Glenn Greenwald: Tucker Carlson, Left-Wing Authoritarians, Identity Politics, and Free Speech

''The kind of values I've always embraced are heard more on Fox than on CNN and MSNBC," says the Pulitzer Prize–winning progressive journalist.

Audio Player

00:00

00:00

00:00

Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Glenn Greenwald: Tucker Carlson, Left-Wing Authoritarians, Identity Politics, and Free Speech

No living American journalist has a fiercer reputation for independence—and invective—than Glenn Greenwald. The Pulitzer Prize winner helped break the Edward Snowden revelations, was once threatened with jail time by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and was part of the team that launched The Intercept in 2014 before resigning six years later, claiming his colleagues were censoring his criticism of the Biden administration.

So what are we to make of the fact that Greenwald, once a contributing writer at Salon who appeared regularly on the left-wing news show Democracy Now!, is now a fixture on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight? How do we explain the fact that Greenwald, known for his progressive critique of American foreign policy, is now welcomed in conservative circles but considered a pariah by many of his former colleagues on the left?

Has Glenn Greenwald changed, or has the world?

Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with him in Las Vegas, where he was speaking at FreedomFest, an annual gathering of conservatives and libertarians. Greenwald was part of a roster this year that included Sen Rand Paul (R–Ky.), publisher Steve Forbes, former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and Project Veritas' James O'Keefe.

We talked about why he has no qualms about appearing on Carlson's show, why so much of the legacy and left-wing press is quick to apologize for state power, how the trans movement shows the limits of identity politics, and whether the state has any business regulating the internet via antitrust actions.

Comments

[Don't look at me!]

Fuck Joe Biden

[avyfoster14115]

I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-04) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line

travelling this site.

>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk

[Ronbback]

why he has no qualms about appearing on Carlson's show?

why should anyone have problems with appearing on Carlson's show unless they can't defend their own opinion or don't want to realize that Carlson is not a Racist homophobe. that is just a weird comment Nick, does Carlson scare you does he have monkey pox what gives

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Nick used to be a regular on Gutfeld’s Red Eye.

Jimmy Dore and Tulsi Gabbard are also regular Tucker appearers

[Ted]

I’ve watched a little of Tucker lately. I don’t see a problem with him. He’s done some really good segments. I don’t completely agree with his take on things, but he’s not some wack job, like every nutter leftist.

[Zeb]

Yeah, I think Tucker gets some things wrong, but he's hardly any kinds of whack job. And he's the only person in any major media, Fox included, willing to say a number of things that really need saying.

[Ted]

He’s openly talking about Biden molesting his daughter when she was a little girl. Which is something that needed to be Sid for years now.

[JesseAz]

Wait til Nick sees this one.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1410347908638117891

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

All real libertarians will, at one point in their lives, catch MonkeyPox.

[BestUsedCarSales]

The dark secret is that the monkey pox has always been brewing inside me.

[ElvisIsReal]

He's explained this eloquently multiple times. Short version is that even if you can convince a small percentage of this massive audience, that's a win. Oh, and "Fuck you, I'll talk to whoever I want to talk to."

[Liberty Lover]

''The kind of values I've always embraced are heard more on Fox than on CNN and MSNBC,"
I quit reading right there. Both networks lie continuously, and retract very quietly. I don't believe a word they say.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

“Networks” don’t lie, unless it is a news broadcast that goes thru a writer and an editor. Various talking heads spouting opinions are not the “network” saying anything

[Overt]

Isn't it crazy how all those right leaning MAGA head deplorables still seem to have no problem being in one room with libertarians, and with event names that proudly declare FREEDOM! as a primary goal?

Why it's almost as if, despite the handwringing about Mises Caucus being secret racists, and those icky fundies loving patriotism too much, at the end of the day, at least they are willing to stand behind the notion of liberty.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

ENOUGH!

We need another 3 hour interview with America's most libertarian governor, Jared Polis, who just extended welfare benefits to the solar system.

[bobby oshea]

I wanted to echo your sentiments here. I've been reading, listening to the pods, and commenting at Reason for some years now. Its the primary political outlet I consume. I would describe myself as prolife conservative with libertarian leanings. Through the Trump era (not a fan of the man generally) and with recent Supreme Court decisions, it just feels like our friends here at Reason have to continue to look for [ahem] reasons to create distance between people they share much in common. There is a definite need to not be seen as a "deplorable", to not be seen as sharing any traits with the Christian right, to have no views that could be construed as within 6 degrees of a disfavored opinion. While the progressive left tries to force everyone to believe that women can be men and men can have babies, just incredible insanity, our friends here are oddly quiet. While Democratic govs, mayors, teachers unions, and Presidents impose harmful top down COVID policies and keep schools closed, they wait until public opinion starts to shift to really be forceful advocates against the Democratic plans. While conservative justices do the hard work of reversing unconstitutional decisions/policies/laws and restoring checks and balances, you'd think there would more praise for their efforts. As part of an organization dedicated to individual liberty, rule of law, and "Seeking truth via rational discourse, free inquiry, and the scientific method", I'd think there might be more pro-life voices, more support for the idea that abortion isn't something to be celebrated even if tolerated in restricted circumstances. (If i see another Damon Root article, interview, or podcast about quickening...something something wood chipper). You know, ENB, maybe sex work isn't really that important. Maybe we could start with discouraging people from killing the future sex workers of America. I don't know. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance occurring.

[Overt]

I think it is under-appreciated just how bad the cancel culture silenced even slightly right leaning folks. Without substack, Greenwald very possibly would have ended up being forced to write for the Examiner or would be bagging groceries. I'm not saying that people like ENB necessarily want to write more conservative content. Because I don't think she does.

But we had 10 years of people with even the slightest conservative leanings either being chased out of journalism school, or at least learning how to keep that shit under wraps. . Even at the NYT, you see that straight up lefties like Bari Weiss were being chased out of the News Room if they dared to suggest that the Right's viewpoints were worth debating. If you were looking at Twitter for trending stories everything was about whether you take the Socialist alternative, or the Communist one.

Notice what happened when the Dobbs ruling was leaked. Suddenly, for the first time, you had libertarians like Liz Wolfe writing articles from a Pro-Life Libertarian POV. Because finally there was a reason to write from a conservative point of view. You couldn't ignore that the law was going to move in a conservative direction. And suddenly we see that there ARE people willing to write these types of articles.

This is why ending the cancel culture and fighting for diverse viewpoints is so important. This is the last chance to stop the purging of center-right voices from center media.

[Ersatz]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/merriam-webster-changes-the-definition-of-female/

[Zeb]

For heaven's sake. Is the gender/sex distinction no longer a thing? That was silly enough, but at least wasn't a complete denial of reality. Sex just doesn't exist?

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

We are at a point when the children’s definition of a word is the real definition while the adult definition is politicized nonsense.

The teacher's unions will make sure that children's definition does not stand for long.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/22/ann_coulter_takes_on_john_stossel_calls_libertarians_pussies.html

[former libertarian]

Why it's almost as if, despite the handwringing about Mises Caucus being secret racists, and those icky fundies loving patriotism too much, at the end of the day, at least they are willing to stand behind the notion of liberty.

Only so they can push it off a cliff when no one is looking and usher in a theocracy.

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

Are you really one of those "scared of the coming theocracy" conspiracy theorists?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Why it's almost as if, despite the handwringing about Mises Caucus being secret racists, and those icky fundies loving patriotism too much, at the end of the day, at least they are willing to stand behind the notion of liberty.

They are NOT standing up for the notion of liberty for its own sake. The same crowd which advocated for repealing Roe v. Wade is also proposing the most restrictive abortion laws AND for explicit violations of constitutional rights in order to prosecute people for just telling women where to get an abortion. The same crowd which urges for a "culture of free speech" for online discourse wants to take everything that might possibly be offensive *to them* out of the K-12 curriculum and turn it into a bland banal exercise of rote instruction that caters only to the lowest common denominator.

They are in favor of liberty *for themselves* and *for their viewpoint*.

[Slocum]

The same crowd which advocated for repealing Roe v. Wade is also proposing the most restrictive abortion laws AND for explicit violations of constitutional rights in order to prosecute people for just telling women where to get an abortion.

Yes. If you think all abortions are baby murder (I don't, but they do -- or claim to), then this all makes sense. Imagine you lived in a society that allowed infanticide (historically, some have). What should anti-infanticide activists in such a society do and what laws should they try to pass?

Oh, and which side would you be on -- the 'infanticide is murder' side, or the 'infanticide is a woman's private decision and fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution' side? Would you claim that the anti-infanticide activists didn't care about babies at all, but only wanted to control women and 'enslave' them into motherhood with a baby they did not want or felt unprepared to care for?

Do you see a fundamental moral difference between a baby one week before birth and the same baby one week after? Is the two-weeks ago baby, completely non-human and subject to being killed while the two weeks later baby is fully human and anyone killing it should be charged with murder?

I generally find that these kinds of questions are ones that ardent pro-choice activists will refuse to consider let alone answer -- they always sidestep. They do not want to consider if an unborn baby ever gains any moral standing at all. In this, I find them fundamentally dishonest.

[Overt]

"They are NOT standing up for the notion of liberty for its own sake. "

Once again Chemjeff tells us what really lurks in the hearts of the people he deplores.

". The same crowd which advocated for repealing Roe v. Wade is also proposing the most restrictive abortion laws AND for explicit violations of constitutional rights in order to prosecute people for just telling women where to get an abortion."

No. Some of the people who advocated for repealing Roe v Wade are now proposing more extreme laws. They are not all the same people. But if your goal seems to be demonizing everyone with the "Wrong" viewpoint, then I can see why you might conflate them. Like saying, "the same crowd who wanted justice for Floyd's murder, burnt down buildings all summer in 2020".

"They are in favor of liberty *for themselves* and *for their viewpoint*."

Most on the right when surveyed are deeply skeptical of the Authoritarian policies that are now sacred institutions of the left. And those on the right, are actually going to conferences with Libertarians.

So I'll take the people on the right who will actually engage in debate, rather than the lefties who (totally not you, but in a manner like you) decide that an entire "crowd" is unsalvageable because of the most extreme viewpoints, and spend more time trying to impute the worst motives, rather than dealing with the actual issues.

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

On this note, it has been really interesting to me just how hated by the left libertarians are. So many of my progressive friends just revile at the thought of libertarianism.

Reason tries to keep the dream alive, but that bizarre connection the left had with libertarians a little while back has quickly died away.

[Zeb]

I find it's the center that really hates libertarians. And the establishment, I guess. Most of my lefty friends, who tend to be a bit out of the mainstream, seem more open to libertarian ideas than mainstream conservative ideas (whatever that even means at this point).

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

Man, your lefty friends are much different than mine. Even the slightest utterance of "Ayn Rand" or "John Galt" in my experience will trigger wild outrage, condescension, and mockery.

[Slocum]

Or Milton Friedman, James Buchanan ('Democracy in Chains!'), the Koch brothers, Cato, the Federalist Society, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, etc. For lefties, the word 'libertarian' evokes an image of a cross between Spock and Mr Burns from the Simpsons. To lefties, libertarians are cold, selfish, antisocial aspies. They're either the evil rich businessmen (almost always men) or pathetic incel losers living in their parents' basements. Lefties also don't really grasp libertarianism ideas at all (they couldn't even begin to pass an ideological Turing Test), so they'll freely ascribe various and sundry evils to libertarians that are in direct conflict with libertarian ideals (e.g. fascism, militarism, authoritarianism, etc). But they do know they despise them. This wasn't always the case, but it has been at least since the time the Kochs were made into the toxic, untouchable Emmanuel and Elias Goldstein brothers.

[Ed Grinberg]

the Kochs were made into the toxic, untouchable Emmanuel and Elias Goldstein brothers.

During Obama's presidency, he went out of his way to demonize them.

[swillfredo pareto]

it has been really interesting to me just how hated by the left libertarians are.

The feeling is
profoundly,
profoundly,
profoundly,
profoundly
mutual.

[Ed Grinberg]

Leftism is the antithesis of libertarianism.
(But you wouldn't know that reading Reason. Which shows they're full of shit.)

[JesseAz]

LOL

So what are we to make of the fact that Greenwald, once a contributing writer at Salon who appeared regularly on the left-wing news show Democracy Now!, is now a fixture on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight? How do we explain the fact that Greenwald, known for his progressive critique of American foreign policy, is now welcomed in conservative circles but considered a pariah by many of his former colleagues on the left?

That is just embarrassing. OH MY GOD. He's talking to conservatives, can we still trust him!!! That's what it comes across as.

[Overt]

To be fair, when I read Nick's writing here, it comes off as a rhetorical question. He *doesn't* believe it is icky to be on a conservative talk show. He is instead saying, "Hey liberals, this dude used to be one of you, and now he is regularly hanging out with Prime Target Enemy #1 Ultra Double Bad. Why do you think that is?"

Nick doesn't think that Carlson is Enemy #1, he is using liberal rhetoric against them.

[Ersatz]

agreed

[Zeb]

I'm not the biggest fan of Nick's style, but yeah, I'd say it's pretty clear that's what he's doing.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I think what the main issue here is, is that Greenwald has always been incredibly critical of the surveillance state and its abuses. It's been his primary beat for what, 20 years now? One of his biggest criticisms is how agencies like the CIA and NSA use their contacts at the Washington Post to parrot the agency talking points in the paper--this is why he hammered on Bush in the early years of the Patriot Act, reported on the material that Snowden leaked to him when Obama was President, and routinely blasted the Russian collusion narrative when Trump was in office, because it was all rooted in the efforts of the surveillance agencies to expand their power and lower their accountability. He's been VERY consistent about this criticism for a long time now.

He's also an old-line class-oriented socialist who believes that trumps identity politics. So he's also naturally going to be at odds with the neo-marxists running the Democrats now, because they frame conflict in terms of identity groups, not social class. With the current political realignment actually falling along class lines, as it's mostly white college-educated neo-marxists driving Democratic policy now (orgs like BLM are just glorified slush funds that the DNC uses to crowbar their political agenda via their media mouthpieces), Greenwald ended up on "the right" by default, even though his politics are actually quite left by 20th century standards.

[Zeb]

Agreed. And whatever Greenwald's personal politics are, you don't hear much about it from him in public. He sticks to his thing which is challenging the surveillance state and the established power structures. Which is why he is one of the most admirable journalists working today.

[ElvisIsReal]

You see this all the time on Twitter? "What happened to you, Glenn?" Nothing happened to him, your political team just went nuts.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

To wit:

Putin is already at war with Europe. There is only one way to stop him
Simon Tisdall

He has weaponised food, energy and refugees, spreading economic and political pain across the continent. Sanctions don’t work, a land for peace deal would be a disaster. Only the military route remains

So there you have the leftiest of lefty newspapers calling for World War III.

Fuck you, I'll stick with Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson and mean tweets.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Though not entirely due to Putin’s war, Europe now faces fundamental challenges as big or bigger than the 2008 financial crash, Brexit, or the pandemic. Yet many EU and UK politicians skulk in denial. If, as predicted, the gas stops flowing and the lights dim, it will not just be a matter of closed factories, lost jobs, and depressed markets.

Freezing pensioners, hungry children, empty supermarket shelves, unaffordable cost of living increases, devalued wages, strikes and street protests point to Sri Lanka-style meltdowns. An exaggeration? Not really. Blowback, fanned by the Putin-admiring far right, is already gathering strength in Greece and Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.

Shut your cunty trap. This is a crisis created by Europe and Europeans.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Tucker Carlson is an admirer of Putin, Orban, Bolsanaro, Modi, and other fascist types that copy Trump's playbook.

Mussolini's granddaughter is doing well in Italy.

I suppose we've crossed into Paradox of Tolerance territory.

[JesseAz]

Did he give them all fist bumps? Have Christmas tree ornaments of them?

[Sevo]

turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental. If he included numbers they are either out-right lies or cherry picked such that (his TDS-addled bullshit above) if used by an honest person, they would prove the opposite of what turd is claiming
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

[NOYB2]

PB: you’re the admirer of fascists.

Tucker is not.

[Mother's Lament]

Shrike's proclaimed hero is George Soros. A man who actually spent his teenage years in the Hitler Youth, and seizing Jewish property with his uncle.
Since then Soros has done everything he can to push corporatism. Something shrike says he admires.

Every time shrike calls someone a fascist, consider the source.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

The Fascists are in power here now. And Canada.
Not Trump and Orban

[Ted]

So, you’re making up more bullshit. So instead of that nonsense, tell us about your child porn habit. You’re a pedophile sociopath. That’s the on,y subject you need to address.

[Ted]

Big shock, Kiddie Raper is afraid to talk about this. He always is a shitweasel coward.

[R Mac]

Do you fantasize that anyone here believes your lies?

[Overt]

"I suppose we've crossed into Paradox of Tolerance territory."

Oh that's what you want, isn't it?

A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. Rather than follow the will of Reason’s staff, you resurrected that identity and continue to post here. A decent person would realize how abhorrent this behavior is, burn the SPB identity and return under some new handle. While that wouldn’t change your despicable appetites, it would at least respect a community’s wishes to not mix with pedophiles. But since you have no shame, the only thing I and others can do is point out your past behavior rather than converse with you.

[Ted]

He should never know a moment’s peace. I don’t normally endorse doxxing people, but he’s an exception.

[Nemo Aequalis]

Liberals are so cute when they try to pawn themselves off as moral superiors to fascists.

It isn't fascists putting little boys in dresses and cutting off their dicks. Fascists would be definite improvement.

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

You ever self-reflect that when all you have left is tired gaslighting condescension of your political opponent that maybe your political positioning isn't that great?

[tracerv]

Here's Jimmy Dore on the same subject with Aaron Mate.

https://youtu.be/-zgj9ynwC8g

[tracerv]

And yes, Simon Tisdall is a major cunt.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Yet many EU and UK politicians skulk in denial. If, as predicted, the gas stops flowing and the lights dim, it will not just be a matter of closed factories, lost jobs, and depressed markets.

I'm reminded of the fact that Japan ended up going to war with the US after the latter put fuel sanctions on the former in the wake of their atrocities in China.

I don't think the Guardian has thought through the fact that, even though Russia's military is nothing more than a paper tiger now (they're clearly helpless in the face of US military technologies), they still have a large nuclear arsenal that they can't exactly be counted on anymore to not use if it comes to down a determination that it's "us or them."

[Gaear Grimsrud]

a land for peace deal would be a disaster.
Why exactly would that be? It's frankly amazing that nuclear war is treated with such nonchalance by these assholes. When will Reason finally decide that their boy Biden is operating outside of normal parameters?
"How do we explain the fact that Greenwald, known for his progressive critique of American foreign policy, is now welcomed in conservative circles but considered a pariah by many of his former colleagues on the left?"
Maybe because Greenwald's critique of American foreign policy was never progressive. Their is no progressive anti war movement. The anti war movement is a lot more populist than progressive.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Glenn Greenwald didn't change. The media did.

However, a careful reading of populist conservative history shows that conservative populists were always anti war. Because they were traditionally the ones sent into the meat grinder.

[former libertarian]

No, Glenn Greenwald definitely changed. He lost his damn mind during the 2016 election and has been completely unhinged since then. No one takes him seriously anymore.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Riiiight, let's start wwiii, the Russian evil empire, censor everyone who disagrees with us, being on the neo cons, lock everything down, arrest dissenters. Glenn lost his mind.

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

This is sarcasm, right?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

If everyone is insane in the exact same way, and one person remains sane, which one looks insane to the others?

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

That's why I'm hoping he was being sarcastic. But seeing his other posts, it's clear he was not.

[Social Justice is neither]

The progressive anti war movement was just anti Republican. They turned pro war the moment their hands were on the levers of power, they actively resisted reducing tensions if they were brought by someone they hated. They were always pro power and their anti war stance was about weakening their enemy's support, nothing more.

[ElvisIsReal]

Nailed it.

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

It's actually pretty amazing how many positions members of political parties hold simply to be contrary to their political opponents. There a so few with overarching principles anymore.

One reason Greenwald is so great, he actually has principles.

[ThomasD]

"When will Reason finally decide that their boy Biden is operating outside of normal parameters?"

Reason blames Trump for forcing them to accept Biden.

Same way Jenny's boyfriend blamed 'Johnson and the damned war' for making him slap her around.

[R Mac]

So Nick still doesn’t know Hillary was behind Russiagate. Pretty telling.

[CindyF]

Maybe Greenwald goes on Tucker Carlson because Carlson lets him express his opinion. They might find points they disagree upon, but their conversations are usually cordial, and neither one calls the other a racist white supremacist. I like Greenwald although I may not agree with everything he believes. He is about the most honest journalist I can find and he at least does real investigative reporting. There aren't many of those left.

[ElvisIsReal]

It's weird, but libertarians should understand better than most that you have to team up with whoever agrees with us about an issue, regardless of other issues. If you'll kill the war on drugs, we can do that and part ways when it's time for growing the defense budget.

[JasonT20]

It's weird, but libertarians should understand better than most that you have to team up with whoever agrees with us about an issue, regardless of other issues. If you'll kill the war on drugs, we can do that and part ways when it's time for growing the defense budget.

That sounds reasonable, but it doesn't work in a two-party system. In a two party system, if you help one party win elections, then you are helping them implement everything that they want to do with that power. (I also don't think that I know many Republicans willing to "kill the war on drugs". So that doesn't even seem like a trade off being offered.)

[ElvisIsReal]

Getting nothing done but growing the defense budget while you're in charge ALSO gets the other team elected.

[Sevo]

BTW, don't ever forget that the screaming pile of lefty shit Jason supports murder as a preventative if the person murder might, at some later date, do something the asshole objects to:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

[Sevo]

"...(I also don't think that I know many Republicans willing to "kill the war on drugs". So that doesn't even seem like a trade off being offered.)..."

You don't know much of anything, shitbag.

[former libertarian]

Can you post a clip of Tucker Carlson and Greenwald having a serious disagreement? I would be curious to see that.

[ThomasD]

Greenwald, Sir Gleens of the Serial Sockpuppetry, wasn't always so honest. I suspect it is the horrible dishonesty of his current target that is making him look good.

Trust, but verify would be my advice.

[ThomasD]

current targets

[Sevo]

Sure would be nice if there were a typescript of this...

[BestUsedCarSales]

Same with the videos. I ain't watching or listening to them. I'd read 'em though.

[Sevo]

Yeah, you can scan a script to see the portions which are puffery and spend time on the meat.

[R Mac]

Lol at Nick at 35 min. Paraphrasing: 20 years ago heterosexuals didn't talk about their kinks, now they all do it all the time.

Um, no Nick, not everyone talks about their kinks all the time. Who are you talking to when you’re visiting your kids in Ohio?

[BestUsedCarSales]

Ohio is the home of the Cleveland Steamer, the Cincinnati Bowtie, and the Toledo Towline. They be freaky out there.

[The Encogitationer]

*Takes notes from Urban Dictionary,*

[mad.casual]

Who are you talking to when you’re visiting your kids in Ohio?

Pfffbt! Now, you expect him to get *both* monkeypox *and* their name from them? You fuckin' Puritans!

[Stuck in California]

Greenwald is not a fucking progressive. He's a liberal, in the real definition of the word.

If you can't see why people to the right of you can find some reason to welcome someone with a distrust of secretive government, who dislikes censorship, who values individual liberty... well, you're spending way too goddamned much time in the swamp.

[ThomasD]

No, Greenwald is a socialist. Old school, but very much a socialist.

[Doug Heffernan]

Greenwald has said that Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are true socialists. Some elements of Tucker's book "Ship of Fools" were embraced by the left, but Tucker doesn't describe himself as a socialist, nor does Bannon.

[Ali Akbar Alexander]

Did Glem get a chance to tell you about his hot teen boyfriend (also Black, gay) that he picked up in a favela when he was 35? Love is love, I say.

[Mother's Lament]

Fuck off, Shrike.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Love is love, I say.

Is that why you surf kiddie porn?

[Sheldonius Rex]

The world changed. The soft Marxists from the sixties that Greenwald used to idolize now have all of the institutional power in Western civilization and as everyone should have predicted once those people had power they started acting just like their predecessors did, but worse since Marxists have no principles and are generally evil.

[mtrueman]

"The soft Marxists from the sixties that Greenwald used to idolize now have all of the institutional power in Western civilization"

Isn't this a little shrill. Western civilization is an oligarchy where owners of capital are in control and are becoming increasingly wealthier and influential. Look at Bezos, who has increased his wealth tremendously over the past couple of years. He's not a Marxist or a soft Marxist. Or Gates, now the largest owner of farmland, thanks to his buying hundreds of thousands of acres from destitute farmers. No Marxist, either. All of our oligarchs are firm believers in private property and the market which delivers it into their possession. That's not Marxist or soft Marxist. Marxism is about public property and collective ownership and control.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Marxism is about public property and collective ownership and control.

No, it's about subverting the existing order (whatever it happens to be, doesn't matter) to potentially bring about an unachievable utopia.

[mtrueman]

"No, it's about subverting the existing order (whatever it happens to be, doesn't matter)"

It does matter. Marxism was about replacing capitalism with communism. It's not that difficult. Perhaps you are thinking of Lenin, who thought that communism could leap frog over capitalism from the feudalism of czarist Russia, a significant departure from Marx's ideas.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

It does matter. Marxism was about replacing capitalism with communism. It's not that difficult.

Not really. Marxism has always been about tearing down whatever existing system happens to be in place ("capitalism" is just a stand-in within the framework of their historic determinism and reductive "oppressed/oppressor" dichotomy) for the purpose of achieving a society that is literally unobtainable, i.e., utopian. Numerous marxists have made it quite explicit that the goal of marxism is perpetual revolution, because once anything is codified, it becomes the status quo and a vehicle for oppression, thus preventing the utopia from materializing. Instability is literally the cornerstone of marxist ideology.

The current flavors are basically just the Puritan versions of Marxism, scolding the class-centered marxists for not being pure enough and failing to bring about paradise on earth.

[mtrueman]

" Marxism has always been about tearing down whatever existing system happens to be in place ("capitalism" is just a stand-in within the framework of their historic determinism and reductive "oppressed/oppressor" dichotomy) for the purpose of achieving a society that is literally unobtainable,"

You should familiarize yourself with Lenin's April Theses, written on his 'sealed train' on the way home from his exile in Switzerland. It was here he wrote about the need for a Bolshevik to overthrow the pre-capitalist regime. Marx, on the other hand, saw capitalism as the necessary precursor to a successful communist revolution, and picked England and Germany as the most likely candidates. The Mensheviks followed more closely Marx's ideas and opposed the Bolshevik revolution for that reason.

"The current flavors are basically just the Puritan versions of Marxism, scolding the class-centered marxists for not being pure enough and failing to bring about paradise on earth."

I think you are stuck in cold war thinking. Contemporary currents of anti-capitalist resistance are much influenced by eco/anarcha/feminism which is just as anti-Marxist as you are. Maybe moreso. I haven't read a lot of the literature, but Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex features an extended critique of Marxism.

http://library.lol/main/BA4A0931CA93E0E6A5B767C268AA60E6

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Probably a bit of both. The democrat party has clearly and dramatically shifted to the left. Glenn Greenwald has shifted a little bit, largely due to a natural result of age and acquired wisdom.

In the past there were numerous democrats that I admired and agreed with on some issues. There were a few republicans, but less. Personally, I've become more liberal as I've aged, but find that there are now more republican that I agree with than democrats.

True, that I'm a late boomer and naturally have a perspective based on my life experiences. I'm much more laissez-faire on social issues than my upbringing typically would have fostered. I really want to be left to live my life as I see fit and don't want to impose my personal choices and decisions on others.

Currently I find the democrat party elites to be primarily comprised of authoritarians and republicans to be less so inclined. Not that I believe that the republican party does not have the potential, but that currently are less inclined to be authoritarian.

[Brandybuck]

Republicans are more apt to say "leave me alone". Unfortunately most haven't reached the stage of "leave other people alone too". Still, the "leave me alone" attitude is at least a step in the right direction.

The modern Democrats and progressives are beyond the pale. They used to be tempered with feelings towards the common working man, especially if the working man were a minority. Nowadays it's all about spouting the correct shibboleths and trying to rank identities in the hierarchy.

In the middle ages they would have argued over how many angels dance on the head of a pin, now they argue over whether a White Trans-Female queer outranks a Disabled Black Lesbian.

[mtrueman]

"now they argue over whether a White Trans-Female queer outranks a Disabled Black Lesbian"

You're pining for the days when they were arguing over whether they should hang the priests from the guts of the capitalists or vice versa.

[Sevo]

mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

trueman's concept of clever repartee' is spouting nonsense, and he's proud of it.

[mtrueman]

"How do we explain the fact that Greenwald, known for his progressive critique of American foreign policy, is now welcomed in conservative circles"

It's not difficult to explain. Some conservatives are pretty sound on non-interventionist foreign policy. Carlson and Trump, for example.

[Brandybuck]

I don't mind independent people from the Left, and I don't mind independent people from the Right. But I simply cannot stand groupthink and tribalism from either side. People who pick up their daily talking points and retweet them all day long are the worst of the worst, regardless of what partisan or ideological tribe they claim membership in. And yeah, a lot of "libertarians" in that camp too.

As such, I like Greenwald. Doesn't mean I agree with him on anything, but would gladly have a beer with him and discuss things.

[Sevo]

"...But I simply cannot stand groupthink and tribalism from either side..."

This from one of the MOST partisan TDS-addled assholes posting here.
If a candidate doesn't have "L" behind the name, brandyshit is not about to vote for that candidate, regardless of their policies.

[james.d]

While I love these interviews, It's also incredibly frustrating to listen to them. For two reasons. One, NG has a terrible broadcast voice, very hard to listen to, no edge to it, all midrange. Two, he's a bad listener, always on edge, always waiting to talk, always poised to interrupt, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, but, but, but. It's tiring AF. Dude, I want to hear what the amazing Mr. Greenwald has to say, can you just relax please.

Did I mention that I love these podcasts?

[COINTELPRO]

Did conservatives forget about millions of Obama voters being robbed of about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick? What about Bush officials violating Reagan’s Torture treaty and punishing legal whistleblowing? Felony crimes under federal law and not part of any officials constitutional authority. More than 20 years later no justice at all.

Let’s start here before pointing fingers at the millions of Democratic voters harmed by GOP authoritarianism.

[Ted]

Preventing Obama amd his ilk from appointing judges is always the right call. At least if we want to survive as a nation.

[Ed Grinberg]

why so much of the legacy and left-wing press is quick to apologize for state power

What's the big mystery? Everyone knows that leftists are statists, while conservatives want limited government. Were you born yesterday?

[JdL]

If I was being interviewed and the interviewer kept interrupting me the way Nick did Glenn OVER and OVER, I'd get up and leave.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

I enjoyed the interview with Glenn Greenwald, but the interviewer was frustrating at times. Glenn Greenwald's hedge about optimism with the younger generation with the tendency of being skeptical with aging is something that Nick Gillespie needs to take to heart and do some self-reflection.

It is time for boomers such as Nick, Glenn and myself to take a step back and allow the younger generations to step forward. Will the younger generation make missteps and errors? Sure, they will just as our generation has made missteps and errors.

While not a member of the Libertarian Party or the Mises Caucus, I'm very willing to watch and see if the Mises Caucus and Libertarian Party can make greater advances than the left-libertarian old guard clearly failed at.

The goal of the Libertarian Party should not be another iteration of either the Democrat or Republican parties. The Libertarian Party under left-libertarian old guard was very clearly an extension of the Democrat Party.

The Libertarian Party under left-libertarian old guard never looked at the reality on the ground or posit a plan of how to move from the present to a better more libertarian reality.

They were content on playing the spoiler. What they did simply has not made any difference and in fact the situation has gotten worse. The Democrat Party has changed into a deeply authoritarian operation that sees a single party state.

While I do not trust the Republican Party, the clear threat to our liberties is coming from the left and not the right. The Libertarian Party under left-libertarian old guard was blind to this truth and nestled slightly to the right of an ever leftward moving Democrat Party.

The reality is that the Republican Party has moved leftward as well, but at a slower page than the Democrat Party. The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to build alliances with Democrats or Republicans when they have some commonality with libertarians on an issue.

At any given time the Libertarian Party should be assisting and excoriating the Democrat and Republican politicians on an issue by issue basis.

I'm essentially a libertarian and not a Libertarian because I distrust all political parties. I vote for the candidates as individuals based on their alignment with my beliefs and my impression of if they are worthy of my trust.