Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 28, 2014

Anne Applebaum's Dull Conspiracy Existence

The neocon demagogue Anne Applebaum asks:

No one has yet explained, for example, why Ukrainian President Viktor Yanu­kovych not only left Kiev last week after signing a treaty brokered by the European Union but also ordered security guards to abandon all government buildings as well. Was that an unsubtle invitation for the opposition to ransack the offices so that he could claim he had been chased out by a violent coup?

No, Mrs. Applebaum, it wasn't. The removal of the guards was a condition in the agreement (not "treaty") brokered by the European Union.

Both parties will undertake serious efforts for the normalisation of life in the cities and villages by withdrawing from administrative and public buildings and unblocking streets, city parks and squares.

Yanukovych kept his promises but the agreement was immediately broken by the fascist Pravyi Sektor rioters:

Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of Right Sector, a coalition of hard-line nationalist groups, reacted defiantly to news of the settlement, drawing more cheers from the crowd.

“The agreements that were reached do not correspond to our aspirations,” he said. “Right Sector will not lay down arms. Right Sector will not lift the blockade of a single administrative building until our main demand is met — the resignation of Yanukovych.”

The fascist then stormed government buildings and the parliament where beleaguered opposition politicians then illegally "impeached" the president.

Sure, Yanukovich made a big mistake in believing that the rioters would adher to any agreement. But to spin Yanu­kovych's adherence to the agreement he signed and the fascists breaking it as a KGB conspiracy is quite a feat.

The riot police has been dissolved and the fascist in the new coup government are now in control of each and every security department:

[T]he most questions about the new government's direction will be raised by several key appointments of ultra-nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) and Pravyi Sektor (Right Sector) members to leading roles in the Defense Ministry, National Defense and Security Council, and the Prosecutor General's office.

These people, and the U.S. favorite Yatsenyuk, now have all the power of the state while the EU supported opposition UDAR party of former boxer Klitschko is not even part of the government. It too was nulanded. The new fascist monopoly of force will make sure things turn out well ... or not.

But should this go wrong as the pogroms start, as it is likely to happen, Anne Applebaum will certainly claim that this coup was a KGB conspiracy to begin with. To Mrs. Applebaum ANYTHING that is anti-Russian must be from the free will of the people while anything that might be turnout to be somewhat pro-Russian must be a KGB plot.

Isn't being such a one-trick-pony a rather dull existence?

Posted by b on February 28, 2014 at 7:42 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

Ozawa (94)

Just short because this seems to fixate you somewhat.

Yes, rioteers in ukraine are cheap. But so are soldiers and policemen. And they are trained and in the best case even loyal.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 1 2014 9:08 utc | 101

somebody (95)

About guardian I'm not that surprised. I have often found the guardian to be strongly biased at least in certain areas.

What is new to me is that there are now facts supporting what I have been feeling about greenwald since quite some time.

Which is another major hint towards the question why the whole snowden thing got so wide and much and generous media attention...

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 1 2014 9:14 utc | 102

now this is curious: funding the Ukraine coup is:
Pierre Omidyar.

Yes, in the annals of independent media, this might be the strangest twist ever: According to financial disclosures and reports seen by Pando, the founder and publisher of Glenn Greenwald’s government-bashing blog,“The Intercept,” co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37800.htm

Posted by: brian | Mar 1 2014 9:15 utc | 103

Russia interested in Ukraine stability, acts within existing agreements – UN envoy
http://rt.com/news/un-ukraine-russia-agreements-278/

Stupid obama doesnt know sh*t.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 1 2014 9:52 utc | 104

b quote "Isn't being such a one-trick-pony a rather dull existence?" it is called maintaining job security.. most western news people don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, even if it means doing away with any form of objectivity.. annie applepants doesn't sound any different..

Posted by: james | Feb 28, 2014 12:35:28 PM | 41

Annie Appelbaum is a lot more than someone lying to merely "maintain job security".

She is a part of the apparatus currently attacking Russia via Ukraine.

she is married to Sikorski, Polish foreign Minister and currently one of the people trying to openly destroy Ukraine.

Annie Appelbaum is also Jewish - we're told that apparently her judaism doesn't matter one little bit but you'd have to be a fool to think it has no bearing on her behaviour

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 10:21 utc | 105

now this is curious: funding the Ukraine coup is:
Pierre Omidyar.

Yes, in the annals of independent media, this might be the strangest twist ever: According to financial disclosures and reports seen by Pando, the founder and publisher of Glenn Greenwald’s government-bashing blog,“The Intercept,” co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37800.htm

wow.

What will Glenn Greenwald have to say about that?

Bet he says nothing

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 10:29 utc | 106

98) I know you are into conspiracy theory but this as a matter of fact is just the law of a free market.

To control markets you need government. What we are watching is the deregulation of politics and the military security complex - basically a neocon/neoliberal co-project.

It is out of the control of US/EU governments.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 10:45 utc | 107

This here is the "Weimar triangle" Poland, Germany, France

We remain convinced that political stability and reforms in Ukraine require a broad consensus supported by all relevant stakeholders without exception. In particular, a lasting accommodation of the existing diversity in Ukrainian society necessitates reaching out to Eastern and Southern regions and engaging with all legitimate interests, including minority rights especially regarding language issues.

The situation facing Ukraine can only be addressed in a sustainable fashion, if all major political forces unite and pursue a common agenda.

Of course the "noted" government will do nothing of the sort. This is meant to be a hostile takeover of Eastern Ukrainian industries, and nationalist overtones are welcome to give "Western" money an advantage.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 11:15 utc | 108

106) He does not have to say anything - Omydiar and him share an agenda.

The oligarchy does not mind governments exposed - they like that. They also don't mind that being random - they don't like any government, they are global.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 11:21 utc | 109

106) He does not have to say anything - Omydiar and him share an agenda.

The truth is much more likely to be he would not dare to say anything about his patrons links to Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and anti-democratic overthrow of gov't

Or are you claiming that Greenwald is also supporting the Appelbaum/Sikorski/Omidyar Pro-Neo-Nazi agenda?

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 11:39 utc | 110

here's an excerpt from that Mark Ames article linked from InformationClearingHouse

" Marcy Wheeler, who is the new site’s “senior policy analyst,” speculated that the Ukraine revolution was likely a “coup” engineered by “deep forces” on behalf of “Pax Americana”:

    “There’s quite a bit of evidence of coup-ness. Q is how many levels deep interference from both sides is.”

These are serious claims. So serious that I decided to investigate them. And what I found was shocking.

Wheeler is partly correct. Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

But that’s not the shocking part.

What’s shocking is the name of the billionaire who co-invested with the US government (or as Wheeler put it: the “dark force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”).

Step out of the shadows…. Wheeler’s boss, Pierre Omidyar.

seems to me that Marcy Wheeler just, completely inadvertently, called her boss the “dark force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”

So Pierre Omydiar is working with the CIA (disguised as "USAID") to help overthrow the gov't of Ukraine.

nice fella.

And now a guy working with the CIA employs most of the people that received documents from Edward Snowden.

Brilliant.

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 12:03 utc | 111

and here is another truly wonderful quote from the Mark Ames article

As First Look staffer Jeremy Scahill told the Daily Beast…

We had a long discussion about this internally; about what our position would be if the White House asked us to not publish something…. With us, because we want to be adversarial, they won’t know what bat phone to call. They know who to call at The Times, they know who to call at The Post. With us, who are they going to call? Pierre? Glenn?

Well the answer to that question appears to be simple enough now that we know some names of some people who have been helping the CIA finance Neo-Nazi's in the Ukraine.

"Who ya gonna call? Pierre, Obviously!"

(sung to the tune of Ghostbusters)

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 12:16 utc | 112

110) I said "an agenda" not "the same agenda". Greenwald is free to accept money - or not. In the case of Omydiar he presumably accepted the money on the understanding that the funding would not influence the reporting. It does not matter to Omydiar as he agrees with Greenwald on attacking the power of governments.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 12:27 utc | 113

This here is the sanctions list. It makes me wonder.

The Swiss government yesterday said it will order the country’s banks to freeze Yanukovich’s funds as the lenders “have a due diligence requirement” regarding Ukrainian money.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 12:36 utc | 114

The Swiss government yesterday said it will order the country’s banks to freeze Yanukovich’s funds as the lenders “have a due diligence requirement” regarding Ukrainian money.

Quite surprising really when you consider that the Swiss haven't felt the need to exercise so much as one ounce of "due diligence requirement” regarding stolen Russian money lodged in the many Swiss banks that people like Mark Rich used, to store the proceeds of their plundering from Russia

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 12:41 utc | 115

"110) I said "an agenda" not "the same agenda". "


No, you said "Omydiar and him share an agenda."

remember?

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 12:45 utc | 116

116) yep, that is what I said. You slept through set theory mathematics at school or do you suggest Omydiar and Greenwald single mindedly have one agenda (not several).

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 13:00 utc | 117

So according to Mark Ames (who isn't always sane in my view): The taking of NSA secrets was the start of the plot by Snowden, Greenwald and Omidyar for another color revolution In Ukraine so Putin could then claim the Ukraine for Russia.

Or something like that.
---
I see no reason, as Aimes tries, to connect Omidyar's support for this or that to Greenwald or other people working at the Firstlook venture. Should Barton Gellman stop working for the Washington Post because Besoz, the new Post owner, has also deals with the CIA?


Posted by: b | Mar 1 2014 13:17 utc | 118

Thanks b for @118.
Conspiracy theorising can be very damaging. Attempts to discredit Marcy Wheeler, Greenwald and Snowden coincide precisely with the objectives of the imperialists.

The root of the problem is the meme that the Empire and the US state in particular is omnipotent, controls everything and is incredibly cunning as well as single minded. Nothing could be further from the truth: intellectually and administratively it is a shambles, full of factions openly and covertly squabbling a sabotaging each other. Information is jealously protected, where logic calls for it to be shared. Many of those running the various shows are clearly incompetent, shallow minded, greedy conformists obsessed with their own careers (check out the Generals!. Others are merely figureheads chosen for looks or connections and utterly unqualified to handle the files thrown into their laps, while, as is notorious, many are working for other powers, ranging from Israel to contractors selling useless goods.
It is in the nature of criminal enterprises-and the US government is clearly one- that the only people who will work for them are either so stupid that they cannot see that they are involved in racketeering, or so crooked that they can never be trusted to work for the boss. .

It is more than possible that Omidyar has more money than sense and lives in a drunken haze, making irrational bets and constantly hedging them. And yet Greenwald's articles based on Snowden's documents regularly enlighten us while Marcy Wheeler's website is, like b's, one of the most useful sources of accurate and unbiassed information available.

Having said that, the "information" of these apparent conflicts is useful to have and file for the future.

Posted by: bevin | Mar 1 2014 14:33 utc | 119

ProPeace lost me completely with the LaRouche-ite British Crown stuff.

Sorry, I can't imagine for one second that the Queen of England tells anyone except her butler what to do anymore.

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 1 2014 15:20 utc | 120

"The root of the problem is the meme that the Empire and the US state in particular is omnipotent, controls everything and is incredibly cunning as well as single minded. Nothing could be further from the truth: intellectually and administratively it is a shambles, full of factions openly and covertly squabbling a sabotaging each other."

This sounds a little too wishful thinking.

As they say in high school sports, "SCOREBOARD! SCOREBOARD!!"

For being a bunch of fucking idiots they sure have been successful in destroying as many sovereign nations as they've wanted while experiencing none zero zilch nada pushback from ANYONE on the planet for the most horrendous and blatant war crimes in recent history, huh?

I mean, if you're judging how good of a job a mass-murderer is doing you don't judge them on how they go about things but the number of people they kill and GET AWAY WITH.

The last part is the more important of the two actually because if effect it DOES INDEED make the US omnipotent and completely and totally unaccountable.

This is the hard part for people to understand because it goes so very much against anything remotely civilized, moral or humanistic.

The US is not omnipotent because they are smarter or braver or any of that horseshit.

Nope, the US is omnipotent because no will stop them as they go about their killing/destruction spree.

So, when I see people inevitably tell us that the Americans are too stupid, too bumbling, too inept blah blah blah to be so powerful I would simply ask those people if they think that the war criminals involved in give a flying fuck what ANYONE in the world thinks about what they're doing. They can and will do whatever they want until someone stops them. Until then they may appear be stupid and bumbling etc but they truly DO exercise an inordinate and unrivaled amount of power.

Maybe it makes people feel good and reassured that those at the top of the US criminal enterprise have little spats with each other or aren't the brightest bulbs but the fact that IT DOESN'T MATTER because they can commit whatever crimes they want to with no repercussions. I'm sure at the height of his power Al Capone was really bothered by people who reminded him of his lack of a formal education, right? Please.

Oh, so the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya Ukraine are messy failed states and maybe it's not apparent yet what the US got out of those actions. Do you know what the neocons et al say to that: WHO FUCKING CARES? Why? Because they already have 5 more destabilization projects underway while we're bitching about those past operations.

The bankers who effed the world's economy 5 years ago weren't charged with paying back A DIME - much less spend AN HOUR in jail - for all of the TRILLIONS of dollars of damage they caused.

Do you think THEY FUCKING CARE if conscientious people think they're bumbling fools? They have BILLIONS of reason$ for calling those people idiots.

Why? Because in the context of US/neoliberal capitalism THEY ARE THE FUCKING WINNERS!!!!!

And nothing except the destruction of said system is going to change that thinking.

They and their millions of minions ARE single-minded because they believe that they are at the TOP of the neoliberal economic/military food chain and - in the hyper-competitive world of neoliberal capitalism - that will not change until someone changes it and someone changing it means someone stopping them.

Hey, I hope their malevolent influence is on the wane but I am not yet inclined to be too optimistic. Even if reined in on the international front, these fuckers can still do a LOT of damage domestically but that's our problem.

Err on the side of caution and don't think anything's changing for the better because it hasn't yet as concerns justice, peace and all those other quaint ideas.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Mar 1 2014 16:00 utc | 121

So according to Mark Ames (who isn't always sane in my view): The taking of NSA secrets was the start of the plot by Snowden, Greenwald and Omidyar for another color revolution In Ukraine so Putin could then claim the Ukraine for Russia.

Or something like that.

Pretty sure Ames never said anything like that.,

Perhaps you could excerpt the section of Ames linked article to demonstrate where he ever made such a claim?

That way people could see if your characterisation of Ames' article is correct or merely a weak attempt to dismiss his findings regarding Omidyar?


Should Barton Gellman stop working for the Washington Post because Besoz, the new Post owner, has also deals with the CIA?

Wow - you mean to say that almost all the copies of Snowden's files are currently in the possession of people whose wages are paid by Rich scumbags that work for/with the CIA?

and this doesn't worry you?


======


116) yep, that is what I said. You slept through set theory mathematics at school or do you suggest Omydiar and Greenwald single mindedly have one agenda (not several).

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1, 2014 8:00:02 AM | 117

Oh, I see - when you said that they share an agenda that was not what you meant.

You meant not that they share an agenda but that they have over-lapping agendas. Math skills are just fine thank you very much, at least as good as your own and certainly far better than your own Language skills.

It would be helpful if you actually say what you mean in future

==========

Conspiracy theorising can be very damaging.

They certainly can - especially if true

Attempts to discredit Marcy Wheeler, Greenwald and Snowden coincide precisely with the objectives of the imperialists.

Yeah, let's all just ignore the fact that one of those Pro-Neo-Nazi "Imperialists" pays the wages of 2 of the 3 people you just mentioned.

"Attempts to discredit" by actually correctly quoting her? Strange definition of "discredit" you have.

If merely correctly quoting the woman, and in context as well, results in her being "discredited" then a more logical conclusion might be that the fault lies elsewhere, not in the mere act of correctly quoting of her words.

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 16:12 utc | 122

quoting of wheeler's words in this instance does not "discredit" her at all - I'm surprised people would make that claim

Indeed it shows that she is correctly able to identify a Coup when she sees one, which is very much to her credit in my opinion.

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 16:15 utc | 123

However it is possible that quoting Wheeler's words might "discredit" her in the eyes of people like Omidyar though

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 16:17 utc | 124

"For being a bunch of fucking idiots they sure have been successful in destroying as many sovereign nations as they've wanted while experiencing none zero zilch nada pushback from ANYONE on the planet for the most horrendous and blatant war crimes in recent history, huh?"

I don't buy this "none zilch nada". People are dying in Syria to push back against the Empire. People in Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine. Venezuelans, Cubans, Bolivians, Russians, Chinese, dissenters at home and rebels abroad - this is all push back. Push back that puts people's lives in the balance.

These brave acts matter, and they matter greatly. Even if they represent just minor speed bumps in the road of the US empire for the moment, they will, in the end, be what history remembers as the beginning of the end for US dreams of world domination.

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 1 2014 16:24 utc | 125

bevin 119

I agree that this smearing is what some 'imperialists' wants, however Glenn cant be a friend of this man that supposedly supported the riots in Ukraine.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 1 2014 16:25 utc | 126

What would "discredit" wheeler?

something like this maybe?

(Ames again)


[Update: Wheeler has responded on Twitter to say that her Tweets were taken out of context, but would not give specifics.

Adam Colligan, with whom Wheeler was debating, commented on Pando that "while Wheeler did raise the issue of external interference in relation to a discussion about a coup, it was not really at all in the manner that you have portrayed."

Further "[Pax Americana] appeared after the conversation had shifted from the idea of whether a coup had been staged by the Ukrainian Parliament to a question about the larger powers’ willingness to weaken underlying economic conditions in a state.”

Neither Wheeler or Colligan has commented on the main subject of the story: Pierre Omidyar’s co-investment in Ukrainian opposition groups with the US government.]

Would her lack of further comment, once her boss's financing of Neo-Nazis in the Ukraine came to light, tarnish her image as an "independent journalist" somewhat? I don't know.

some might see it that way though

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 16:42 utc | 127

This here is Glenn Greenwald's response - it is valid

That journalistic outlets fail to hold accountable large governmental and corporate entities is a common complaint. It’s one I share. It’s possible to do great journalism in discrete, isolated cases without much funding and by working alone, but it’s virtually impossible to do sustained, broad-scale investigative journalism aimed at large and powerful entities without such funding. As I’ve learned quite well over the last eight months, you need teams of journalists, and editors, and lawyers, and experts, and travel and technology budgets, and a whole slew of other tools that require serious funding. The same is true for large-scale activism.

That funding, by definition, is going to come from people rich enough to provide it. And such people are almost certainly going to have views and activities that you find objectionable. If you want to take the position that this should never be done, that’s fine: just be sure to apply it consistently to the media outlets and groups you really like.

But for me, the issue is not – and for a long time has not been – the political views of those who fund journalism. Journalists should be judged by the journalism they produce, not by those who fund the outlets where they do it. The real issue is whether they demand and obtain editorial freedom. We have. But ultimately, the only thing that matters is the journalism we or any other media outlets produce.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 17:03 utc | 128

@125

Yes, people are pushing back and it matters but the context I was taking was more on the level of governments. After the debacle of Iraq, Libya, etc etc, no one in the world has castigated the US or cut off relation with the murderous war criminal state so the heroic deeds of those people may as well be not be happening as concerns the elite. Similarly, people in the US are indeed more aware of the financial criminality of the US elite but things have not really changed - e.g., record corporate profits, market bubbles as far as they eye can see, wanton speculation, massive continued unemployment, etc.

In both arenas, it does seem that the shared vision of the elite was to go big or go home and that meant a complete and under abandonment of societal stricture - laws etc. - coupled with a unwavering sense of non-admission of guilt or responsibility. Do whatever you want, cause as much damage as you want and never ever even hint at thinking about the error - shhhhhh - of your ways.

My question is how much more blatant proof of criminality/untrustworthiness/insanity does the world need before it reflexively rejects the US for the monster that it is? How could it have not possibly happened on a wholesale level yet? Do we really need to go nuclear for that to happen b/c that's what it's almost starting to look like.

I ask myself, in this atmosphere of seeming non-culpability, could the US get away with a limited nuclear strike against someone?

It sounds crazy but why should anyone think they wouldn't after what has gone on in recent years?

Maybe this Ukraine business will prove a slowdown or undoing but again I've been hoping this for years.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Mar 1 2014 17:08 utc | 129

"The same is true for large-scale activism."


You mean like a Color Revolution? The Arab Spring? Amnesty? HRW? the Ukrainian putsch? THAT kind of activism, GG? Do tell, GG, do tell


"But for me, the issue is not – and for a long time has not been – the political views of those who fund journalism."

That is a completely idiotic and irresponsible statement and condemns GG more than absolves him. To draw a line as to where your critical thinking ends in regards to those who do very much influence the size of your audience, how your message is delivered etc etc is just nonsense f*cking bullshite and is aimed at naive fake-left followers and casual observers of world events.

Fuck off, GG. Release all of the shit Snowden supposedly gave you to the people it effects and enjoy the rest of your life as an establishment fake-journo.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Mar 1 2014 17:17 utc | 130

This here is Glenn Greenwald's response - it is valid

As JSorrentine points out: simply stating, about Greenwald's excuse, that "it is valid", don't necessarily make it so

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 17:28 utc | 131

Yup, I'm a nuclear scientist, I probably shouldn't wonder about the political motives/leanings of my employer, right?

I just love the science.

Bacteriologist? Virologist? Rocket scientist? Ad executive? Experimental psychologist?

Should these people also just not worry about the motive/politics of their employers and just burying their head in the sand and their work without thinking about the consequences?

Maybe a plumber, GG, but a "journalist"? GMAFB

GG tells us it's all good.

Fuck him.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Mar 1 2014 17:36 utc | 132

I agree, that's a pretty pathetic response from Greenwald.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Mar 1 2014 18:17 utc | 133

Marcy Wheeler's much better response here.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Mar 1 2014 18:26 utc | 134

134, what in your opinion is "so much better" about Wheeler's response?

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 18:40 utc | 135

132) Journalism has to get paid, that is why his answer is valid. All a journalist can do is insist on his/her integrity ie refuse interference by the funding person.

What business model would you suggest for independent journalism - sitting at home writing on what you find on the internet?

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 18:48 utc | 136

how about "Not getting paid by someone that works with/for the CIA?"

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 18:50 utc | 137

oh wait, here's another

how about "Not getting paid by someone works with/for the CIA by helping to create Neo-Nazi coups?"

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 18:54 utc | 138

When one says "fuck Greenwald" does that also mean "fuck all these revelations about NSA spying"? Because I think that would be a huge mistake.

To paraphrase bevin - information is power. It is a tool. And so long as it serves a purpose towards the elimination of this expanding technological tyranny the world faces, it hardly makes a difference who has it or where it comes from.

Greenwald has been handed and incredible amount of power. And he is doing, broadly, the right thing with it. I am not afraid that, in his connection to Omidyar, that he is putting out false information (though I would, certainly, fear if the documents were handed over to him) or anything like this. But what I do fear is the ultimate co-option of Greenwald who, having been handed all of this power, may help defeat the panopticon at home only by trading that good for the destruction of independent power abroad. Greenwald cannot simply focus on the NSA spying without linking it to such events as the coup in the Ukraine or the battle in Syria - because all are heads of the same Hydra.

There is great importance in one's worldview. It indicates what future moves may be made. And in Greenwald's response, there is much to be worried about. These statements show, to me, that Greenwald has a neoliberal outlook on the world - even if he is in conflict with some of its sharper edges, such as the panopticon.

"As I’ve learned quite well over the last eight months, you need teams of journalists, and editors, and lawyers, and experts, and travel and technology budgets, and a whole slew of other tools that require serious funding. The same is true for large-scale activism."

This statement is evidence, to me, that Greenwald is following a broken paradigm that can only lead to disaster. Is it true that journalism (and activism too!) require a coterie of billionaires to survive? Because this would be an indication that the world is already lost. And the world is not lost. The people of the world need no billionaire backers in their struggle for freedom. In fact, as this rash of Soros-backed color revolutions shows, they need these billionaires off of their backs. And Greenwald should say that, and say it explicitly.

Omidyar and his fellow billionaires are getting a huge boost to their prestige by being close to Greenwald and having him defend their work and their worldview. And this is the kind of social capital that actual capitalists lust after almost more than anything. For it is the one thing that these billionaires cannot buy. And for $50 million (down from the original $250 million) that prestige is being bought for a song. But make no mistake - Greenwald is beginning to pay for this with his own prestige and his own power, as these revelations about Omidyar come out. And the more he tries to pohh-pooh people's very real concerns about these things, the higher the bill will be.

My fear is this - Greenwald is slipping into the deep end of what it means to be a powerful actor in a neo-liberal society. A society where success is by definition based on one's access to capital, and not on the social power of one's actions.

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 1 2014 19:05 utc | 139

137/138 you can be sure the CIA is represented in all the important media organizations including google.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 19:08 utc | 140

even more importantly we now know for sure that the CIA is well represented in Greenwald/Omidyar's First Look venture, anyway

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 19:11 utc | 141

137/138 you can be sure the CIA is represented in all the important media organizations including google.

did Google finance people working to help create the Neo-Nazi cop in ukraine?

In fact could you name some Media company proprietors, beside Pierre Omidyar obviously, that are currently financing the people helping to create the Neo-Nazi coup in ukraine?

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 19:16 utc | 142

"That funding, by definition, is going to come from people rich enough to provide it. And such people are almost certainly going to have views and activities that you find objectionable. If you want to take the position that this should never be done, that’s fine: just be sure to apply it consistently to the media outlets and groups you really like."

This is so strange. Who has media outlets they "really like"?

Greenwald, as much as I am support him, makes some really insipid statements. Like insulting Keith Alexander's jeans. Or this one above.

This isn't about "liking" something or not liking it. This is about people's expectations - well founded since the beginnings of media - of how much the publisher has control over content.

People are asking: "What's the deal with this Omidyar guy, Glenn? Because you're giving this guy and his objectionable views and activities a whole hell of a lot of prestige by letting him be your buddy."

If all Greenwald manages to do is recreate the Washington Post, will that really be any kind of success at all?

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 1 2014 19:24 utc | 143

Wheeler's "so much better" response, in a nut-shell

Pierre Omidyars intentions in Ukraine are entirely benign
and also something along the lines of
this Neo-Nazi Coup might not be so bad after all, since we don't really know who is behind it

Oh dear.

Marcy, dahling, and you were doing so well, . . .

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 19:45 utc | 144

142) Google teams up with CIA invests in analytics firm

Both Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel, the CIA's investment arm, have injected sums (less than $10 million each) into Recorded Future, a company that goes through "tens of thousands" of websites and looks for related actions and conversations between, for example, Twitter accounts, blogs and websites, and analyzes them in order to spot events and trends as early on as possible.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 1 2014 20:06 utc | 145

so what you are saying is that so far you do not have any link to any article that would show that Google finances people working to help create the Neo-Nazi cop in ukraine.

Ok.

Thanks for that

Posted by: brb | Mar 1 2014 20:25 utc | 146

brb @ 105 - that goes without saying, but thank you regardless.

Posted by: james | Mar 1 2014 20:45 utc | 147

A) "greenwald"

But for me, the issue is not – and for a long time has not been – the political views of those who fund journalism. Journalists should be judged by the journalism they produce, not by those who fund the outlets where they do it.

This is greenwalds confession, signed and stamped, that he has sold out and is a well payed but remote controlled puppet.
Because to make that statement one must be either be very simple minded - and - not know a thing about how media/journalism work ... or a well payed whore.

We are not depending on hear say or speculation, there is ample proof and testimony of journalists being strongly ganged by editors/owners; there are even case where editors/owners are demanding a written declaration of conformancy to (purely political) leanings, countries, zato, etc.

Actually greenwald is simply using a well known perspective shifting technique; in this case he shifts the definition of "good journalism" out of sight and suggests that "everyone knows quite well" what "good journalism" ist, right? Nope. Wrong. "The quality of any work is judged by the client" is what he suggest. Bullshit. The primal judgement is done by *who pays*, no matter whether we talk bread, computers, or journalism - and the one paying journalists are owners/editors - *not the readers*.
And those need not even touch your base salary. They can "kill" you out of any matter by simply cutting off, to quote, " teams of journalists, and editors, and lawyers, and experts, and travel and technology budgets, and a whole slew of other tools that require serious funding".

The goebbelian infamy of the whore greenwald becomes even more evident when pondering that for a moment.
If one talks about the the local journalist in charge of remote small town issues, greenwald might be right *because there is no owner/editor interest in it*, the owners/editors only interest (or more realistically, necessity) in Smalltown, Littletown and the counties around is to have it somehow covered.
But - and here is yet more evidence against greenwald - if owner/editor *is interested* in some matters, issues, regions, then greenwald statement is *factually known* to be false. And does omidyar have interest? Well, creating an expensive entity for the dedicated purpose of concentrating on certain matters, issues, and regions is usually not done without interest. In fact, there are even statement of o. concerning his great interest, i.o.w. his "business case".

Last but not least we can learn some more by turning it around and asking, what, in the many cases well known, has been the very factor that broke or cancelled journalists careers, jobs, or deployments. Was it the readers who complained about too much information or too much of truth about politics, corporations, and others? NO. It was the *real clients* the ones who pay journalists, printing presses, camera teams, studios, and back office machinery, it was the owners/editors.

B) We are, oh gosh, soooooo interested in what happens in ukraine, honestly, in particular, as the birth of a world war might lurk somewhere in there ... but then, fuck it, as soon as some zamerican centric thingy comes up, we just forget about all that ukraine shit and concentrate in what fucking really interests us. Right? Obviously.

As long as we/you are distracted that easily by fucking EVERYTHING even remotely zusa connected, we/you are about as worthy and credible as a guy who is sooooooo interested in environment issues - but then drives off in his 12 cylinder SUV.

I'm not yet certain whether I should feel pissed off or confronted by that, Pardon me, very cheap and thoughtless attitude. Maybe some of us here should learn some basics, like sticking to a matter and not jumping off as soon as Pamela Anderson flashes her tits or greenwald farts, or like not automagically focussing almost neurotically about anything remotely zusa related as if Russia, China, or Brasil wre completely irrelevant side shows.

I'm expecting better, way better than that here at MoA and from many here!

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 1 2014 22:52 utc | 148

The full Greenwald response

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37804.htm

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 2 2014 1:33 utc | 149

Before we bury Greenwald, lets remember he wrote excellent pieces for The Guardian, NYT, LAT, etc, which all has extremely biased owners. Therefore he might retain some objective journalism under his new employer too, will he? Thats a good question.

Posted by: Harry | Mar 2 2014 3:35 utc | 150

sorrentine writes Bacteriologist? Virologist? Rocket scientist? Ad executive? Experimental psychologist?
Should these people also just not worry about the motive/politics of their
financial backers.

Well I am retired now but I was a basic research scientist in bacteriology, virology, toxicology and molecular genetics and 90% of my research funds came from US government sources even including the US Army. And no, there was no need to worry about the political motives of those who provided the funds because they did not in any way influence the results that I published.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 2 2014 4:22 utc | 151

Posted by: Harry | Mar 1, 2014 10:35:39 PM | 149
Yes. Let's remember ... the US's visceral hatred of not just Snowden and Bradley Manning but also their "enablers" Greenwald and Wikileaks/Assange. I remember how (apparently) important their revelations were to all the human beings on the planet.
After watching wikileaks Collateral Murder (Iraq) video, I can understand the USG spending vast sums of money on smearing Wikileaks/Assage, but the fact remains that it's hard to make what the Yankees did to Iraq look like a good idea, or democratic.

I was watching the doco War, Lies and Videotape, about Assange, a few days ago and, early on, it points out that Assange wasn't short of audiences clamouring to see and hear him speak in person. The USG has effectively put a stop to that roadshow and has managed to nip in the bud any similar dreams Snowden might have had about a Snowden NSA roadshow. So it's interesting that even though both Snowden and Assange have been more or less neutered, the rabid hatred of the USG continues unabated.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 2 2014 4:22 utc | 152

" And no, there was no need to worry about the political motives of those who provided the funds because they did not in any way influence the results that I published."
Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 1, 2014 11:22:02 PM | 150

That's not quite as open and honest as you're trying to pretend. Assure us that the funders of your research had no idea whatsoever of either the subject of your research OR what its aim was (i.e. what outcome it was chasing).
Funders of research are funding specific projects in which they have more than a passing interest. To pretend that they finance the idle curiosity of an individual 'researcher' is a bit hard to swallow.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 2 2014 4:45 utc | 153

By accepting funds of the army, darpa or similar one inherently accepts that ones work can and possibly will used for military purposes.
This is, in fact, *a very very clear case* of "Who pays makes the rules" - and the rule "your work may be used in the context of killing many people incl. innocent victims" is not a lite one.

Not to condemn ToivoS; he was free to sign or to not sign/accept and I do not wish to judge all aspects of that.

Also there have been *many* cases where journalists where cut out, taken off, or even fired for saying, writing, or showing things the owners/editors didn't like.
Furthermore there are many proven cases of journalists allowing to have their name put under falsified, faked, or untrue stories.

greenwalds lover was taken hostage for some hours, o.k. Or so it's said. Well, as far as we know and from what we know - and we know it through media, greenwald and his lover; both not exactly what I call a clean source.
But sure enough it helped to convince millions and millions of greenwald being hunted and terrorized - and such more credible ...

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 2 2014 5:12 utc | 154

@149 - harry i agree... and who the hell is mark ames anyway, or then some possible stooge looking to make a name for himself, perhaps under the guise of some paid interests that are only intent on smearing people like greenwald, wheeler and anyone else who wants to shine a light on much of the bs going on by gov'ts - usa in particular. i am not one to quickly accept someone i have never heard of before, especially over greenwald and wheeler who have offered great insight and coverage of information that the powers that be typically want to destroy.. trying to shut down the assanges and mannings of the world seems to be ongoing with these same powers.. it wouldn't surpise me of mark ames represented these same powers..

Posted by: james | Mar 2 2014 5:28 utc | 155

Anyone employed in a capitalist economy is, well by definition, being paid by capitalist. That is true for day laborers, skilled craftsmen, journalist, educators and scientists like myself. I am not sure how to get around that problem. I gather that there are many commentators here at MoA that have figured out how to pay their rent, buy food and collect an income without dealing with free market capitalist. Good for you. But I do not see how you do it.

Let us compromised mortals know how it is done. And yes I have heard many formulas involving living off the grid, back to the land, raising your own chickens, etc etc but these are not solutions that could support more than a few hundred million humans on this planet let alone the 6 billion already here.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 2 2014 7:50 utc | 156

ToivoS (156)

Rhetorical trickery.

The issue wasn't that you - or anyone - worked in a capitalistic system.
The issue was that the employer sets the rules. For instance, everyone except soldiers and policemen *can* find work and earn their money without ever needing to kill. And you *could* refuse army support; it's not like virologists or toxicologists find work only in the context of the military.
And btw. I'm not even against the military. I see it's necessity and I can perfecty well respect a soldier. But that, too, wasn't the issue. The issue was that one has choices and alternatives.
Similarly a journalist *can*, although it won't be simple, do his work without becoming a whore who writes what it's dictated. Actually, a journalist even can decide to go the easy way and accept writing on order from time to time - but then he shouldn't paint himself as an upright truthteller.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 2 2014 8:29 utc | 157

#157 Glenn Greenwald has done more to inform the public about the nature of the modern security state than any other journalist of this century. Of course, based on his earlier writings, he gained the trust of Snowden and that has propelled Glenn into even higher levels of influence. The fact that a clique of spiteful, jealous, conspiracy minded left wing nuts see Glenn's success in influencing the political discourse as evidence of some kind of CIA conspiracy is only to be expected. Please, Pragma, you should be above that shouldn't you?

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 2 2014 9:23 utc | 158

To say it in the words of a public Russian statement "We haven't learned anything new from Mr. Snowden".

The major service of Snowden was to make it public *that* nsa does very dirty and illegal things. Not the details.

And anyway this discussion isn't about greenwald having done or not done sth. useful. It's about him working for the cia friend o. who co sponsored, together with a known cia front-end, terrorists, traitors, and nazis in ukraine.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, I'm talking about facts.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 2 2014 11:40 utc | 159

And anyway this discussion isn't about greenwald having done or not done sth. useful. It's about him working for the cia friend o. who co sponsored, together with a known cia front-end, terrorists, traitors, and nazis in ukraine.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, I'm talking about facts.

Yes it is amazing how far some people will go, in their worship of Greenwald, in order to obscure the facts here.

It may not worry some people that Greenwald works for a guy that works either for or with the CIA, in creating Neo-Nazi coups,
but it does worry others - this is not a trivial matter.


The fact that a clique of spiteful, jealous, conspiracy minded left wing nuts see Glenn's success in influencing the political discourse as evidence of some kind of CIA conspiracy is only to be expected

now that is possibly the most dishonest rendition of the problem that I have yet seen. clearly people like the above are themselves motivated by things such as petty spite, so they transfer their own pathology onto others because they lack the imagination to realise that not every one thinks like they do.

Spite or Jealousy might be what would motivate people like Toivo to criticise Greenwald so he presumes that it is what motivates all people that would criticise Greenwald

and as to "conspiracy"- as Pragma said "I'm not talking about a conspiracy, I'm talking about facts."

The fact that some people cannot bring themselves to even acknowledge those facts is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: brb | Mar 2 2014 12:37 utc | 160

"there was no need to worry about the political motives of those who provided the funds because they did not in any way influence the results that I published"

Well then they must have liked what you were doing, huh?

GMAFB, I just love your deflection/rationalization. So, just because you did work that was funded by the war criminal military of the US and your results weren't tampered with - aka they let you do your best work FOR THEM (HELLO?) - you don't think this was a problem?

So, do you think they tampered with the results of the guys who created Agent Orange? DU munitions? Nerve gas? the Manhattan Project? Or do you think the US war criminals allowed those scientists to do their "best work"?

As concerns Greenwald, go read some books on propaganda and learn that there are witting and UNWITTING dupes - emphasis obviously mine - who the war criminal elite require nothing of other than that those UNWITTING dupes do their very best work for them.

Now that Greenwald KNOWS FOR A FACT who is employer is and what he supports he most definitely leaves UNWITTING into the WITTING category.

The neo-nazi/coup supporting criminals wouldn't have all the fake left followers of Greenwald as their audience if Glenn didn't do his "best work", huh?

And by HIS best work I mean the great job he's doing keeping all of the supposed info Snowden gave him from the very people it effects most all the while he's making bucco bucks and becoming a bigger celebrity than he already was.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Mar 2 2014 14:51 utc | 161

Say what you want about Greenwald. He should be put under the microscope, certainly. But if your words have the effect of leading people to discount the information that is coming out, then I think you are really doing everyone a disservice.

We have learned a huge amount from the leaks. The latest, about the social engineering and ruining of people's reputations, is only the latest. So the leaks are absolutely invaluable and should be treated as such. Greenwald could have been more radical - he could have gone the Wikileak's model. And this is probably why he is sitting at home in Rio, and not in some embassy or in some jail. So there is an element of how much personal sacrifice and bravery is involved. Greenwald is no Assange. That's clear. But that said, Snowden has had every chance to publicly correct Greenwald's course if he was not making effective use of the information he provided him. And he hasn't.

As for Greenwald's celebrity seeking, whatever the truth of this, it has nothing to do with the leaks that are coming out. And frankly, I don't see it. He has much more to gain by cozying up to the Empire, especially at this point. He is still doing a very brave thing, and has been handed something that would have automatically have made anyone newsworthy. We have no idea how much money he is making. And certainly he is risking more than he could possibly earn - he is under real threat.

The fundamental problem, to me, is that the power and goodwill Greenwald has been given via the NSA documents - and they are our NSA documents, they are the property of the people everywhere, make no mistake - is transferred over to Omidyar. And for Greenwald to act as if Omidyar is some just faceless owner (who, after all, can name the owner of the NYTimes or WaPo?) is just not true. Omidyar, with his dangerous funding of extra-national NGOs in the enemies of the United States, is getting extremely good press for his involvement with Greenwald, and this is what is dangerous. The idea that any one person with so much money can be a force for good is, at its heart, anti-democratic. And Greenwald gives this idea creedence. Because next time someone says: "Let's tax these good-for-nothing billionaires!" some poor, misguided soul can say "What about Omidyar!" and this is the real danger. Legitimizing the neo-liberal model.

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 2 2014 17:32 utc | 162

There is a factor that seems to be largely underestimated or simply ignored, trust.

In the end we must trust journalists. Usually we can't go there and verify it ourselves; we must trust them.

That's where I see the big problem with greenwald. He can't be trusted.
We can't check Snowden neither. But that guy took a personal risk. That creates trust.

Working for or with someone who has known links to cia and wors togethe with cia in overthrowing properly elected government does *not* create trust. It destroys trust.

Accordingly my point isn't greenwald is lying. I called him a whore because that's what he seems to be; someone who gets payed to do certain things that one usually wouldn't do as an honourable person.

In the end we don't know. Do those funny powerpoint kind of "nsa info" come from nsa? Have they been "honestly stolen" or have they been handed over and if so, by whom and with what purpose?

Turn it any way you want, we need to trust those people. Some people, like Snowden, seem to deserve our trust more than other people, like greenwald.

And btw. If you were a cia or nsa operative wishing to launch certain informations through a "betrayer" or whistleblower - wouldn't you create some ugly situations so as to underline your man credibilty, too?

This is not just conspiracy talk. Snowden *might* be - not "is" but "might be" - knowingly or unknowingly a tool for a Panopticon operation.

I don't trust greenwald. Not because he is gay or jewish or left but because he chose to work with known cia cooperators and because of the tricky way the chose to defend that incl. plain denial of facts. That's why.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 3 2014 8:27 utc | 163

One of the recent attempts to defend Greenwald's palling arond with people with strong CIA-link was something like

"in the media everybody works for the CIA."

Or something similar.

I found that a very strange defence of Greenwald. That hardly exonerates him, and if followed to it's logical conclusion would lead one to never trust anything the media tells you, including what they have been telling us regarding Snowden and his secrets

I'm sure that was not the intention, but that's where you end up if you follow that logic.


so anyway, in my opinion one of the signs that would indicate that there might indeed be much greater Security Service influence on the Media than we/I had previously suspected might take the form of evidence of some form of co-ordination or collaboration in how the various media report certain aspects of this story.

Certainly one newly revealed aspect is Mark Ames' report on Omidyars CIA connections

So, 3 or 4 days after Ames releases his tale of Omidyar and the CIA, and a couple of days after Greenwald released what many people admit is a very flawed statement regarding those revelations, the Guardian releases this on it's front page: Can Greenwald's digital magazine Intercept help to reinvent journalism?

the sub-head reads "Founder plans non-hierarchical newsroom and wants to build First Look Media on collaboration"

(Non-heirarchial! Collaborative!! Wows!! Buzzwords galore, one for everyone in the audience!)

Besides being a wonderful example of hagiography it is also a master-class in misdirection.

Not so much as one word on Mark Ames' recent Omidyar/CIA(USAID) revelations, this despite it being a fairly open secret that USAID is often little more than a front group for CIA activity.

Just a piece of shoddy journalism, a puff piece basically, with a ridiculously hyperbolic headline.

The report tells us all about the plans Omidyar has for "Reinventing Journalism" and ignores the fact that a guy so closely connected to the CIA (certainly much closer than most people) is really unlikely to go about "Reinventing Journalism" in any way that might benefit the masses of ordinary people out there.

That Greenwald still insists that there are no problems of an ethical nature in his working for/with Omidyar suggests that things can only go downhill from here.

I personally am not as impressed with the alleged value of the Snowden "revelations" as some here, becase in my opinion most of these "revelations" were more or less open secrets before Snowden came along, but irrespective of the value of these Snowden Secrets, as MrP says above :

"I don't trust greenwald. Not because he is gay or jewish or left but because he chose to work with known cia cooperators and because of the tricky way the chose to defend that incl. plain denial of facts. That's why."

Posted by: brb | Mar 3 2014 13:02 utc | 164

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.