Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Update on David Miranda's Health and Reflections About Our Family's Health Crisis
November 08, 2022
post photo preview
David Miranda, with our family in Mexico City, May 2022.

 

NOTE FROM GLENN GREENWALD: On Sunday in Brazil, a large news site published a profile in Portuguese about how our family has been navigating the ongoing health crisis of my husband, the Brazilian Congressman David Miranda, who on that date completed three full months of hospitalization in ICU. As a result, I published an article in Portuguese on the same day that provided some more details on his health condition and how we have tried to deal with it, and I added an English translation of it for those interested. I published here it on my Substack page and noted it on Twitter, but did not send this essay out to our email list of subscribers here.

I'm now sending it out to the full email list here in case there are people interested in reading it who have not yet done so. Recognizing that people subscribe here primarily for my political reporting and journalistic analysis, I have tried hard to avoid writing much about my personal situation even though — for obvious reasons — it has completely dominated and consumed my life since August 6. Given my recognition that we all have problems of our own to deal with, I have tried to write about this only when necessary to explain the relative lack of content published here since he was first hospitalized.

But this essay ended up including some things I have learned and thought about differently as a result of having to confront this indescribably difficult challenge. For those interested only in political content, we have as much coming as possible consistent with my current abilities — including some new freelance contributions and, most excitingly, the very imminent launch of our new prime-time, daily live broadcast on Rumble, which paid subscribers here will have exclusive access to for the first few weeks as we test-run the show (once the show launches on Rumble in its final form — which should be late November — it will be fully available to the public, free of charge). So I am publishing this new reflective essay I wrote over the weekend for those interested in reading it, while emphasizing that the focus of my writing, as much as I can muster within the limits of our family's needs, will continue to be on the set of political and journalistic controversies and causes I regard as most consequential:


Today marks three full months of David's hospitalization in ICU. He continues to be hospitalized in serious but stable condition. The hospital that has been treating him from the start, Clínica São Vicente, continues to have available official updates on his health.

The difficulty in providing updates about David's condition is that the nature of his disease, and his recovery process, is extremely dynamic. It can change radically from one day to the next and has done so many times. He can spend a week showing dramatic improvements that make us and his doctors believe he is finally approaching the exit of ICU, only for complex and potentially dangerous complications to emerge without warning, which abruptly change our outlook and his trajectory.

This has happened many times since his hospitalization on August 6. That is why Sunday's profile in the Brazilian news site UOL — on how our family has dealt with David's health crisis — bears the headline "emotional torture." That is the best phrase to describe this process. David spent the last week once again showing significant and encouraging improvements, leading us to believe — or at least hope — that he was starting to permanently exit the zone of danger. But on Saturday night, a new and potentially threatening pulmonary infection was discovered, diminishing if not crushing our growing enthusiasm from the last week. This is the cruel roller-coaster that has shaped David's recovery process from the start.

As the UOL article explains, David had been experiencing various forms of abdominal pain and digestive problems for weeks before being hospitalized, but dismissed them as the by-product of stress from his work as a member of Congress in Brasília and his imminent re-election campaign. By the time he arrived at the Emergency Room exactly three months ago today, various organs of his gastro-intestinal system were severely inflamed and infected. That inflammation and infection entered his bloodstream (sepsis), and then traveled to and began to compromise and cause failure in one organ after the next: his pancreas, kidneys, liver and finally his lungs.

During his first week in the hospital, he experienced complete renal failure which required continuous hemodialysis. His liver and pancreas were severely compromised. His worsening lung problems required David to be intubated one week after being hospitalized. Once it became clear that he would require long-term intubation, a tracheostomy was performed to free him from having a tube occupying his mouth and throat; instead, the respirator would connect to his lungs through a surgical opening in his neck.

After that first week of hospitalization, where everything worsened rapidly, David was largely in a medically induced coma for the next month, to allow his body the maximum space and energy to recover. He clearly recognized visitors and reacted to what we said, but his state was essentially fully sedated.

Once David became stabilized and even began showing signs of improvements, he received less and less sedation. By the middle of September, he was awake and communicative. David's sedation has been regularly reduced since then. After that first month, he has been fully aware of his situation, able to interact with his doctors and visitors, and has gradually became more and more aware, lucid and communicative.

During the weeks when he has improved most, he was able to breathe for days without the need for a respirator. He was able to speak in his own voice using a specialized tube that allows the air to be captured enough to speak. Our kids were able to visit him regularly. During those best weeks of recovery, we were able to spend an hour or more with him daily as he joked with the kids, playfully boasted of his strength, and in general shared moments of profound and deep affection.

For the last six weeks, David has been able to receive and interact with visitors on a daily basis. That includes his large extended family, our closest friends in the world of politics and journalism, his oldest friends from childhood, and — when it makes sense to do so — our children. David has always been a person who most values human connection, and these visits give him enormous strength and joy.

I know it is hard for some people to understand how someone so young and otherwise healthy could end up spending so much time in ICU. Unfortunately, this is more common than we think: certainly more common than I realized before this nightmare descended on our family. Infections and severe inflammation that spread by blood and that end up compromising multiple organs are among the gravest and most dangerous conditions one can suffer.

It is only David's relative youth and strength — physical, mental and spiritual — that has enabled him to navigate past some truly terrifying moments. But none of that would have happened without his being fortunate enough to have a superb and extremely dedicated team of doctors, specialists and nurses which all human beings deserve when they are ill but which most people on this planet are denied. Even with all those advantages, there have been many moments when we thought that the worst might happen. I wish I could say, but sadly still cannot, that David is past those most severe risks.

But since the beginning of this ordeal, I have always placed the most faith and hope not in medicine or science of doctors but in David's strength. His whole life has been defined by having to battle and overcome impossibly difficult challenges. I've seen that strength — of will, of character, of spirit — up close every day for the last 17 years that we have been together. Even during the days or weeks when he is not doing well in the hospital, I can always see that strength in his face and feel it in his hands. In the most difficult times, that is what gives me the greatest hope.

I don't know what the outcome of David's hospitalization will be. Nobody does. But I have always believed and still do that David will fully recover and come home to us. The one thing I am sure of is that this will change David in profound and positive ways the way it has for me, our boys, and everyone in David's life who has suffered through this with us.

I have nothing to offer that is new. But there are insights that one can know — not know only rationally but in the deepest and most visceral way — only by enduring deeply frightening and emotionally painful battles like this.

Be grateful for everything you have in your life, and never take it for granted. Every day after waking up, I try to have my first thought be positive rather than negative: that I am grateful that David is in our lives today, that our kids are healthy, that we are surrounded by so many people who love and support us. One never knows what will happen tomorrow. I think often of how David and I treated August 5 like any other day in our marriage — we each worked, probably squabbled about nothing, may have neglected to celebrate our love — because we had no idea that this would be the last full day we would really spend at home in a normal way for months. Every moment that I spend laughing with our kids, or finding ways to support them, or receiving such affectionate support from them, are moments that I try to embrace and value.

I have also been so moved and grateful for the wave of human decency from every corner. That David's phone and inbox are filled with love, positive thoughts, prayer and support from people all over the world and from every ideological camp in Brazil is probably a testament to the love he inspires. It's impossible not to like David, and this outpouring of sentiment from the unlikeliest of places is a reflection of his inherent and defining goodness. But I really believe it's also a reflection of the inherent goodness that most human beings possess, even if that goodness often struggles to find expression through all sorts of social and psychological barriers.

David's dream was always to be a father and have a large family. That was never mine. David spent years trying to convince me that being a father would be immeasurably gratifying, and that my doubts about whether I could do it well were invalid. He recruited friends to help in this persuasion campaign. And when I finally agreed in 2016 that we would adopt together, I was still unsure about whether I was prepared to make what I believed would be great sacrifices in order to do it well — sacrifices in work and career, in selfish freedoms, in the ability to live life spontaneously and even recklessly.

The thing for which I am most grateful is that David succeeded in that persuasion effort. There is nothing that I value in life more than our kids and the family we created together. David taught me how to be a father, and I have had to find ways to do it on my own these last few months while he was unable. As hard as this has been — and it is impossible to overstate the difficulty of having to find ways to provide the right emotional support to very different kids as they suffer through the fears and trauma of seeing their father hospitalized for this long, knowing the gravity of his illness — it has been the most gratifying thing I have ever had to do. I can say with certainty that the kids that David and I have raised together have helped me at least as much as I have helped them since this all started.

I don't know how I would have managed to cope with any of this without them and without the motive to support and protect them which gets me out of bed every day. When it comes to what makes life worthwhile and meaningful and fulfilling, there is nothing that even approaches the same universe in which the love one has for family resides. There is nothing that I spent my whole life being taught to crave and chase — financial stability, career success, fame, access to elite precincts — that provided even minimal emotional comfort or spiritual fulfillment during this ordeal. I would trade all of that in an instant in exchange for having David back at home with us healthy for any amount of time. Experiences like these leave little doubt about what matters in life and what does not.

We are very grateful for all those who sent messages of support and love. I have shared as many of those as I can with David and I have no doubt it has helped him. David's recovery process is going to continue to be long, arduous, difficult and full of unforeseen challenges. I continue to believe in his full recovery even while knowing that nothing is guaranteed. But nothing is guaranteed for any of us other than the present moment. And all any of us can do is try to maximize the value and the joy of our present.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
26
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
SPECIAL AFTERSHOW - SYSTEM UPDATE 500
01:07:46
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
LOCALS MAILBAG: Send in your questions for Glenn!

Any questions that you’ve posted either here today or in our feed across the week are considered!

As Rumi said: Wherever you stand be the soul of that place.

I did try, on a few occasions, to watch- listen to Kirk on his radio (Rumble) show. I found it difficult. Many inconsistent views and opinions that were offensive to me.

Hopefully, we all evolve as we get older. Not always the case, and possible proof that if one has a brand based on those beliefs is why some do not allow themselves to evolve publicly. Charlie, if he chose to, will not have that chance to evolve.

Murder - hit job is wrong. RIP, Charlie Kirk.

Thank you, Glenn. Thank you for your commentary on this murder and the massacre-murders of those in Gaza. I recognize Kirk supported the genocide in Gaza, as did some of those cheering his death. No self reflection from these ppl. Doesn’t support their brand(s), and their acceptance of money from AIPAC in certain situations.

September 10, 2025

RE: Charlie Kirk ... I appreciated Glenn's comments tonight. It reminded me of the Clint Eastwood quote from Unforgiven: "Its a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he's got and everything he's ever gonna have."
That thing "he's gonna have" might be a change of mind about something you disagreed with him about. I just thought it was important that Glenn emphasized the point that we are all much more than our opinion about any one particular issue and even our opinion on that issue will often change over time.

post photo preview
Trump and Rubio Apply Panama Regime Change Playbook to Venezuela; Michael Tracey is Kicked-Out of Epstein Press Conference
System Update #508

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

 

 The Trump administration proudly announced yesterday that it blew up a small speedboat out of the water near Venezuela. It claimed that – without presenting even a shred of evidence – that the boat carried 11 members of the Tren de Aragua gang, and that the boat was filled with drugs. Secretary of State Marco Rubio – whose lifelong dream has been engineering coups and regime changes in Latin American countries like Venezuela and Cuba – claimed at first that the boat was headed toward the nearby island nation of Trinidad. But after President Trump claimed that the boat was actually headed to the United States, where it intended to drop all sorts of drugs into the country, Secretary of State Rubio changed his story to align with Trump's and claimed that the boat was, in fact, headed to the United States. 

There are numerous vital issues and questions here. First, have Trump supporters not learned the lesson yet that when the U.S. Government makes assertions and claims to justify its violence, that evidence ought to be required before simply assuming that political leaders are telling the truth. Second, what is the basis, the legal or Constitutional basis, that permits Donald Trump to simply order boats in international waters to be bombed with U.S. helicopters or drones instead of, for example, interdicting the boat, if you believe there are drugs on it, to actually prove that the people are guilty before just evaporating them off the planet? And then third, and perhaps most important: is all of this – as it seems – merely a prelude to yet another U.S. regime change war, this time, one aimed at the government of oil-rich Venezuela? We'll examine all of these events and implications, including the very glaring parallels between what is being done now to what the Bush 41 administration did in 1989 when invading Panama in order to oppose its one-time ally, President Manuel Noriega, based on exactly the same claims the Trump administration is now making about Venezuela. For a political movement that claims to hate Bush/neocon foreign policy, many Trump supporters and Trump officials sure do find ways to support the wars that constitute the essence of this ideology they claim to hate. 

Then, the independent journalist and friend of the show, Michael Tracey, was physically removed from a press conference in Washington D.C. yesterday, one to which he was invited, that was convened by the so-called survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and their lawyer. Michael's apparent crime was that he did what a journalist should be doing. He asked a question that undercut the narrative of the press event and documented the lies of one of the key Epstein accusers, lies that the Epstein accuser herself admits to having told. All of this is part of Michael's now months-long journalistic crusade to debunk large parts of the Epstein melodrama – efforts that include claims he's made, with which I have sometimes disagreed, but it's undeniable that the work he's doing is journalistically valuable in every instance: we always need questioning and critical scrutiny of mob justice or emoting-driven consensus to ask whether there's really evidence to support all of the claims. And that's what Michael has been doing, and he's basically been standing alone while doing it, and he'll be here to discuss yesterday’s expulsion from this press conference as well as the broader implications of the work he's been trying to do. 

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Minnesota Shooting Exploited to Impose AI Mass Surveillance; Taylor Lorenz on Dark Money Group Paying Dem Influencers, and the Online Safety Act
System Update #507

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

 

The ramifications of yesterday's Minneapolis school shooting – and the exploitations of it – continue to grow. On last night's program, we reviewed the transparently opportunistic efforts by people across the political spectrum to immediately proclaim that they knew exactly what caused this murderer to shoot people. As it turned out, the murderer was motivated by whatever party or ideology, religion, or social belief that they hate most. Always a huge coincidence and a great gift for those who claim that. 

There's an even more common and actually far more sinister manner of exploiting such shootings: namely, by immediately playing on people's anger and fear to tell them that they must submit to greater and greater forms of mass surveillance and other authoritarian powers to avoid such events in the future. As they did after the 9/11 attack, which ushered in the full-scale online surveillance system under which we all live, Fox News is back to push a comprehensive Israel-developed AI mass surveillance program in the name of stopping violent events in the future. We'll tell you all about it. 

 Then, we have a very special surprise guest for tonight. She is Taylor Lorenz, who reported for years for The New York Times and The Washington Post on internet culture, trends in online discourse, and social media platforms. She's here in part to talk about her new story that appeared in WIRED Magazine today that details a dark money program that secretly shovels money to pro-Democratic Party podcasters and content creators, including ones with large audiences, and yet they are prohibited from disclosing even to their viewership that they're being paid in this way. We'll talk about this program and its implications. And while she's here, we'll also discuss her reporting on, and warnings about new online censorship schemes that masquerade as child protection laws, namely, by requiring users to submit proof of their identity to access various sites, all in the name of protecting children, but in the process destroying the key value of online anonymity. We'll talk to her about several other related issues as well. 


 

There've been a lot of revelations over the last 25 years, since the 9/11 attack, of all sorts of secretive programs that were implemented in the dark that many people I think correctly view as un-American in the sense that they run a foul and constitute a direct assault on the rights, protections and guarantees that we all think define what it means to be an American. And a lot of that happened. In fact, much of it, one could say most of it, happened because of the fears and emotions that were generated quite predictably by the 9/11 attack in 2001 and also the anthrax attack, which followed along just about a month later, six weeks later. We've done an entire show on it because of its importance in escalating the fear level in the United States in the wake of 9/11, even though it's extremely mysterious – the whole thing, how it happened, how it was resolved. But the point is that the fear levels increased, the anger increased, the sadness over the victims increased and into that breach, into that highly emotional state, stepped both the government and their partners in the media, which essentially included all major media outlets at the time, to tell people they essentially have to give up their rights if they want to be safe from future terrorist attacks. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Glenn Takes Your Questions on the Minneapolis School Shooting, MTG & Thomas Massie VS AIPAC, and More
System Update #506

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

 

We are going to devote the show tonight to more questions that have come from our Locals members over the week. It continues to be some really interesting ones, raising all sorts of topics. 

We do have a question that we want to begin with that deals with what I think is the at least most discussed and talked about story of the day, if not the most important one, which is the school shooting that took place in a Catholic church in Minneapolis earlier today when a former student who attended that school went to the church, opened fire and shot 19 people, two of whom, young students between eight and ten, were killed. The other 17 were wounded, and amazingly, it’s expected that all of them are to survive. The carnage could have been much worse; the tragedy is manifest, however, and there is a lot of, as always, political commentary surrounding the mass shooting attempts to identify the ideology of the shooter in a way that is designed to promote a lot of people's political agenda. So, let's get to the first question.

 It is from @ZellFive, who's a member of our Locals community. He offers this question, but also a viewpoint that I think really ought to be considered by a lot more people. They write:

 

So, I'm really glad that this is one of the questions that we got today because this is a point I've been arguing for so long. So, let me just try to give you as many facts as I possibly can, facts that seem to be confirmed by law rather than just circulating on the internet. 

So, the suspected killer is somebody named Robin Westman, who is 23 years old. After they shot 19 people inside this church, killing two young children, they then committed suicide with a weapon. The person's birth name is Robert Westman, and around 16 or 17 years old, he decided that he identified as a woman, went to court, changed the legal name from Robert to Robin, and began identifying as a trans woman, so that obviously is going to provoke a lot of commentary, and there's been a lot of commentary provoked around that. We will definitely get to that. 

 

The suspected killer also left a very lengthy manifesto, a written manifesto which they filmed and uploaded on a video to YouTube, along with showing a huge arsenal of guns, including rifles and pistols and some automatic weapons. I believe various automatic rifles as well. I don't think they used any of those weapons at school. I believe they just used a rifle and a pistol, if I'm not mistaken. But we'll see about that. 

It was essentially a manifesto both in written terms, but then they also wrote various slogans on each of these weapons and various parts of the weapons. And we're going to go over a lot of what they put there because there's an obvious and instantaneous attempt, as there always is, to instantly exploit any of these shootings before the corpses are even removed from the ground. And I mean that literally. The effort already begins to inject partisan agenda, partisan ideology, ideological agendas to immediately try to depict the shooter as being representative of whatever faction the person offering this theory most hates or to claim that they're motivated by or an adherent of whatever ideology the person offering the theory most hates. And it happens in every single case. 

Oftentimes, there's an immediate attempt to squeeze some unrelated or perhaps even related agenda in and out of it instantly. Liberals almost always insist that whenever there's a mass shooting, it proves the need for a greater gun control without bothering to demonstrate whether the gun control they favor would have actually stopped the person from acquiring these weapons in the first place, whether they were legally acquired, whether they could have been legally acquired, even with gun control measures, it doesn't matter, instantaneously exploiting the emotions surrounding a shooting like this to try to increase support for gun control. Whereas people on the right often do the opposite. 

On the right, they typically will argue that more guns would have enabled somebody to neutralize the shooter more rapidly, that perhaps churches and schools need greater security. We need more police. So, there's that kind of an almost automatic and reflexive exploitation again, almost before anything is known, but there is an even more pernicious attempt to instantly declare that everyone knows the motives of the shooter, that they know the political outlook and perspective of the shooter. They know their partisan ideology and their ideological beliefs in an attempt to demonize whatever group a person hates most. 

This is unbelievably ignorant, deceitful and ill-advised for so many reasons. The first of which is that every single political action, every single ideological movement, produces evil mass shooters. For every far-leftist mass shooter that you want to show or white supremacist mass shooters that you want to show, you can show people who have murdered in defense of all kinds of causes. And so even if you can pinpoint the ideology of the shooter on the same day the shooting happened, I mean, you can develop a clear, reliable, concise and specific understanding of the shooter that you never even heard of until four hours ago, but you're so insightful, your investigative skills are so profound, that you're able to discern exactly what the motive of this person was in doing something so intrinsically insane and evil as shooting up a church filled with young school children. 

The idea that anyone can do that is preposterous on its face. I mean, the police always say, because they're actual investigators, actual law enforcement officers who want to collect evidence that stands up for public scrutiny and also in court, “We don't know yet what the motive is; we're collecting clues.” But almost nobody on Twitter or social media or in the commentariat is willing to say that. Everybody insists immediately, no, the killer was motivated by the other party, the opposite party of the one I'm a member of, or this ideology that's not mine, or in this religion that is the one I like the most to demonize. It's just so transparent and so blatant what is being done here. And yet it's so prevalent. 

I mean, you could go on to social media and principally the social media platform where the most journalists and political pundits, influencers and the like congregate, which is X, and I could show you probably 40 different theories offered definitively with an authoritative voice. Not like, hey, this might be possibly the case, but saying clearly, we know that the killer was motivated by this particular ideology, this particular set of beliefs. And I'm not talking about random X users, I'm talking about people with significant platforms, people who are well-known. 

I could probably show you 40 different theories like that, where every person is purporting to know definitively exactly what the motive of the shooter was and by huge coincidence they all have latched on to whatever ideology or faction or motive most serves their own political worldview to demonize the people with whom they most disagree, or whatever ideology or group of people they most hate. That's always what is done. And I guess in some cases, if a shooter leaves a particularly clear and coherent manifesto, and we have had those sometimes, we have had Anders Breivik in Norway, who made it very clear that his motive was hatred for Muslim immigrants who shot up a summer camp in Norway. We had the Christchurch, New Zealand killer who attacked two mosques and mass murdered dozens of Muslims at a mosque and made clear he was doing so because it was viewed that Islam is a danger. We had the mass shooter in a Buffalo supermarket, who made manifest their white supremacist views. We've had mass shooters who are motivated by hatred of Christianity, as happened in the Nashville shooter attack on a Christian school there, I mean, I could go on and on. 

As I said, every single political faction produces mass shooters, mass killers, evil, crazy people who use violence indiscriminately against innocents in advance of their beliefs. But most of the time, and you might even be able to say all of the times – I mean, maybe I don't like the phrase all of the times because you can conceive of exceptions, but close to all the time, most of the time, people who go and just randomly shoot at innocent people whom they don't know are above all else driven by mental illness and spiritual decay, not by political ideology or adherence to a political cause. That often is the pretext for what they're doing; that may be how they convince themselves that what they are doing is justified. But far more often than not, the principle overriding factor is the fact that the person is just mentally ill or spiritually broken, by which I mean just a completely nihilistic person who has given up on life and wants to just inflict suffering on other people because of the suffering that they feel or their suffering from delusions. 

And this isn't something I invented today. This is something I've long been saying. And I just want to make one more point, which is, even though there are sometimes manifestos that are extremely clear and say, “I am murdering people in a supermarket that is African-American because I hate Black people and I don't think they belong in the United States,” or “I believe that white people are the sole proper citizens of the United States and I want to murder and kill inspired by those other mass murderers” that I mentioned, even then, it may not be the case that the person's representation of what they're is the actual motive because it could be driven by a whole variety of other factors, including mental illness, or all kinds of other issues to be able to conclude in six hours, even with a crystal-clear manifesto that the person did it for reasons that you're ready to definitively assert are the reasons is so irresponsible. It's just so intellectually bankrupt. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals