkission shares with us above, journalism as we Boomers have known it, is *ALREADY dead and buried. The danger is in our old-fashioned belief that what appears in media today IS what journalism used to be. Even tho, going back to the halcyon days of Yellow Journalism cashed in on by Randolph Hearst and others, "journalism" has had only *brief days of being an *actual source of news, rather than a blistering source of propaganda ever since the days of Johannes Gutenberg.
Part II ;-D
Today in the U.S., ALL media (newspapers, radio, TV, major portions of the internet), are owned by FOUR major corporations. We can read into *that statistic whatever we will, but suffice it to say, that even the *idea of insisting upon access to truth and the "real story" is pretty much a Fairy Tale in these modern media times.
News is not even SUPPOSED to be what it once was, and the only ones seemingly not "in on" that fact ARE the majority of the consumers of "news" from the MSM.
Thus, not only the popularity of writers such as GG and Taibbi, but the NECESSITY of such writers, and the *indispensable NEED for such business models as substack and other such outlets which *allow these writers to be available to us UNCENSORED.
I enthusiastically agree with other commenters on this queue indicating that, whether or not we always *agree with these writers, (bcuz most of us are *not "Dittoheads) we want ACCESS to these writers, uncut, unmodified, and uncensored !
Gratitude due to both the authors *And to the business models such as substack !
So spot on.
Just to add, that just because most of us are not Limbaugh fans, does not mean that a (vast) majority of Limbaugh fans "want ACCESS to these writers, uncut, unmodified, and uncensored!" too.
Very, very well noted ! However, I am obliged to allow the Limbaugh fans to express their own opinions if they are able to do so at all now that the Rushster has "shuffled off this mortal coil...".
Although, on a site where readers contribute for the pleasure of *reading the writers we favor, I have no immediate expectation of encountering any vast overabundance of the "Rush Riders". ;-D
Well, one just did now, but he (okay, I) was being a little coy about it! ;)
I've been waiting for you to specifically write on Natasha Bertrand. I have followed her writing very closely since the beginning of Russiagate and, in my opinion, is the most blatantly dishonest reporter on the topic. Unlike Marcy Wheeler, who just plainly has a loose grip on reality and appears to believe the imaginary connections she makes, Natasha Bertrand's writing and its obvious coordination with other messengers demonstrates that Bertrand is no true believer, she is just a propagandist with transactional ethics posing as a journalist.
When we finally get to see the journalists that accepted direct cash payments from Fusion GPS, I won't be surprised if she and Ali Watkins are both among the recipients.
Don't forget Maggie Haberman (politico/NYTimes).
> Placing a Story: We have has a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
Though let's give her credit for calling out her sources for feeding her false information. With sanctimony.
https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/922962880206647297?lang=en
There's a difference between a source of information and a source of misinformation and I think it is telling that "reporters" like Greg Gordon and Peter Stone don't reveal the name of their source for the made-up Prague/Cohen claims. Journalists should burn sources that knowingly lie to them. Propagandists don't.
I forwarded this article to what I believe is an intelligent person. Her response was "He doesn't seem like a very happy person and I hope he gets the help he needs"...I'm serious! It's astounding what people say and believe these day's. It's SHOCKING. I'M SHOCKED
Linda, I've been there. All I can say is, after a while, you'll stop being shocked.
If you're like me, there will come a time when seeing someone rationally consume information that goes against their preconceived notions and change their mind is the only thing that's truly shocking.
Don't stop forwarding articles though. People can ignore the truth, but they can't un-hear it.
"...change their mind is the only thing that's truly shocking"
Indeed. And I've been looking to get shocked but totally in vain. Hence my proclamations about stupidity of the people and misapplication of the term "intelligence".
She's projecting. One has to be a nut job to believe russiagate nonsense and then also fall for the bounty story. Since when did Taliban require to be given money to attack Americans? Any reasonable person would have had that as the very first thought and concluded it was nonsense. Or how does a police officer get "head bashed by a mob" and then his mother and family still say he called them saying he's fine? All these stories stank from the beginning and only insane people can fall for it again and again.
"Since when did Taliban require to be given money to attack Americans?"
Not to mention, why would Russia do the one thing that would make it politically impossible for the United States to leave.
To believe the "Russian bounties" hoax, one has to believe that "Russia" is not incredibly malevolent but also seeks to damage its own interests.
Something similar could be said for the Syrian chemical weapons hoaxes.
"To believe the "Russian bounties" hoax, one has to believe that "Russia" is not incredibly malevolent but also seeks to damage its own interests." should read "not ONLY incredibly malevolent."
bad cat.
Yep. That's another thing which showed to be people who fell for the bounty story didn't have any critical thinking in place because if Russia really was putting bounties, that should be more reason to leave and get troops out of harms way - not do the exact opposite.
First, Bertrand's loyalty is NOT to the mythical "national security," it's to the Democratic Party and left-wing propaganda. That's what she is, a propagandist. She's not a "journalist," she's a political hack. After all, her background is political science, not "security," whatever that is. Second, the CIA and other government agencies became leftwing after Jimmy Carter started letting people in who would have been considered security risks under previous administrations. Brennan is a classic example - the man is an admitted communist. Third, she's always been associated with leftist media. So CNN hired her, who cares? Who watches CNN anyway? I don't watch any of them. I don't have cable anymore. Personally, I wonder if Glenn, Matt and other leftists are starting to realize that they gave allegiance to people with an agenda they no longer agree with.
We have never watched CNN and the only time we’re forced to listen to it is when one or the other of our children channel it to pummel us about not getting “vaccinated.” I digress, but this is too rich: I was reading yesterday about the pros and cons of Ivermectin, the chief con being that it is not approved by the FDA for COVID application. Knife please: I’ve got some hypocrisy to cut.
If she were CIA, you'd never know. No one outside the loop would.
The best evidence is that such bullshit gets promoted and anyone looking into such matters gets suppressed. It's the massive financial objective to create a consistent (and wrong) narrative that makes it look "national security" (which, of course, is nothing of the sort).
She's also not "left.' She's a fascist. She is propaganda MARKETED TO THE LEFT, which is different.
All major media is right-wing / corporatist / fascist; it gets labeled left or right based on the AUDIENCE.
hmmmmm so you are telling me I (a right leaning person) hate the main stream media because they are right wing? wut? By that logic, Trump was a left winger and AOC is right wing?
You would be better off simply calling them establishment cronies instead of assigning every bad thing as the other political side.
Fascism is on the far LEFT. Fascism is STATE control; that's on the LEFT.
Nazi means National Socialist, not National Capitalist.
Not a fascist. A communist. If fascist governments had killed more people than communist governments had, they would instead be fascists. But I am splitting hairs.