Glenn Greenwald: Raving Leftist

glenn-greenwaldAdding to a long tradition of misleading the public with dubious information, Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz recently unleashed a scathing attack on Edward Snowden promoter Glenn Greenwald in a 7,600-word essay published by The New Republic. Although Wilentz never comes out and says it directly, the reader is left with the distinct impression that he believes neo-communist Greenwald shouldn’t be considered a member-in-good-standing of the Left. In fact, Wilentz seems to insinuate that Greenwald is an extreme right-winger at heart, a proposition that cannot survive serious scrutiny.

An unabashed partisan Democrat, Wilentz is known for his televised histrionics on the eve of President Clinton’s impeachment. He warned House members that if they voted to impeach Clinton, “history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness.” The New York Times ridiculed him for his outburst, editorializing that his “gratuitously patronizing presentation … marred the Democratic experts’ argument that Mr. Clinton’s misconduct did not meet the constitutional tests for impeachment.”

In the article on Greenwald, whom Rachel Maddow calls “the American left’s most fearless political commentator,” Wilentz artfully suggests that Greenwald might be a right-wing crypto-critic of the president and the Left because he is a zealot on so-called privacy issues and has ferociously attacked the Obama administration for its NSA spying abuses. Instead of making a clear accusation of ideological infidelity against Greenwald, Wilentz cherry-picks statements from Greenwald’s past to put him in the same ideological camp as Ron Paul “paleoconservatives,” who support income tax abolition, isolationism, among other things.

As evidence, Wilentz cites Greenwald’s dalliances with members of the Right in the past. Despite being a crusader for gay rights, in Greenwald’s “online travels, he gravitated to right-wing sites such as Townhall, where he could engage in cyber-brawls with social conservatives,” Wilentz writes. “Over time, he met some of his antagonists in the flesh and, to his surprise, liked them.”

Greenwald’s work has certainly endeared him to libertarians, with whom the lawyer-turned-journalist has had associations over the years, but the simpler explanation for his outreach is that politics makes strange bedfellows. Just because Greenwald elevates the surveillance issue over all others doesn’t mean he stopped being a dogmatic leftist.

And there is no doubt Greenwald is a committed radical leftist.

It’s doubtful that America could ever move far enough to the left to satisfy Greenwald — the recipient of an award named in honor of Soviet agent and left-wing journalist, I.F. Stone. Greenwald doesn’t want to change a few policies here and there; He wants to overthrow the system and his life’s work is clearly dedicated to precisely that.

Greenwald’s anti-Americanism, along with his activism, writings, amply demonstrated hatred of economic freedoms and capitalism, and enthusiastic complicity in Snowden’s leaking of U.S. secrets, mark him as a Marxist-Leninist doing his best to undermine the American system of government.

More specifically, with his effusive praise for and work with U.S. Trotskyists, Greenwald has all but announced that he is one of them. At an International Socialist Organization-sponsored conference in 2011, he stated that

“no event assembles more passionate activism, genuine expertise, and provocative insights than the Socialism Conference. This will be my third straight year attending, and what keeps me coming back is how invigorating and inspiring it is to be in the midst of such diverse and impressive activists.”

ISO is a key Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist party in the U.S. Its supporters want to establish what Marx called a “dictatorship of the proletariat” right here in America. Plenary sessions on offer at the 2011 conference included “Lenin and the vanguard party,” “Marxism and the state,” “Marxism, war, and imperialism,” “Russia’s revolutionary process, 1905–1917,” “Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution,” “Marxism and the future socialist society,” “The politics of International Socialism” and “Enemies in blue: The police under capitalism.”

Greenwald made his most serious foray into political activism in 2008 when he co-founded the Accountability Now PAC (political action committee) with firedoglake.com founder Jane Hamsher, an activist and film producer who used to be closely associated with then-SEIU chief Andy Stern. The PAC grew out of a coalition of far-left and socialist groups and individuals, including the George Soros-funded group MoveOn, SEIU, the Daily Kos website, Howard Dean’s Democracy for America PAC, and the Van Jones-founded Color of Change. Although the PAC created what Greenwald appropriately called “the Strange Bedfellows coalition,” an “alliance of ideologically diverse factions,” the New York Times described the group as focused on moving the Democratic Party “further to the left.”

A survey of Greenwald’s views clearly demonstrates why Greenwald would form such a group and why he has only sidled up more intensely to groups like the ISO in recent years. In a column titled “Glenn Greenwald: Man of the Left,” David Bernstein points out that, like the rest of the Left, Greenwald is in denial about the terrible fiscal condition of the country. He believes the ongoing, slow-motion bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security is a hoax perpetrated by conservatives to hurt the poor. In an October 2012 column about the vice presidential candidates’ debate, he wrote,

“This claim lies at the heart of the right-wing and neo-liberal quest to slash entitlement benefits for ordinary Americans -       [Congressman Paul] Ryan predictably responded by saying: ‘Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.’ – but the claim is baseless.”

According to Greenwald, this is the work of a capitalist conspiracy. There is a sinister plot afoot by elites who falsely claim that the two entitlement programs are in deep trouble, he maintains. It is a “demonstrable myth being used by the DC class — which largely does not need entitlements — to deceive ordinary Americans into believing that they must ‘sacrifice’ the pittances on which they are now living.”

“Now if that’s not reflective of a conspiratorial far-left perspective on domestic policy,” Bernstein writes, “I don’t know what is.”

Sounding like Noam Chomsky, Greenwald calls the U.S. “the country that has generated more violence and militarism in the world over the last five or six decades.” The U.S. plays a significant role in the Middle East “in order to have access to their oil and protect Israel.” America is hated because it sends its “military for six straight decades into other countries to bomb them, kill their children and women and innocent men, [and] prop up dictators.”

In his venomous 2008 book, Great American Hypocrites, Greenwald accuses conservatives of using “deceitful electoral tactics.” The “right-wing noise machine” uses tactics that “drown out both reality and consideration of actual issues, thus ensuring that elections are decided based on manipulative cultural, psychological, and gender-exploiting marketing imagery.” In other words, the American people suffer from what Marxists call “false consciousness” as they get duped over and over again at the ballot box by the rich, manipulative capitalists who rule over and exploit them.

Greenwald also rejects capitalism and the economic freedoms associated with a market-based economy.

It bothers him that “the wealthiest in our society are permitted to prosper without constraints,” he told Democracy Now. He calls the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats a Ronald Reagan “cliché.” It is “actually completely untrue” because as the rich get richer “nothing trickles down,” and “inequality starts to explode.” The richest conspire against the rest of society, using the political power that accompanies their wealth “to ensure that the system doesn’t work to create equal opportunity, but works only to entrench and shield their own ill-gotten gains.” In other words, profit is by definition theft, which is the position traditionally held by Marxists and left-wing anarchists.

A supporter of Occupy Wall Street, Greenwald wrote a book called, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. It’s not likely to be recommended in Rush Limbaugh’s “Stack of Stuff” anytime soon.

Poor people and average Americans can’t obtain justice in the courts, Greenwald contends. “The criminal justice system is now almost exclusively reserved for ordinary Americans, who are routinely subjected to harsh punishments even for the pettiest of offenses,” he writes. Ignoring countries like Cuba, North Korea, China, and Russia, Greenwald rails against the justice system in America, describing the U.S. as “the world’s largest and most merciless prison state for its poorest and most powerless citizens.”

America, he continues,

“has an entrenched two-tiered system of justice: the country’s most powerful political and financial elites are virtually immunized from the rule of law, empowered to commit felonies with fullscale impunity and to act without any constraints, while the politically powerless are imprisoned with greater ease and in far greater numbers than in any other country on the planet.”

The law itself is unjust, according to Greenwald, because it “perpetuates and even generates tremendous social inequality.”

Greenwald also blames the financial services industry for the nation’s financial troubles, which led him to support the Occupy Wall Street movement. As Greenwald sees things, the violent Occupy protesters who regularly physically attacked police and private businesses were victimized when police fought back and tried to restore order. They, and Americans in general, are victims of the capitalist system, he believes. Like any garden-variety leftist radical, he considers police officers doing their job to be bad guys using the law to protect the “criminals … hiding in Wall Street buildings.” Occupy demonstrators, who defecated on police cars, set fire to buildings, raped and robbed with impunity, and assaulted police, were innocent angels “exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.”

Greenwald’s radical left-wing credentials are further burnished by his repeated condemnations of Israel and its supporters — e.g., the notion that “large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups” secretly manipulate American foreign policy; the claim that most American politicians feel compelled to “pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty” to Israel, lest their careers be ruined; the charge that “Israeli aggression [against Gaza] is possible only because” of America’s “diplomatic, financial and military support for Israel and everything it does”; and the stunning suggestion that it makes little sense to criminalize “anything that is deemed to be support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” given that those groups are “devoted to protecting their citizens against the state of Israel” and are “not in any way devoted to harming Americans.”

Despite the above documentation of Greenwald’s typical far-left background, Wilentz points to an article Greenwald wrote for Salon in December 2011 evaluating Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy from a far-left perspective (without explicitly endorsing him). But Greenwald only argues that, in his view, left-wingers could feasibly support Paul if they value principle over power. To do so, he acknowledges, they would have to overlook “horrible” aspects of Paul’s worldview, by which he means things such as support for cuts in social welfare spending and limiting government, which connect Paul to the Right.

But just as it boosts Paul, Greenwald’s column is also a scathing attack on President Obama from the far left.

Obama’s “conduct is nothing short of horrific,” Greenwald declares. The president “himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested.”

Obama has “vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs,” “slaughtered civilians,” “sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs,” “institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield,” and has “waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers.”

“He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists,” he writes.

In a passage that ought to inspire chuckles from anyone who follows the news, Greenwald accuses Obama of “building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the ‘austerity’ measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.”

Obama has made the U.S. “as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government,” while backing “some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes.” Worst of all, in Greenwald’s view, is that under Obama “America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before.”

Again, if you believe, as Greenwald does, that the surveillance state is the defining issue of our time, supporting libertarian Paul over Obama isn’t hard to do.

Wilentz is also offended that years ago Greenwald opposed illegal immigration. To make matters worse, Greenwald dared to utilize “right-wing conceits and catchphrases.” Illegal immigration causes a “parade of evils” by wreaking havoc “economically, socially, and culturally,” Greenwald wrote, adding that it also “makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.”

It’s not clear how those “evils” are necessarily the concern of conservatives alone. Opposing illegal immigration on left-wing grounds isn’t difficult at all, at least in theory. The presence of illegal immigrants undermines the bargaining power of labor unions. The aliens are sometimes treated badly and are arguably “exploited” by those who hire them at below-market rates.

In fact, much of what Greenwald said used to be the default position of labor activists. They believed, correctly, that the influx of cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants puts downward pressure on wages.

Cesar Chavez, the Saul Alinsky-trained labor organizer, was a critic of illegal immigration which he viewed as a threat to the labor movement’s power. In a 1972 interview, he used language that would no doubt offend today’s politically correct, identity politics-driven leftists. The United Farm Workers union co-founder described undocumented immigrants hired to break a strike as “wetbacks” and “illegals,” and lamented that, “As long as we have a poor country bordering California, it’s going to be very difficult to win strikes.”

Contrary to Wilentz’s claims, Greenwald is not unlike many others on the far left who find ready allies on the fringes of the Republican Party due to a shared worldview that puts America at the center of their hatred. This is the niche that Greenwald has occupied throughout most of his public career, and he has made the appropriate connections on the way. But time after time Greenwald has returned to the mantras of supporting massive wealth redistribution and maligning the U.S. as the source of the world’s ills. His commitment to Trotskyists and other totalitarian socialists is no accident, but an expression of his inner core.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • krinks

    Proof of this article’s mani point is the fact that Greenwald’s new web site hired that crackpot from Rolling Stone, Matt Talibi, who not that long ago expoused the communist manifesto.

    • mezcukor

      why are people who hate America so much live in America?

      • A Z

        I suspect Greenwald was bullied often as a kid.

        • billy_bob_tweed

          If that is true, then he provides an excellent example of somebody who refuses to be bullied and fights back. Commendable.

          • A Z

            Yes I had a dog that was bullied and it wanted to bully back. It made no distinction. It went after all other dogs after a few rounds of bullying.

            That Greenwald fights back is commendable to an extent.

      • krinks

        Good question.

      • glpage

        So they can try to destroy it.

      • UberYou

        Because they were born there. Where were you born that has such a terrible English program in its schools?

        • Anonymous

          Mexcukor is from Belgium. I daresay they speak & write English better than you speak or write Flemish or Walloon.
          =)

          • UberYou

            That’s certainly one thing you could assume. It’s also true.

          • reader

            And – to quote an unknown author – where were you born that has such a terrible English program in its schools?

          • UberYou

            Using a pseudonym is not the same as being unknown. Try again, little one, try again.

          • reader

            Yeah, not at all as being unknown and unwanted. Boy, envy is eating me up. Oh, yeah, sue me for copyright violation. Call 1-800-troll-help.

          • UberYou

            Also, where were YOU born where the English program taught you the word “quote” but not the use of quotation marks? I’m guessing “prison”…

          • UberYou

            Funny you know where that other poster is from, “Anonymous”. Just defend yourself as yourself man.

    • H.P. Loathecraft

      Uh huh, sure he did. And unicorns ambushed you on the bus on your way to collect your welfare check this morning.

  • UberYou

    It took you a month and a half to analyze that article and write this one as a reply?

    • Anonymous

      “Sarah Palin’s botox drenched, pharmaceutical laced zombie face looks more harsh and judgmental than ever. I can’t believe I almost masturbated to her picture one time…” -UberYou

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/palin-blasts-obamas-weak-leadership-on-russia-wears-mom-jeans-and-equivocates/#comment-1270164455

      • UberYou

        Yes, I said that. Your point?

        • Inane Rambler

          That maybe you should stop being a snide asshole for little reason,.

          • Hieronymous

            UberYou is all that and a bag of chips too.
            He actually corrected someone’s spelling by saying it should be ‘route out’ instead of ‘root out’.
            #Fail

          • UberYou

            You just said “all that and a bag of chips”. I honestly can’t think of a way to make you look stupider than you just did by saying that.

            And actually, I explained the different meanings of “rout out” and “route out”. But after reading that post you still misspell “rout” as “root”? The post actually pointed that precise grammatical error out. That’s fantastic.

            Keep it up man, you’re doing a smash up job of trolling you.

          • Hieronymous >

            We’ll let the readers decide Mr. All that & a bag of cheesy chips. LMAO
            Arcite • 10 days ago

            The implication is clear, budgetary increases and reallocation is needed to “ROUTE OUT” other potential moles and security lapses. The NSA simply grew too big, too fast, but it isn’t anything that can’t be fixed.

            Sabe_Moya Arcite • 10 days ago

            You perhaps meant “root out” – among some other conspicuous errors.

            musings >> Sabe_Moya • 8 days ago

            Or perhaps he did mean “route”

            UberYou >> Sabe_Moya • 2 days ago

            “route out” is perfectly correct here.

            Sabe_Moya >> UberYou • 2 days ago

            Perhaps in some language other than English, or if you went to public school in California. But the dictionaries have other ideas. M-W example: root out – transitive verb: to remove altogether: eradicate, destroy – “attempting to root out his mistakes” – A T Weaver; “powers to root out organized crime and political corruption”- NY Times. And so on…

            UberYou >> Sabe_Moya • 2 days ago

            See, the problem is you just THINK you’re smart enough to understand what I meant.

            You clearly understand the meaning of the term “root out”.

            To “route out” is to follow, or guide something/someone, away from an original course of action. As in “the student routed out of his original major to a new course of study”, or “helped to route out new candidates who clearly didn’t belong in the program”.

            It is pronounced to rhyme with “about”, not with “boot”.

            It isn’t commonly used, but it does exist as a term. I generally hear it in the past tense, as “routed out”.

            UberYou >> UberYou • 2 days ago

            In this case, it would mean that the “potential moles” were surreptitiously directed away from their original plans because the incentive to pursue their original course was reduced or eliminated. see more 0 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

            UberYou >> UberYou • 2 days ago

            And also, in your definition it is “rout”, not “root”. You momentarily infected me with your stupid. see more 0 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

            Sabe_Moya >> UberYou • 2 days ago

            Re-re-read the original message and context and you may understand that the original writer meant to say “root out. ” Neither the prescriptive nor descriptive authorities support your invention. In more than 30 years as an English teacher I have had a few students slower than you, though not many.

          • Hieronymous >
          • UberYou

            Your insecurity is showing.

            Here’s another debate on the same issue:

            http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105×1512862

          • UberYou

            Seriously, taking time to search through my old posts, then post a full copy/paste AND a separate linked comment to try to embarrass me? Man, your life is bleak.

            Also…get a clue, you’re being trolled. Mostly by yourself, but also by me…and possibly one other…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            lol

          • UberYou

            Hmmm…perhaps the anonymous poster should have just said that then. Had he/she/it/you just come out and said that, I likely would’ve agreed.

            As for you: ellipsis…you’re doing it wrong.

            Your screen name, however, is wonderfully self-aware.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        UnterYou should fantasize over medusa benjamin. She may be your dream girl for getting your rocks off.

  • A Z

    “Greenwald opposed illegal immigration.”‘

    When Greenwald studied immigration law and saw that outside the gay issue his partner, David Michael Miranda, would have a harder time becoming an U.S. citizen than an illegal alien, it smacked Greenwald up side the head.

    Reality has a way of doing that to a person.

    Greenwald had a dog in the fight. Wilentz does not. Therefore reality does not hit Wilentz quite as hard for the obliviot to notice.

    • A Z

      “Greenwald has said his residence in Brazil is the result of an American law, the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which prevented his partner from receiving a visa to reside in the United States with him’” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

      Even barring the overturned Defense of Marriage Act, Greenwald will still grate at illegals achieving citizenship ahead of his partner, David Michael Miranda.

      Every once in a while Greenwald faces reality. Wilentz never does.

      • Smoking Hamster

        Anything we have that keeps gay socialists out of America is fine by me…

        • A Z

          I was just postulating about how he came by his reasoning. I did not say what I wanted.

          But it is interesting how smart he got, when he was b_tch slapped by reality.

          • Smoking Hamster

            The same thing happened that caused Howard Stern to turn on the Democrats.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He did? I never heard a thing but I’ve never been in the loop in any way on his politics.

          • Smoking Hamster

            It was 6 years ago but went viral this week for some odd reason.

            “Sirius Radio host Howard Stern is incensed that Democratic members of the Federal Communications Commission oppose his network’s upcoming merger with Satellite XM Radio. As a result, he vowed never to vote for another Democrat again.

            Although the merger passed FCC scrutiny, it was done against the wishes of Democrats, who the “shock jock” called “communists” and “gangsters.””

            http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/22/communists-howard-stern-vows-never-to-vote-dem-again-even-if-god-becomes-a-democrat-102365

  • herb benty

    Idiocy in a suit, becoming more common, as these idiots train more idiots.

  • bob smith

    “Glenn Greenwald: Raving” …?

    fill in the blank

  • wileyvet

    Again, the hypocrisy and delusional thinking that comes from leftists is astonishing. Like all those who helped Bolshevism achieve victory, or those that aided Castro, how many survived the purges and paranoia? Do these people honestly believe that if they actually achieved the results they so ardently endorse and strive for, that their lives would be more secure and that they would have more privacy, and more freedom to be whom they wish to be, including being a gay anti government journalist. Their end is totalitarianism but the capricious nature of such precludes such ideas. These lefties always, always, spew this nonsense in the safe environs of democratic countries, while jet setting around, lunching on champagne and caviar denouncing capitalism and the wealthy. Move to Brazil Mr. Greenwald, nobody is stopping you. You see you still have the freedom to do so in the most abominable country in the world, unlike the former USSR that prohibited its citizens from freely leaving, including building a wall. Freedoms that you and your ilk would ultimately deny to others. Ask Natan Sharansky how easy it was to leave your model country Russia. How long would you last Mr. Greenwald? Consigning your fellow citizens to a giant gulag while you scribble your regimes propaganda until the day the Leader deems your “talents” no longer useful. Wake up for God’s sake.

    • Drawler

      My goodness what a spectacle, bits of straw and hay are strewn everywhere.

      • H.P. Loathecraft

        Quite a bit of poo as well.

    • Erudite Mavin

      The Marxist Greenwald has his home in Brazil along with his husband

  • Inane Rambler

    A level of deceit that even Ames, Taibbi, and Carr would be hard-pressed to top.

  • mtman2

    It’s always been this way, even at the beginning as it IS written! And eternal vigilance parallels raising children or growing a beautiful+bountiful- garden+harvest. Both take constant tending and loving care or else?………..
    It seems now that people buy all their foods at a store, send their children to -public- schools(w/NEA) and vote in the biggest promises of “trust us, we’ll take care of it and you too”; it detaches most folks from the true necessary basics of American life putting others in control, leaving Joe average citizen a sheeple, economically, physically, mentally and spiritually.

    How perfect for the anti-American, selfcentered, sociopathic and egocentric to find control wide open to them with foolish trusting regular folks and entitlement parasites(includes bureaucrats, bureaucracies and public+private unions)! ALL LO-INFO and useable “useful-idiots” handy for stripping hardwon Liberty taken for granted away- “one -piece-at-a-time”.

    It’s wake-up time, talk to one another and all that would listen to turn the tide before the breakwater walls of Liberty corroded over time crumble into the “THOUSAND YEARS OF DARKNESS” Ronald Reagan warned us of! He must have heard and believed enough to eventually come to the place he CHANGED THE COURSE OF HISTORY and still is the inspirational modern day platform WE hold dear. How many like him could be inspired by what you say today?

    “Who are you pretending to be today?”- “Who will that make you tomorrow?”-”And WHO’s will that make you in the end?”

  • American Patriot

    Greenwald is a Stalinist/Maoist, no doubt about that. He probably admires King George III and is upset that the 18th century British king failed to prevent the creation of the greatest country on Earth, the United States of America. The far-left are traitors to America and they must be defeated.

    • Fluorescent Grey

      lol, the left tries to attack him by calling him a ‘libertarian’ and the right tries to attack him by calling him a maoist. Can you guys look anymore pathetic? Hilarity ensues

      • Erudite Mavin

        Libertarians call Marxist Greenwald and traitor Snowden heroes,
        typical of the type who are state Iran is not a threat and has a right to have nuclear weapons as Ron Paul does and bashes Israel while supporting the traitors mentioned

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          MORON Paul.

          • Smoking Hamster

            Paullahu Akbar!

    • Clever Username

      Communists like kings? You sure about that, bro?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        neo-commies like family dictatorships.

        Castro, Assad, Jung Ill.

        • Clever Username

          Oh, yeah. A TON of support for North Korea in the left.

          Idiot.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Correct libtard!

            Commie China backs the Kim/Jung family dictatorship.

            When did you last see a FAKE anti-war, left, neo-commie protest against north korea and its family dictatorship???

            Over to you “comrade”.

          • mtman2

            Excellent point!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Actually there is. They just haven’t constructed a viable victim narrative yet. It’s exactly like Iraq before they became confident in their “Iraq as victim” narratives. Exactly the same except for a different place along the timeline.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Because ultimately they’re all hypocrites to a man.

        • GregoryC

          Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.

      • American Patriot

        The left loves the last queen of Hawaii even though she was an absolute monarchist. They love her because of that and because she was an enemy of the United States. The left would side with anyone who is either Communist, Islamist, Fascist or anyone who opposes the United States, and to a lesser extent, Canada and the European countries.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The left envies the power of the USA while wanting to destroy it. They try to play Chinese checkers and think they will win because they believe that the fundamentals of US power runs in their genes. They’re ultimately racists who want to create an oligarchy not that different from the one they imagine as already existing and simply want to be the ones in power.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Communists love kings that will attack other kings.

        • bob smith

          not to mention that commies think themselves one and the same when it comes to Divine Right.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They’re often worse because they claim the right to define pretty much everything else, including “rights.”

          • bob smith

            a split second after reading your very apt comment, i could think of nothing more than the word sanctimonious…extremely befitting their ilk.

      • bob smith

        what is the difference other than for titles between a despotic/tyrant ruler known as a King and a despotic ruling regime known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

        true enough that commies loathe royalty of any kind notwithstanding their own; that being self-appointed of course.

    • http://www.leemulcahy.com/ Lee Mulcahy

      I think you’re serious, right?

    • GregoryC

      USA the greatest country? Greatest murderer perhaps. US is #1 in incarcerated citizens, adult onset diabetes and believing in angels. 70th in health, 39th education, 34th access to water/sanitation, 31st safety, 23rd access to internet. US spends 53% of its discretionary budget from tax revenues on the War Department, although the lower-48 hasn’t been attacked by a foreign military since 1812 from the north or 1848 from the south.

  • ironchuck

    It’s perfectly possible to make common cause with Greenwald in dismantling the surveillance state and reckless militarism, while at the same time opposing him on economic freedom. People forget we were allies with Stalin once upon a time.

    • Drawler

      The asterisk by the economic freedom agenda slogan that is often touted about is though is that the economic freedom being fought for is really only enjoyed by a small population of highly privileged people, and is typically obtained by constricting the freedoms, opportunities and material wealth of the large majority of the population.

      • ironchuck

        If you mean the “economic freedom” agenda (with scare quotes) —which is really a crony capitalist, corporatist agenda— I wholeheartedly agree. But the fact that corporatists have seized the economic freedom slogan doesn’t mean that real economic freedom is not an ideal we should strive for.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Economic Freedom?

          - Build the Keystone pipeline
          - End all imports of oil from OPEC dictatorship
          - Bring jobs back to the US

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Parasites can’t understand wealth because until they learn how to create it at least in theory, they will never stop envying the host and thinking of him as the villain.

        • Drawler

          I agree with the caveat that I define real economic freedom as freedom that is as broadly distributed as possible. So efforts to dismantle the welfare state and the bargaining rights of workers as part of the corporatist agenda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I agree with the caveat that I define real economic freedom as freedom that is as broadly distributed as possible.”

            You distribute freedom through money taken coercively from those that create wealth. Interesting definition of freedom.

            “So efforts to dismantle the welfare state…”

            To make it more rational and effective? That’s “dismantling?”

            “…and the bargaining rights of workers as part of the corporatist agenda.”

            I think you’re definition of “rights” is as distorted as your definition of freedom.

          • Drawler

            “You distribute freedom through money taken coercively from those that create wealth. Interesting definition of freedom.”

            Its hard for people to be free when they are constantly on the edge of starvation and homelessness. Also, what you just said is the foundation of any system of taxation. It only becomes objectionable to you once that money is spent on the needs of the vast majority of the country’s population, apparently.

            To make it more rational and effective? That’s “dismantling?”

            Well, if you are a member of the elite classes, one of the members of the middle or poor class that is stepped in the ideology that ungirds their domination of the country’s economic system, it might seem more rational and effective to you.

            “I think you’re definition of “rights” is as distorted as your definition of freedom.”

            See above.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Its hard for people to be free when they are constantly on the edge of starvation and homelessness.”

            And the only solution is for philanthropic elites to run our government and to visualize socially engineered solutions. The only thing standing in our way is the naysayer class because when we solve these problems they’ll have nobody left to oppress.

            “Also, what you just said is the foundation of any system of taxation. It only becomes objectionable to you once that money is spent on the needs of the vast majority of the country’s population, apparently.”

            I object to liars and their delusional dupes. In America, we have equality before the law, not equality after you convince others that you tried your best. No, the basis of taxation is not the pursuit of “social justice.”

            “Well, if you are a member of the elite classes, one of the members of the middle or poor class that is stepped in the ideology that ungirds their domination of the country’s economic system, it might seem more rational and effective to you.”

            You count on mere theories and therefore you assume that it’s just your theories against my theories. I already have proved my theories empirically. Can you say the same thing?

            “See above.”

            You do realize that we already have objective definitions for concepts like “rights.” don’t you?

            I can tell you that all the assumptions you’ve made about the philanthropists of the left, and about me, are wrong.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You mean competent hard workers versus parasites?

        • Drawler

          Not sure what point you’re trying to make. One can be a parasite and be a competent hard worker ( plenty of those on wall street, for example).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Fail. Obviously you understand little to nothing about Wall Street.

          • Drawler

            If you say so friend.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Am I wrong or are you conceding?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Explain how that works without referencing Marx or his theories. We’re talking economics and reality while you’re talking about a simplistic philosophy.

        • Drawler

          Well, I wasn’t talking about anything with you until just now, but ok. Nobody referenced Marx until you did just then either.

          Economics is a social construction, not an immutable force of the universe. There is a philosophy(or philosophies) that under-gird any economic system, and its perfectly reasonable to examine and critique them.

          What I advocate is simply that amount of wealth that the country creates should be spread more evenly across society. Its no secret that in the past several decades a ridiculously large proportion of the wealth being created is going to a smaller and smaller group of people. That was not an inevitability, this is the result of multitudes of conscious policy decisions made over the years.

          As far how to reverse that, I’m open to many solutions. High minimum wages, generous spending on social welfare programs, quality education that is available to the entire population, healthcare spending ect.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Economics is a social construction, not an immutable force of the universe.”

            Built on certain ideas about sovereignty, incentives and so forth.

            “What I advocate is simply that amount of wealth that the country creates should be spread more evenly across society.”

            OH, OK. How does that effect our current understanding of private property rights, and creating incentive for individuals to work so that “the country” will continue to be productive.

            We have private entities creating that wealth. The government taxes that wealth. That’s how it works. Taxes already are “spreading” the wealth according to your desires, but that’s not enough for you, is it?

            What is your objective metric for success when more wealth redistribution is applied?

            “Its no secret that in the past several decades a ridiculously large proportion of the wealth being created is going to a smaller and smaller group of people. That was not an inevitability, this is the result of multitudes of conscious policy decisions made over the years.”

            Your feelings are no secret. Lots of envious people complain about successful people as thieves. Where did that idea come from? How do you even know there are wealthier people if you’re not told by someone? Do you sit outside hungry while people walk by laughing at you as they eat hand-foods?

            Where does all of your envy and resentment come from?

            “As far how to reverse that, I’m open to many solutions. High minimum wages, generous spending on social welfare programs, quality education that is available to the entire population, healthcare spending ect.”

            Throwing money indiscriminately at ideas is usually a recipe for failure. You’ve got to create specific plans that have a plausible chance to succeed and make sure that those responsible for carrying out the plans are also accountable and have a stake in the desired outcome rather than the mere ability to claim success or blame someone else for their chronic failures.

          • Drawler

            “OH, OK. How does that effect our current understanding of private property rights, and creating incentive for individuals to work so that “the country” will continue to be productive.”

            My primary concern is in creating humane living conditions for the country’s populace. I do not subscribe to the belief that the only way people can be productive is to have them constantly hover over the precipice of destitution and starvation.

            “We have private entities creating that wealth. The government taxes thatwealth. That’s how it works. Taxes already are “spreading” the wealth according to your desires, but that’s not enough for you, is it?”

            Nope. Taxes are an inherently redistributive function of government, but they can be used for either egalitarian or classist ends. I want them to be used for things like improving the conditions of the country’s most disadvantaged people, instead of for things like blowing up brown people on the other side of the Earth or subsidizing Daddy Warbuck’s eighth island mansion.

            “What is your objective metric for success when more wealth redistribution is applied?”

            I’d have to tell you once we even got out of the bed and started moving on that front, figuratively speaking. Also, there really is not such thing as an objective metric for success when talking about broad wide-spanning and distant social change.

            “Your feelings are no secret. Lots of envious people complain about successful people as thieves. Where did that idea come from? How do you even know there are wealthier people if you’re not told by someone? Do you sit outside hungry while people walk by laughing at you as they eat hand-foods?

            Where does all of your envy and resentment come from?”

            I’m actually relatively affluent, certainly not starving or anything like that. But I’m aware that millions of people don’t enjoy my good fortune, and that their misery is being used to subsidize the prerogatives of small class of economic elites (and admittedly my own, to a more limited extent) who are utterly free from material want.

            “Throwing money indiscriminately at ideas is usually a recipe for failure. You’ve got to create specific plans that have a plausible chance to succeed and make sure that those responsible for carrying out the plans are also accountable and have a stake in the desired outcome rather than the mere ability to claim success or blame someone else for their chronic failures.”

            I’d certainly expect someone in a position to implement such changes to have a more coherent plan of action, but given my position as a mere voter I think my general set of ideas is acceptable.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My primary concern is in creating humane living conditions for the country’s populace. I do not subscribe to the belief that the only way people can be productive is to have them constantly hover over the precipice of destitution and starvation.”

            Noble motives.

            “Nope. Taxes are an inherently redistributive function of government, but they can be used for either egalitarian or classist ends.”

            In theory we could increase taxes and require payment in paper currency, and then burn it. Let’s talk about why we should or should not do some thing or the other. Why should taxes EVER be raised with the idea of pursuing some radical egalitarian (equitable outcome like communists promise) “social justice” end goal?

            “I want them to be used for things like improving the conditions of the country’s most disadvantaged people…”

            We all do in principal.

            “…instead of for things like blowing up brown people on the other side of the Earth or subsidizing Daddy Warbuck’s eighth island mansion.”

            And here I thought we were going to have a rational conversation.

            “I’d have to tell you once we even got out of the bed and started moving on that front, figuratively speaking. ”

            Short answer: You’ll know it when you feel it.

            “Also, there really is not such thing as an objective metric for success when talking about broad wide-spanning and distant social change.”

            That’s precisely why it’s crucial to use private charities rather than expecting the government to do it. As far as you know, we already overfund these projects and adding even more funds will simply increase corruption and lead to crony capitalists building their figurative ninth mansions. So you want to further dampen the economy to make something worse in the name of making that thing better. Because it feels right to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m actually relatively affluent, certainly not starving or anything like that. But I’m aware that millions of people don’t enjoy my good fortune…”

            Are you just so narcissistic that you want “the government” to do it so that you can feel philanthropic without really doing anything?

            Did you inherit wealth or go through some process where you feel luck had something to do with your social status?

            “…and that their misery is being used to subsidize the prerogatives of small class of economic elites (and admittedly my own, to a more limited extent) who are utterly free from material want.”

            So you’re saying we have slave plantations still? I was not aware.

            “I’d certainly expect someone in a position to implement such changes to have a more coherent plan of action, but given my position as a mere voter I think my general set of ideas is acceptable.”

            Don’t ever try to invest in the stock market or anyone else’s ventures. You don’t know how wealth is created and if you think sweet promises are enough to form a sound business plan, the frauds will find you ever time in politics and in the business world.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You didn’t explain how this works:

        “The asterisk by the economic freedom agenda slogan that is often touted about is though is that the economic freedom being fought for is really only enjoyed by a small population of highly privileged people, and is typically obtained by constricting the freedoms, opportunities and material wealth of the large majority of the population.”

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      People forget that Stalin was an ally of Socialist hitler in 1939.

      Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

      That partnership ended when Socialist hitler invaded Russia.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      You can align with a specific position without aligning with his agenda or cause as you put it.

      “People forget we were allies with Stalin once upon a time.”

      The irony is that you apparently miss all the important lessons of that particular episode in history.

    • Smoking Hamster

      Any alliance with the radical left will fracture and crumble after not much time. The liberty loving right is hesitant to use state power to silence critics whereas Leftists have no qualms about silencing or even massacring opponents.

      One key application is property rights. Most people on the right would view government protection of property as the most important function of government. Radical Leftists view property as theft and view government enforcement of property rights to be evil.

      A house divided against itself cannot stand.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Radical Leftists view property as theft and view government enforcement of property rights to be evil.”

        Radical Leftists view property (possessed by other people) as theft and view government enforcement of property rights (of other people) to be evil.

        • Democrats = Communists

          And my money to feed you and your family is your property I guess.

  • Fluorescent Grey

    Matthew Vadum, u mad bro? Article reeks of jealousy and US exceptionalism. You are an ignorant and very sad man.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      US exceptionalism?

      What does that mean to you?

  • Erudite Mavin

    Thank you Matthew for a rare and factual article on the Marxist Greenwald and the person who the traitor Snowden attached himself to.

    Too many have given Greenwald cover and his Marxist activities.

    Another article that proves your facts.

    Glenn Greenwald Regularly Attends Marxist-Leninist Conferences

    Posted By Cliff Kincaid On June 13, 2013

    Shedding new light on the controversy over the NSA terrorist surveillance program, the journalist who has served as the mouthpiece for former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden has addressed several Marxist-Leninist conferences over the last few years.

    New Zealand writer and researcher Trevor Loudon reports [1] that Glenn Greenwald spoke to the Socialism 2011 conference and ended the evening of July 3, 2011, as part of a plenary entitled “Revolution and imperialism in the Middle East.” Prior to Glenn Greenwald’s talk to the group, on civil liberties under President Obama, people in attendance chanted [2] “Palestine will be free” and “Wars of occupation will never bring liberation.”

    Greenwald is also a featured speaker [3] at the Socialism 2013 conference in Chicago this month.

    “That Greenwald was willing to address a gathering of some of the most revolutionary, anti-American elements in the country speaks volumes about his personal views,” noted Loudon. “So Glenn Greenwald, the man who leaked America’s vital national security secrets on a massive scale, may not be the objective, impartial journalist he portrays himself to be.”

    Indeed, the emerging evidence is that Greenwald, who writes for the British Guardian newspaper, works hand-in-glove with the International Marxist movement against the United States and its allies. This would help explain why China, Russia and other American adversaries and enemies stand to benefit from his disclosures.

    As we have reported, Greenwald proudly accepted an award [4] named in honor of Soviet agent and left-wing journalist I.F. Stone. He has encouraged people to donate money to WikiLeaks, the organization started by Julian Assange that disclosed classified information about U.S. counter-terrorism programs. Assange worked for Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) before being granted asylum in the London embassy of the Marxist government of Ecuador.

    Greenwald’s source in the NSA controversy, a former NSA contractor named Edward Snowden, is hiding out in Chinese Hong Kong and has been offered asylum in Russia.

    Greenwald has attended the socialism conferences since at least 2011, saying, “As someone who speaks at all sorts of political gatherings every year, I can say with certainty that no event assembles more passionate activism, genuine expertise, and provocative insights than the Socialism Conference. This will be my third straight year attending, and what keeps me coming back is how invigorating and inspiring it is to be in the midst of such diverse and impressive activists.”

    The Socialist Worker website [5], associated with this year’s conference, features the headline, “A world to win,” paying homage to Marx and Engels, and The Communist Manifesto.

    The conferences are officially sponsored by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (publisher of International Socialist Review [6] and Haymarket Books), and co-sponsored by The International Socialist Organization (publisher of Socialist Worker).

    The International Socialist Organization (ISO) is one of America’s main Trotskyist/ Marxist-Leninist parties. It says [7], “We stand in the Marxist tradition, founded by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and continued by V.I. Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky.”

    It is not clear if Greenwald is an actual member of the group or simply gives them aid and comfort. But a video [8] of Greenwald’s 2011 remarks, posted by the International Socialist Organization, shows him speaking in front of a big conference banner proclaiming socialism. In the talk, he defends WikiLeaks and Julian Assange against charges they illegally released classified information from Bradley Manning, the Army analyst on trial for espionage and aiding the enemy. He also denounced the Tea Party for opposing Obamacare.

    According to one account [9] from the 2011 conference, Egyptian activist and organizer Bessan Kassab “spoke about US imperialism in Egypt” and “concluded by saying that the Egyptian revolutionaries are committed to a real revolutionary future in Egypt, to fighting imperialism, Zionism and are in support of armed resistance.”

    Greenwald will be speaking to the ISO’s annual conference this year [3], at the end of this month, in Chicago. Greenwald, along with Jeremy Scahill, will conduct [3] an “urgent discussion about the attack on civil liberties, U.S. imperialism, and how we can fight back.”

    This year’s sessions [10] include:

    Trotsky on the united front

    Lenin on self-determination

    Frederick Engels, the family, and social reproduction

    The relevance of the Communist Manifesto today

    Harry Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital

    Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution

    Under the category of “Struggle in the Middle East,” we find the following sessions:

    U.S. imperialism in the Middle East after the Arab Spring

    The new movement against Israeli apartheid

    The struggle for Palestine

    Israel, Zionism, and imperialism

    What happened to the Egyptian Revolution?

    Greenwald is a hero to the Marxists for challenging the NSA and “the surveillance state.” One account [11] says, “During a speech at the Socialism 2012 conference, Greenwald called the creeping surveillance state—with the expansive NSA hoarding complex at its center—an impediment to any efforts to meaningfully challenge the political status quo.”

    It appears to be the case that Greenwald—and apparently his “source,” Edward Snowden—see the NSA, the spy agency created in 1948, as standing in the way of the worldwide victory of “anti-imperialist” forces.

    On Wednesday, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency, said the terrorist surveillance programs helped thwart dozens of terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies.

    The evidence of Greenwald’s involvement with the international Marxist movement puts his attacks on the NSA’s terrorist surveillance programs in a new light.

    But will those who jumped on the Snowden bandwagon reevaluate their support for him now that the involvement of Marxist groups and hostile forces in Snowden’s cause has become impossible to ignore?

  • Jose

    This article, taken together with the Wilentz one, reads like an effort to divide Greenwald supporters. Isn’t there a GCHQ slide about this sort of tactic? Yea, it’s the one titled “Identifying and Exploiting Fracture Points.”

    Basically, those who support Greenwald from the left might be taken aback when they hear he’s secretly a right-wing libertarian who has defended racist neo-Nazis. Those who support Greenwald from the right might be taken aback when they here he’s secretly a Marxist extremist. The idea is to divide and fracture the support network.

    Fairly impressive attempt, but not very convincing.

    • Smoking Hamster

      Greenwald is a Marxist extremist. Giving talks at a Marxist-Leninist conference 3 straight times in a row is impossible to do without being one yourself.

      The only times I’ve talked with Marxists is when I try to debate and expose them.

    • http://www.leemulcahy.com/ Lee Mulcahy

      Brilliant analysis, bro. The elites/big giant government in DC love to divide and conquer, Tea partyers and the left must drop our differences and come together.

  • Drakken

    It is amusing to say the least as leftist eat their own, keep up the great work leftards!

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    Wow, you fuckers are deluded.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Wow, you socialists are deluded.

    • Democrats = Communists

      Why do you hate America so much?

  • SB9876

    This was a very interesting right-wing screed, Matthew. I couldn’t agree more, anyone who is pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, anti-domestic-surveillance-state, anti-secret-drone-bombing-program and anti-drug-war is a leftist rightist radical Leninist socialist libertarian Nixonite bad guy who probably has body odor!

    • http://www.leemulcahy.com/ Lee Mulcahy

      Ok, you’re funny. So I guess since I am “a pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, anti-domestic-surveillance-state, anti-secret-drone-bombing-program and anti-drug-war,” I ain’t just a tea partyer—but I also have body odor?

  • Neopergoss

    “Sounding like Noam Chomsky, Greenwald calls the U.S. “the country that has generated more violence and militarism in the world over the last five or six decades.” ”
    You know who else that sounds like? Martin Luther King, Jr. What a scandal! Greenwald is indeed left-wing, and he’s proud of it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      MLK got a lot of his power while under the tutelage and support of the Soviets. That doesn’t make his core beliefs or his fight wrong, but it means that the tone of his rhetoric was often tainted by myopic delusion. He was forgiven because he was ultimately making a valid point – because of context. Most people using that rhetoric have other agendas and are not necessarily fighting “the good fight” based on reality.

      Would it make sense for MLK to use the same rhetoric today? I don’t think so. I think he’d be just to the right of guys like Larry Elder.

      • David K

        “MLK got a lot of his power while under the tutelage and support of the Soviets. ”

        Proof, please?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Are you going to argue that it’s entirely a myth or that some of the evidence is sketchy?

          • David K

            Neither. I’m asking you to back that statement up, nothing more.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            When people come to forums and ask for “proof” rather than evidence, that’s always suspicious, especially when evidence is easy to come by.

            We don’t have enough proof to charge him with crimes, and I’m not even saying he was wrong to look to them for support for his cause. I’m simply saying that he was on an international stage taking huge risks, and it’s easy to see why he’d look to them for support since they were constantly using the history of slavery through a Marxist lens to attack the USA as an unjust society. Therefore MLK’s rhetoric was often harmonizing with the Marxist agenda.

            I don’t think MLK was a communist believer. It seems clear to me that he was not. But he had to look to them for support and inspiration, and he rode the wave.

            But my entire point is that you can respect his movement and who he was without taking every supposed position and using it to carry the communist agenda forward and apply it to every other issue. He wasn’t overtly attacking communism because he needed their support, not because he was a communist.

            From snopes.com:

            As David Garrow chronicled in his exhaustive study of Martin Luther King and the SCLC:

            While King continued his criticism of the [Kennedy] administration, the Kennedys were in private consternation about FBI reports that American Communist party leaders were claiming that old ally Stanley Levison was the number one advisor to Martin Luther King. In fact, the reports said, word in the party had it that Levison was writing many of King’s most important speeches. Though the FBI’s informants had no dependable information that Levison was still loyal to the party’s commands, they did know that he continued to give it modest financial support even after severing direct ties. The FBI suspected that Levison’s 1955 departure from party activity might have been a cover, and that Levison’s friendship with King might be a secret assignment undertaken at the behest of American Communists and their Soviet sponsors.

            The FBI’s assertions provoked fear in [Attorney General] Robert Kennedy and his closest assistants. Within several weeks time, two courses of action were decided upon. First, electronic surveillance of Levison would be instituted to monitor both his advice to King and any telephone contacts with Soviet or Communist agents. Second, those in the Kennedy administration who had some personal acquaintance with King all would warn the civil rights leader that he ought to end his relationship with Levison immediately. King would also be warned about Jack O’Dell, the man Levison had brought in manage the SCLC’s New York office. O’Dell had been involved with the Communist party throughout the 1950s, and his public record of such associations could be used against King and SCLC.

            On several occasions during the spring, Robert Kennedy and his assistants warned King about Levison and O’Dell, without being specific about the allegations. Each time the warnings were voiced to King, he listened quietly, thanked the speaker for his concern, and said that he was not one to question the motives of people in the movement, certainly not one so selfless as Stanley Levison. As King explained, how could he give credence to such vague allegations, coming from who knew where, when Levison had a proven track record of five years of honest counsel? If the administration had anything more specific to offer, King would gladly listen, but until then, he would not doubt one of his closest friends.

            The FBI kept up its round-the-clock surveillance of Stanley Levison throughout the spring and summer. The wiretaps detected no contacts with Communist agents . . . Though his ties to the party were now in the past, such evidence of his final disengagement did not persuade FBI officials, who continued to suspect that Stanley Levison might be a Soviet agent exerting substantial influence on the civil rights movement through his close friendship with Martin King.

            Late in October serious controversy broke when several conservative newspapers ran almost identical front-page stories detailing the Communist party ties of SCLC staff member Jack O’Dell. The FBI-planted stories reported that the thirty-nine-year-old O’Dell not only had a public record of past association with the “CP,” but in fact still served as a “concealed member” of the party’s national committee. The Bureau hoped that this exposé would so embarrass King that the supposed Communist mole would be purged.

            After several days, King issued a statement saying that O’Dell had resigned from the SCLC. While King’s statement carefully noted that the SCLC had accepted the resignation, “pending further inquiry and clarification,” those in the know, including the FBI, were aware that O’Dell remained with SCLC as head of its New York office. The FBI reasoned that King’s deceptiveness in retaining O’Dell indicated that the civil rights leader was insensitive to the dangers of Communist subversion, as well as dishonest.

            At King’s request, O’Dell prepared a private letter explaining his political past. O’Dell stated in the letter that while he had previously supported the Communist party program, “quite awhile before” joining SCLC, he had concluded that his prior belief that “democratic reformation of the South . . . required a Communist movement in the South” was incorrect and “mistaken . . . I no longer hold such a viewpoint, and neither do I have any Communist affiliation,” O’Dell told King. Satisfied with that statement, [attorney Clarence] Jones advised King that O’Dell’s supposed “interim resignation” could be set aside, and that O’Dell could remain with SCLC because he “has no present communist affiliation whatsoever.”

            On the morning of June 30 [1963], the Birmingham News, relying upon information leaked by the FBI, revealed that Jack O’Dell was still on SCLC’s payroll and working in its New York office despite King’s claim that O’Dell had resigned. [Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights] Burke Marshall again pressed King to cut all ties with O’Dell and Levison. Reluctantly, King gave in and acted on the first request. He wrote to O’Dell, in a letter primarily intended for Marshall’s consumption, that the “temporary resignation” of the preceding November now was being made permanent. Although SCLC had not discovered “any present connections with the Communist party on your part,” the continuing allegation that O’Dell was a secret member of the the CP’s national committee was a damaging one, and “in these critical times we cannot afford to risk any such impressions.”

            Read more at: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp

  • Smoking Hamster

    You know what really grinds my gears? When conservatives lionize anti-American monsters like Glenn Greenwald and Putin because they “humiliate” Obama.

    You would almost suspect that they would welcome a nuke slipping past our defenses hitting NY city because it would mock Obama’s national security policies.

    • Jack203

      Same here SH. Same here

  • David K

    Then again, maybe he’s just a reporter.

  • Joe

    “Occupy demonstrators, who defecated on police cars, set fire to buildings, raped and robbed with impunity, and assaulted police, were innocent angels “exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.” ”

    Raped? Did I read that right?

  • Hattie McDaniel

    “Marxist”! “Socialist”! “Communist”! How tiresome. How about joining the 21st century.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Are you talking to the communists or those that call them on their stupidity?

    • Democrats = Communists

      Interesting how you communists play those words off as old yet we have several communist countries still around today. Socialist ones as well. Did the 80′s call and want their FP back? oh wait..

  • mpeasee

    …meh!

  • http://www.leemulcahy.com/ Lee Mulcahy

    I’m a tea partyer and whether you are on the Left or the Right, Glenn Greenwald is a hero to little people.

    While the left and the right may disagree about the size of the government in a democracy, we both agree that Glenn Greenwald’s sunshine and transparency on an out of control government in DC is necessary.

  • mattd6523

    Passages that provide chuckles: are your baseless and unsupported critique of Greenwald or anyone adversarial to many U.S. policies here and abroad. that are radical and exteme. U.S. violent and unproductive military adventures are nothing to be proud of. Allowing a casino capatal economic system to bankrupt the country I love and systematically reward the criminality and malfeasance of the Wall Street/Banking perpatratours is one of the cruelest tricks played on me and my fellow citizens.Your repetitive use of buzzwords like Socialism and Communism and portraying those who debunk your american exceptoionalism myths pierce your stunted agruements and lazy reporting.

  • Lamia

    Although this article makes some very good points, I think it is missing the point about Greenwald.

    The article itself notes but does not dwell on the fact that Greenwald has supported the far right Paul against the centre left Obama.

    So am I therefore going to argue that Greenwald is right wing? Not at all. It is both not as simple as that and a lot simpler, in my view, than people on left and right, work this up to be.

    The key point about Greenwald is that he is an extremely vindinctive, dishonest and narcissistic person, and all the development of his political views – drawn from far left and far right – comes from that.

    Greenwald once made a rather surprising and revealing admission, which is that until the mid 2000s he was not politically engaged or knowledgable at all. He supported the Iraq invasion on the grounds that he trusted the US President to do the right thing.

    Now completely leaving aside whatever one thinks about Iraq, it is startling that someone so incurious about politics even in their mid-30s(!) would within the space of a few years ascend to the position of supposed geo-political world sage extraordinaire.

    And I don’t buy it, in several ways. I don’t buy that Greenwald is an adherent of Marxism, because I don’t believe he knows or cares very much at all about any political ideology. He’s too lazy and narcissistic. He specialises in sweeping statements about politics and history that are low or mistaken on detail and in a number of cases suggest he’s guessing or has just skimmed his reading.

    He can give a fairly good impression of someone who knows what he’s talking about so long as you don’t look too closely. It’s lawyer ‘learnedness’.
    His technique of using bullshit in arguments to misrepresent his oponents and cover the fact that he has basically nothing to propose himself have been well-documented, as have his pitiful forays into internet sock-puppetry.

    What Greenwald illustrates, much more than left or right wing politics, is how a bullshitter blessed with zero conscience, a tankful of self-righteousness and a credulous audience, can go quite a long way. I doubt he imagined becoming the world’s great political expert – he just gradually got given bigger and biggers gigs and has made hay telling some very nasty and very stupid people what they want to hear, making sure he strokes their egos and tells them they are specially clever like him.

    Chomsky – the linguist who for no credible reason got invited to be an authority on global politics, has been doing this for decades, and as we know, Chomsky is a leftist for the public and an unapologetic arms-stock-owning capitalist in his personal life. What’s great for the likes of Chomsky and Greenwald is that their far left and far right supporters will give them a free pass for anything they themselves denounce in others.

    I appreciate that this is conservative site. I would certainly agree that Greenwald is not remotely a conventional right winger. But he’s not a orthodox leftist either, certainly not a Marxist. I’ll bet he’s never even read a word of Marx. That’s not a defence of Marx; it’s just my belief that Greenwald bluffs his learnedness and ‘principle’ a lot more than many people appreciate. When he endorsed the socialist conference I’d bet inside himself he was jumping up and down with glee at being recognised and accepted by such people as some kind of serious political intellect, just as his ego was tickled by right wingers before. The feeling of validation is what matters, not really where it comes from.

    Greenwald hates most of the same things the far left hates, absolutely, and is more in tune with more people on the left than with the right, but I doubt that he’s ever had any conscious interest in socialism even in a vague utopian sense. He has the socialist’s hatred of capitalism but also the selfishness and small horizons of a libertarian. In practice he is only for himself. I think he is much more a nihilist than a socialist (although I would personally agree that many far leftists today are pretty much civlisational nihilists also, so he does have that in common.)

    He doesn’t have any constructive vision of a society, he just uses whatever ammo is to hand – the demagogue who cultivates the libertarian in one breath and the socialist in the next. More public spending, lower taxes, etc. The Scottish Nationalist politicians Alex Salmond has been pulling that stunt for years.

    In the UK we also have George Galloway who, while he’s certainly far left, often betrays a wish for the personal approval of some of his social democrat or conservative opponents. He reached out for a while to Christopher Hitchens, evidently looking for ‘grudging admiration towards a worthy opponent’ status. I think that’s less about politics and more about the ego insecurity of a bullshitter. And I think you can see it with Greenwald too. He likes feeling important. He likes to be asked. He doesn’t much care who asks. And so long as they hate the US government of the day (for whatever reason), Glenn can happily approve of them. He’s pretty much a psychopath.

    If you want to have an argument about the merits of left and right wing politics, then go ahead. What I’m saying is that the example of Glenn Greenwald is not going to tell you much about ordinary democratic leftists or democratic conservatives.

    The real problem of Glenn Greenwald, and others such as Assange, Snowden et al is how people as uninformed, vain and plain nasty, not to mention intellectually and morally inconsistent (but insufferably moralistic towards others) have gained such status and media reach, and also the damage they will quite happily inflict on western democracies, and in the service of some really horrible regimes and groups. Their melding of elements of anti-democratic far left and far right alike ought to alarm any sane supporters of democracy – be they Republican or Democrat, Tory, Liberal or Labour. That ought to worry people a lot more than whether Glenn gets named on ‘their’ political side in an article.

  • Jack203

    Very accurate. Greenwald is the most venomous anti-american fraud ever.

  • rob

    Yea Greenwald is a commie, but 9/11 was an inside job and Israel is a marxist terrorist state

  • edenman

    Greenwald is currently in NZ aiding Kim.com in trying to disrupt the current election process. By discrediting our PM John Key. He is scheduled to release information on 15 September