Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
SNOWDEN REVELATIONS 10-Year Anniversary: Glenn Greenwald Speaks with Snowden & Laura Poitras on the Past, Present, & Future of Their Historic Reporting (Part 1)
Video Transcript
June 07, 2023
post photo preview

Note: This article is part 1 of a two-part piece.

Watch the full episode here:

placeholder

 

Good evening. It's June 6. Welcome to a special episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube. 

We are very excited to present a special episode of System Update. Exactly 10 years ago today, on June 6, 2013, we began publishing what became known as the Snowden reporting, based on the largest leak of top-secret documents in the history of the U.S. security state. The reporting that ensued over the next several months and even over the next several years –revealing the mass indiscriminate system of surveillance secretly imposed by the NSA and its so-called “Five Eyes” spying alliance in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – became one of the most consequential stories in the history of modern journalism and whistleblowing. 

The reporting we did won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. The documentary, directed by my journalistic colleague, Laura Poitras, showed our work with Snowden in real-time, in Hong Kong, and won the 2015 Academy Award for Best Documentary, which – with Snowden trapped by the U.S. government in Russia – we accepted it at the side of Snowden's then-fiancée – and now his wife and mother of their two toddlers, Linsey Mills. 

The reporting led to legislative reforms in multiple countries, including – at least, to some extent – here, in the United States. Legislation to impose real curbs on the NSA was co-sponsored by Republican Congressman, Justin Amash, and Democratic Congressman, John Conyers, both of Michigan, and was poised to pass in 2013, and it would be the first time ever since 9/11 that state powers would be rolled back instead of expanded, until the Obama White House and Nancy Pelosi intervened and were just enough NO votes to defeat it, leading to the headline in Foreign Policy in 2013 that read “How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA's Surveillance Program.” 

The consequences of this reporting endured for years and found expression in multiple sectors. It generated appellate court rulings that the NSA domestic surveillance programs would Snowden enable us to reveal were both unconstitutional and illegal – direct frontal assaults on the constitutional right to privacy of all Americans. It caused diplomatic breaches between countries threats to prosecute us for doing this journalism and calls for our arrest from various corporate media figures, and it left Snowden facing multiple felony charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and his being stranded, for nine years and counting now, in a country he never chose to be in. In other words, as so often happens in the U.S., the only person to pay any price for the crimes that were committed here was the person whose heroism enabled those crimes to be uncovered. 

Tonight, 10 years later, after I first published that article in The Guardian, we will speak to the two people who, along with me, were most responsible for enabling this journalism to happen. Our source for this story, the remarkably heroic Edward Snowden, who knowingly risked his liberty and his life to inform his fellow citizens how the U.S. security state had degraded the Internet from what it was always heralded to be – the greatest tool of liberation and empowerment ever created – into what has become: the greatest tool of coercion, monitoring, censorship, and population control ever known. We'll also speak to Laura Poitras, whose reporting on this story was a key part of the Pulitzer the story won and whose film, “Citizenfour”, forever memorialized the courage and integrity that drove Snowden's whistleblowing, as well as the resulting threats, conflicts, and attempts to reform. 

I'm very proud to present this discussion with both Snowden and Poitras.

Tonight, we explore what motivated our original decisions about how to bring this material to the public's attention, the risk and challenges that we faced, the benefits produced by the reporting, and the ongoing fight against the U.S. surveillance state and for the right of individuals to use the Internet with privacy normally. 

This being Tuesday night, we would have our aftershow here on Locals, which is interactive in nature but because of the length of this interview, we will be back on Thursday with that. To gain access to our interactive after-shows and the transcripts of the show we provide, simply join our Locals community, which helps promote and support the journalism we do here. As a reminder System Update is also available in the podcast version. You can simply follow us on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, a special episode of System Update, starting right now. 


Just to provide a little history before we show you this interview, 10 years ago today, I published at The Guardian, the very first article from the Snowden Archive. That story revealed as the first three paragraphs of the article put it:

 

The NSA is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecom providers, under a top-secret order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by The Guardian, requires Verizon, on an ongoing daily basis, to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its system, both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries. The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration, the communication records of millions of U.S. citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk, regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. (The Guardian. June 6, 2013)

 

That would be the first story of what would be hundreds of reports that came from the archive Snowden provided to us – a vast, gigantic collection of hundreds of thousands, if not more, of top-secret documents from an agency so secretive, the NSA, that for years the joke in Washington was that NSA stood for “No Such Agency”. 

That first article was quickly followed – the next day, in fact – by our revelation of the so-called PRISM program, under which the leading Big Tech companies were turning over massive amounts of user data to the NSA without so much as a warrant. 

No leak of any kind had previously emerged from the NSA, let alone a fully composed of its most sensitive secrets taken from right under their noses by someone who had worked inside both the CIA and then the NSA as a contractor. Edward Snowden, who, after enlisting to serve in the U.S. Army during the Iraq war – believing, as a young man, in the mythologies he had heard about that war and the U.S. security state in general – joined both the CIA and the NSA. 

At the time of its publication of this first week of articles, I was in Hong Kong, along with Laura Poitras and Guardian reporter Ewen McAskill. Hong Kong was the city Snowden had chosen to go to once he had finished his job of collecting the NSA documents he wanted to leak, and once he had made that final, point-of-no-return decision to provide those documents to us. As he explains in the interview we're about to show you, Snowden had chosen Hong Kong part because it offered protections from the CIA and other U.S. security state agencies that would let us get these documents or report them before we could be stopped – unlike most places in the world, the CIA has a great deal of difficulty operating in Hong Kong. But he also chose the city because Hong Kong representatives noted the values that drove his whistleblowing: a city fighting for its freedom, for its right to dissent and protest against centralized repression and tyranny. 

Knowing that we were going to meet a source who had already proven to us that he was in possession of many of the most sensitive documents from the most secretive agency of the world's most powerful government, Laura and I arrived in Hong Kong on Sunday night, June 3, 2013. We went the next morning to the hotel that Snowden had indicated, a spot where he told us to wait for him to appear and said that we would know him because he would be carrying a Rubik's Cube. We had no idea what he looked like, how old he was, or anything else about him other than the fact that he worked at the NSA and clearly had access to some of the most sensitive secrets inside the U.S. Government. He provided us with two separate times to meet, and on the second time, a young man – he was only 29 at the time – appeared, carrying a Rubik's Cube. We greeted him and followed him up to his hotel room on the tenth floor. As soon as we entered, Laura a filmmaker whose 2004 film about the insurgency in the Iraq War had landed her on a U.S. Government watch list but was also nominated for a Best Documentary Academy Award – took out her camera gear and began filming everything we did together. That footage would serve as the remarkable anchor of her documentary "Citizenfour."

Almost immediately after we began our reporting and especially when – at his insistence – we revealed the identity of Edward Snowden and published a video interview with him, in which he explained his rationale for coming forward, that resonated around the world, the Obama administration – both publicly and privately – began to become very threatening – not only to Snowden but also to us as the journalists involved in the story.

Obama's senior national security official, James Clapper, began referring to us in public, the journalists, as “Snowden's accomplices,” a deliberately and carefully chosen word to indicate that we could be subject to criminal prosecution. What was particularly ironic about Clapper taking the lead in making these threats was that it was his blatant lying to the U.S. Senate only three months earlier, in which he falsely denied that the NSA was doing exactly what the NSA was doing, namely spying indiscriminately on millions of Americans, that led Snowden to finally make the decision with finality to show his fellow Americans the truth about the surveillance system their government had imposed on them in the dark. Here's James Clapper before the Senate three months earlier. 

 

(Video. March 2013)

 

Rep. Wyden: So, what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans? 

 

James Clapper: No, sir.

 

Rep. Wyden: It does not. 

 

James Clapper: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not – Not wittingly. 

 

Rep. Wyden: All right. 

 

As the reporting would show, it is hard to overstate what a blatant lie that was. Clapper was never punished. He served until the end of his term as Obama's senior national security official until getting hired by CNN to help report the news. 

As usual, the U.S. security state's chief servant in all of this – including their attempt to criminalize our journalism – was the corporate media. Shortly after we began the reporting, I appeared on “Meet the Press,” then hosted by David Gregory. And despite never having broken a story in his life to this day, he immediately began insisting that I was not really a journalist and therefore should perhaps share a prison cell with Edward Snowden. 

 

(Video. “Meet the Press”. June 2013)

 

David Gregory: You are a polemicist here. You have a point of view. You are a columnist. You're also a lawyer. You do not dispute that Edward Snowden has broken the law, do you? 

 

Glenn Greenwald: No, I think he is very clear about the fact that he did it because his conscience compelled him to do so, just like Daniel Ellsberg did 50 years ago when he released the Pentagon Papers and also admits that he broke the law. I think the question, though, is: How can he be charged with espionage? He didn't work for a foreign government. He could have sold this information for millions of dollars and enriched himself. He didn't do any of that either. He stepped forward and, as we want people to do in a democracy, as a government official learned of wrongdoing, and exposed it so we can have a democratic debate about the spying system. Do we really want to put people like that in prison for life when all they're doing is telling us as citizens what our political officials are doing in the dark? 

 

David Gregory: Final question before for you, but I'd like you to hang around. I just want to get Pete Williams in here as well. To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime? 

 

Glenn Greenwald: I think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence – the idea that I've aided and abetted him in any way. The scandal that arose in Washington before our stories began was about the fact that the Obama administration is trying to criminalize investigative journalism by going through the emails and phone records of AP reporters, accusing a Fox News journalist of the theory that you just embraced, being a coconspirator in felonies for working with sources. If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, and who receives classified information, is a criminal. And it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States is why The New Yorker's Jane Mayer said investigative reporting has come to a standstill, her word, as a result of the theories that you just referenced. 

 

David Gregory: Well, the question of who's a journalist may be up to a debate with regard to what you're doing. And of course, anybody who's watching this understands I was asking a question. That question has been raised by lawmakers as well. I'm not embracing anything but obviously, I take your point. If you want to just stay put, if you would, for just a moment. I want to bring in Pete Williams. I appreciate you being with us. 

 

That was far from an isolated case. In fact, the very next day, The New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin went on his CNBC show and suggested the same thing. Watch

 

(Video. June 24, 2013)

 

Sorkin: Let's talk about some of the headlines, the big one this morning. There is heavy security this morning at Moscow's airport today. National Security Agency leaker, Edward Snowden – Yep, he's there. There is speculation he is planning to fly to Havana en route to Ecuador. The government of Ecuador has confirmed it is considering an asylum application for Snowden. He faces American espionage charges now after he admitted to revealing classified documents. 

 

And I got to say, this is… I feel like A) we’ve screwed this up to even let him get to Russia; B) clearly, the Chinese hate us, even letting him out of the country. I mean, that says something. Russia hated us and we knew that beforehand. But that's sort of right. And now, I don't know. And then my second piece of this, I told you this in the green room, I would arrest him and now I'd almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, who is the journalist who seems to be out there. He wants to help him get to Ecuador or whatever. I mean, it's almost like a whole… and, then, WikiLeaks… 

 

 

 

Sorkin ended up apologizing for that. That mentality was very much the prevailing ethos in establishment Washington at the time – that this leak was the most harmful one ever. And it was, but not to the security of the American people, but to those who had implemented this illegal and unconstitutional spying system to impose surveillance on all Americans. Their view was all those responsible for the revelations of those crimes, but not the crimes themselves must pay.

In 2021, three Yahoo News journalists, including Michael Isikoff, reported that agents of the CIA had plotted to assassinate Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. As part of that reporting, they also revealed that officials during the Obama administration had aggressively explored how to criminalize Assange, Poitras, and myself. 

Indeed, as the ongoing imprisonment of Julian Assange demonstrates, there is a free press in the United States – only for those journalists who serve the United States, the U.S. security state and the establishment in power, not for those who subvert it, undermine and expose it. 

The Snowden story and its reporting is typically remembered for what it revealed about privacy surveillance and, for sure, that was a big part of the story. But it was also about the role of transparency, journalism, and democracy. The reporting revealed, above all else, that the U.S. government – completely in the dark and with no democratic debate, indeed, unbeknownst to many members of Congress – converted the Internet into a pervasive system of indiscriminate mass surveillance, aimed en masse at the American people, exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
5
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

I share your views on the sanctity of human life. I go a step further And believe In the sanctity of all life. The problem that America has is one of constructed distraction. The whole left/right conflict is the Distraction. The powerful are very good at keeping the public sight off of them. When the sites do get turned on them as it did when Luigi Mangione shot a CEO whose company caused endless suffering, (allegedly) they absolutely lose their minds. Keep the sights on them. We are fighting ourselves otherwise, distracted, as these powerful sociopaths pillage the last scraps of wealth from America before it completely collapses and then retreat to their luxury bunkers in Hawaii or Brazil (😬) or their summer Estate in New Zealand.

Also, I think the term “sanctity of life“ is too closely linked to the church. This term needs a rebranding in my opinion.

I also believe that Charlie Kirk was wearing body armour and the bullet hit centre mass and deflected into his neck. I think the ...

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aPs9HFX0Cs

It appears that someone in the crowd knew, in the least, that there was a shooter - he saw him - that was about to commit the premediated murder of Charlie Kirk. And after the person in the crowd turned around and saw that Charlie Kirk wasn’t there he cheered as if it were a sporting event.

I came across this from sweetmojo at the duran locals page. An important find in bringing the murderer to justice.

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