Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Thoughts on Grief and the Grieving Process
The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless.
May 27, 2023
post photo preview
[Glenn Greenwald, David Miranda, 2021]

Note to Readers: Returning to more frequent written journalism is something I have been wanting to do for some time. The combination of David's 9-month hospitalization and the need to launch our nightly Rumble show during that excruciating experience made it virtually impossible to find the time and energy for that. It is something I am still eager to do -- I'm writing an article now about the life of Daniel Ellsberg and my friendship with him for Rolling Stone, as the 92-year-old Pentagon Papers whistleblower nears the end of his spectacular life due to terminal pancreatic cancer. I originally started writing the following thoughts on grief for myself, with no intention to publish it, but decided to do so in part because I know it may give comfort to others (as the article I discuss below gave to me), but also because, for reasons I can't explain, it sometimes helps to write about this for others, and my view of the grieving process has become that you should do whatever provides any help at all to get you through the next day. I realize this is not for everyone but it's what I'm capable of and what is dominating my thoughts right now. I hope to be able to return to producing more traditional written journalism soon. 


 

The pain, sadness, and torment of grief deepens as you move further away from the moment of the death of a loved one. It keeps getting worse – harder not easier – with each passing day and each passing week. I know that it will begin to get better or at least more manageable at some point, but that can and will happen only once the reality is internalized, a prerequisite for healing and recovery. But the internalization that someone is really dead - that there's absolutely nothing you can do to reverse that - requires ample time given its enormity. Three weeks is nowhere near sufficient.

One of the hardest challenges of grief, of the grieving process, is finding the balance between confronting the pain, loss and sometimes physically suffocating sadness – all without wallowing in it to the point that it completely consumes and then incapacitates you. But while you can't let yourself endlessly drown in it, you also can't let yourself use some mixture of distractions, work, exercise and other "return-to-normal" activities to remain in a state of denial or escapism, to avoid the pain and suffering, to deny the need to process a reality this immense and horrible, to anesthetize yourself from the mourning. The pain and suffering is going to come sooner or later, and the longer you evade or postpone it, the more damage it will do.

If you try to close yourself off to it entirety, to pretend it's not there, that attempt will fail. The pain and sadness will come at the worst times, when you're least prepared for it, in the most destructive form, and will find the unhealthiest expression. But if you force yourself to swim in those waters with too much frequency, for too much time, without maintaining a vibrant connection to the normalcy of life, to the people around you whom you love, and to the things you still cherish, it will paralyze and consume you - drain all your energy and life force and replace it with total darkness, mental paralysis and physical exhaustion: just a cold, inescapable sense of bottomless dread. 

There's no perfect sweet spot, but every day, you have to keep trying to find the right balance between confronting and avoiding. What's most daunting is realizing how long this process of processing and acceptance will be: very possibly endless. During the first week after David's death, I told both myself and our kids that the first two weeks would be hard but not the hardest, that worse days lay ahead, once the shock begins to wear off and the inescapable reality sets in, once the ceremonies were over and everyone else moved on and want back to their lives. I knew we would then be left with nothing but the reality of this enormous loss and horrific absence, and that was when the worst days would commence.

But telling yourself that is one thing; experiencing it is something completely different. Even when you think you're momentarily safeguarded from it, it can just penetrate without warning in the sharpest ways. On Thursday, I stumbled into this Guardian article about a top-secret leak in Australia and there was a description of David in the article's second paragraph, printed below, that was the first time I saw this formulation in print. It fell so heavily and jarringly – at a moment when I wasn't prepared for it – because no matter how hard you try and how much effort you devote to it, the reality of death takes a long time to fully internalize. It's just very hard to believe that the person with whom you expected and wanted to share all of your life – decades more – is instead not coming back, ever, in the only form you know, that a person so full of life and strength and force is no more:

I don't know why that phrase packed such a punch. I've seen hundreds of articles and tributes talking about David's death. But this phrase casually indicates that he is someone of the past, with no present and no future in our world. It didn't just talk about the fact that David died but referred to him as a now-and-forever dead person. That subtlety had an impact far more painful and destabilizing than I could have anticipated. It disrupted my emotional state until I could find a way to move on to something else: the central challenge of every day.


 

All of this is complicated -- a lot -- by the need to find this balance not only for yourself but also for your kids, whose grieving is as intense but also different. It's at least just as hard to know how much space to give them to use distractions like entertainment, sports, friends and school to find some breathing space. There's a strong temptation to encourage them to use escapism because one so eagerly -- instinctively -- wants to see one's kids smiling and laughing rather than crying and suffering.

But their own need to feel this loss, the mourning, the sadness, the pain is just as inescapable as your own. There's no avoiding it. It's coming one way or the other, so you often find yourself in the disorienting position of watching your kids cry and show pain, and you feel a form of comfort and relief from seeing it because you know it's good and healthy and necessary that they feel that, even while you are submerged in that sharp, expansive pit in the center of your being that comes from having to watch your own children suffer.

[Rio de Janeiro, March 30, 2022: four months, 1 week before David's hospitalization]

For those interested, I want to highly recommend this op-ed from last week by New York Times editor Sarah Wildman, whose 14-year-old daughter, Orli, just died after a somewhat lengthy and evidently very difficult battle with cancer. Without thinking about it, I messaged her to thank her for her article and we shared experiences, condolences and advice. One thing I did not expect was how much comfort I get from hearing from others - people I know well, people I don't know well, people I don't know at all – describe their own experiences with grief and loss. There's that old cliché that physical death is the great equalizer: the inevitable destination awaiting all of us regardless of status and station. 

That is true of death, but it's also true of grief. Unless one chooses never to love in order to avoid the pain of loss – a dreary, self-destructive, even tragic calculation – the impermanence of everything material that we love means we will all experience grief and the pain of loss until we die ourselves. There's now a substantial body of research on people's end-stage regrets: what humans who know they are dying say they wish they had done more of and less of. 

Virtually nobody nearing the end of life on earth says they wished they worked more or made more money (many say they regret working too much). Most say they wish they had spent more time with loved ones. When all is said and done, one of the few enduring things we really value and from which we derive meaningful pleasure - something we are built and have evolved to crave and need – is human connection. We're tribal and social animals. That's why isolation is one of the worst punishments society can impose, or that one can impose on oneself. And that's why, looking back over these last weeks and even during David's entire hospitalization, thoughts and notes and comments and kind gestures from so many people, to say nothing of those who took their time to write to me to share, often at great length, their own experience with long-term hospitalization of loved ones and profound grief, provided so much more comfort than I ever imagined it would have.

Wildman's op-ed is raw, moving and unsettling. She doesn't falsify or prettify anything for the sake of making her daughter's death more comfortable for others or herself. The death of someone you love at a young age is not pretty or comfortable. It's tragic and deeply sad and incomparably painful and there's no getting around that. Some of the best advice I got in the last couple of weeks was to avoid lionizing David or erecting a mythology around his life or around his death. I loved a human being, not a flawless saint or an icon or an otherworldly deity. And one of the things that moved me most about Wildman's op-ed was her frank discussion of her daughter's fear of dying. It would be so much more palatable - for yourself or others - to say and believe that the person you lost was at peace with dying. Her daughter wasn't at peace with dying, nor was David. They wanted to live and fought to live and were afraid to die.

That's a hard and painful truth that does sometimes make things much more difficult – it means you focus not only on what you lost, not only on what your kids lost, but on what the person who died lost – but one can also find beauty and grace and meaning and inspiration by confronting that rather than whitewashing it. It's disrespectful to someone's life to build mythologies about them - about their life and their death - no matter how comforting those mythologies might be. Wildman's op-ed refuses to do that, yet it leaves no doubt that her daughter inspired her and others not just in how she lived but in also in how she died: with her determination, courage and strength. 

I blocked it out and denied it at the time because I wasn't able to accept it, but David's doctors made clear in the days after he was first hospitalized in ICU last August that the probability that he would survive the week was very low. His inflammation and infection had already incapacitated his pancreas and caused full renal failure within the first 48 hours. By the end of the week he was intubated because sepsis delivered that inflammation to his lungs. Even a quick Google search reveals how dire that state of affairs is for anyone, no matter their age or overall health. 

That David fought so hard to live and return to us over nine excruciating months brought some horrifically difficult moments – watching him and his body get battered over and over every time it looked like he was possibly recovering was probably the worst thing I ever had to witness – but it also gave us and our kids some of our most moving, profound, genuine, loving and enduring moments with him and with one another that I and they will cherish forever, as I wrote about a couple months ago, in the context of gratitude, when I thought he was improving. 

It may seem at first glance that had he died a quick death in that first week, David would have spared himself and us a lot of agony. That may be true. But I am absolutely convinced that had he died in that first week without giving us and himself these opportunities, all of this would be infinitely worse. Every moment you share with someone you love - even if it's in an ICU ward with every machine imaginable connected to them - is a blessing and a gift, and David's characteristic fight gave us so many of those moments that, by all rights, we never should have had.

I really wish there some singular book or some magic phrase or some way of interpreting all of this that would make the still-growing and still-deepening pain disappear for myself, for mine and David's kids, for those who loved him, for those who love and lose anyone that matters so much in their life. There is no elixir. But that does not mean that nothing helps, that one is doomed to a life of endless pain, sadness, and dread, that it is impossible to find comfort and inspiration and even greater love in the grieving process. 


 

For that to happen, you need humility and an acceptance of what you cannot control. I can't bring David back - that's obvious - but I also can't find a way to entirely avoid the type of pain and sadness and despair that is sometimes utterly debilitating. I realized that very early on and so I'm no longer trying to avoid it entirely. 

Sometimes it comes when I seek or summon it, and sometimes it comes when I think I am far away from it - like happened this week when I saw the adjective "late" before his name and on a thousand other occasions when I looked at a photo of him and his eyes connected to mine, or when one of our kids shared a memory they had of him that brought him so vividly to life. When that pain comes, I don't try to fight it or drive it away. I let it come and sometimes stay in it on purpose, until I can no longer physically endure it. Other times I allow myself to be distracted: through work, though entertainment, through proximity to my kids, through conversations with them that are not directly about sharing our mutual grief over the loss of their father and of my husband.

I don't know if I returned to work too early or, instead, am sometimes succumbing too much to my desire not to work. Each day, I try to follow my instinct about what is best for me and for our kids, and to give myself a huge amount of space and forgiveness to calculate wrong and make the wrong decisions. Down every road lies sadness and even horror, but some of those paths also offer some beautiful moments of family and connection, ways to find inspiration, to embrace the spirit and passion and compassion and strength that defined David and his life.

I'm certain that one of the things that is helping most is our unified devotion to concretizing, memorializing and extending his legacy. One of David's greatest joys in life was seeing the construction and opening of the community center we built together in Jacarezinho, the community that raised him. It offers free classes in English and computers, psychological services and addiction counseling, support for animal protection and pet care, and meals for that community's homeless. We are going to create and build "The David Miranda Institute" to extend that work beyond that community. My kids are eager to assume a major role in working on this institute and community center – they know instinctively that it honors David and would make him so proud – and working on this together is one of the few things that provides us unadulterated comfort and uplifting energy. 

The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless. I'd be lying if I denied that it sometimes seems unbearable. Every day the reality that David lost his life and that we lost David in our lives gets heavier and more painful. But humans are resilient. We are adaptive. I can't prove it and there was a time in my life when I not only rejected but mocked this idea, but I believe our life has a purpose and, ultimately, so do our deaths. Each day I see that my suffering and our kids' suffering deepen and worsen for now. 

But I also see us, together, creating ways to find and remain connected to that purpose. David's life, David's spirit, David's legacy, and somehow even David's death are what is propelling us, elevating us, toward that destination. I would trade anything for David to be back with us, but since that option does not exist, getting through the pain and then finding a way to strengthen us is our overarching challenge.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
134
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
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
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
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

This is what happens when I spend the morning in the garden, surrounded by passion flower vines, butterflies, birds, and gnomes -- blasting geezer rock. I keep thinking of this Blake poem, from Auguries of Innocence:

To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour.

Also, here's Jethro Tull's brilliant My God (nice guitar riffs, enchanting flute solos, and heavy lyrics, man 😎):

Cydaddy, one of the many delightful, hilarious people in System Update's Live Chat, alerted me to this Tim Dillon clip, in which he roasts noted Zionist humanitarian Sam Harris:

The really weird thing is that Sam Harris has a meditation app, and one of the many benefits of meditation SHOULD be an increase in empathy for everyone, everywhere. Clearly, Sam is doing something wrong.😏

Great interview Tucker Carlson did with Dave Smith. Well worth listening to the entire thing. Lots of reflections on the debate with Douglas Murray. I really think that Dave Smith is one of the best, most well informed Libertarian, anti war voices around right now.

post photo preview
Edan Alexander Release: Is the Trump/Netanyahu Split Becoming More Real? Are Republicans Moving Toward Populist Economics? With Matt Stoller
System Update #453

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!

AD_4nXebtV_VInCG6EEzInXSdASEiZ3Pd7lGqGurZKLZsrvLDle1w7MfjJEHvPMpBwvIn8eC3j4b9U7Cn0v7RDf9_6t1WVRWe9xSq0Gd70etysK_6PvFL1mm7V1LGzBUxesGH6SS8SM1W63JhRhHIqKi34w?key=y-1_PmU3hnbL0fXFUWV3kw

 On our program last week, we asked whether there was anything really authentic or meaningful about various reports suggesting a growing rift between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. There was some evidence to substantiate that suspicion, but as we noted last week, far more than that would be required before believing that there has been a split between any Israeli Prime Minister and any American president, let alone one as surrounded and funded by Israeli loyalists, as Donald Trump has been and still is. 

Now, this is still my view: I want to see far more proof before concluding that this divergence or even animosity between the two governments is both real and enduring. But the evidence for this view is now far more ample and concrete than it was when we reviewed it last week. This split extends to several different Middle East regions and a variety of different agenda items for both Washington and Tel Aviv. 

We'll show you all of that evidence and also review the latest in the U.S./Israel relationship, including what that might mean for Gaza, the West Bank, Iran, and beyond. 

Then, we’ll have Matt Stoller, one of the most knowledgeable analysts on the U.S. government's fight against Big Tech's antitrust violations, to discuss President Trump’s executive order reducing the price of medication and other pharmaceutical products for Americans, who have long paid significantly more than anyone else in the world for pharmaceutical products. 

 
AD_4nXebtV_VInCG6EEzInXSdASEiZ3Pd7lGqGurZKLZsrvLDle1w7MfjJEHvPMpBwvIn8eC3j4b9U7Cn0v7RDf9_6t1WVRWe9xSq0Gd70etysK_6PvFL1mm7V1LGzBUxesGH6SS8SM1W63JhRhHIqKi34w?key=y-1_PmU3hnbL0fXFUWV3kw

AD_4nXeCh9VnPNJeiI6Elt7nSRrY_XnSVVdhtxFsC-6VDQzmnga2875Zlbf0f8IgtEPZVluT_Ug0KnQtyT7bDCJ07VRiRa7_P6smnxtVh4rpYJpHuRAZ4XZL4efFnJj0e8UbG3sV0oiR5nnNsuCEPrxOvA?key=y-1_PmU3hnbL0fXFUWV3kw

In terms of the U.S. role in the world and its foreign policy, there have been few aspects or components of the U.S. government more significant than its relationship with Israel. You can certainly make a case that the relationship with Israel, that inextricable link with Israel, has brought the U.S. into numerous different wars over the years. 

It has also resulted in a contract of dependency by which the United States not only gives Israel $4 billion every year, in a deal negotiated by Obama on his way out the door with Netanyahu, most of which is spent on buying U.S. weapons – so it's like a gift certificate to the Israelis – but not all of it. 

So, if that were ever to change in any way, it would be momentous. The consequences would be difficult to overstate. Yet, that's precisely why there's so much money, so much power, and so much organized pressure brought to bear on American politicians to make sure that doesn't ever happen. And it hasn't happened for decades. 

The last time it happened was in the Bush 41 administration, which had Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, who was just an old foreign policy hand and very much believed in a realist view that U.S. interests should come first. He worked with the national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, who was also a realist, about whom Obama once said was one of his favorite foreign policy officials, because Obama wanted to adopt a realist view of foreign policy as well.

Both of them understood that one of the main problems for the United States in the Middle East, and generals have said this over the years, all kinds of national security officials, was the fact that the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is ongoing. The United States is so overwhelmingly, exclusively on one side of that conflict, namely fueling and funding Israel, that the entire Arab world always watched the Israelis killing innocent Palestinians, blowing up their children, Israel bombing Lebanon, Israel bombing Syria, taking land, and that entire part of the world understands that we're at fault for that because we're the ones enabling it with our arms and money. 

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
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis: On Global Trade and Tariffs, EU Arming of Israel, Israeli Destruction of Gaza, & More
System Update #452

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!

AD_4nXeEPjcHLd9ITT4_C70QqQHVBQ9Rh9Ov64HkhEyLERcj0fJ6SPwOVIBUc92slZXtGvmAfLRFZsJYVYFiSXo0JDQRjXvdJVMqZ6qqg-ys1gARtZ_0m3neyTFgthcXxNm_6fUmUDg4jKXY2j8mtesTNvE?key=kwQxdomNV3oPRWlQKkpsfA

Yanis Varoufakis is on the show to discuss a wide range of issues, including what lessons he took away from that bruising 2015 battle with the IMF and the EU; his thoughts on Trump's current tariffs policy, which is a reaction that was far more nuanced than one might expect, given his association in the public mind with the left; the trends in the EU regarding their claim determination to want to massively increase military spending and turn themselves into an independent military power; the Israeli destruction of Gaza and EU support for that, and much more. 

Yanis Varoufakis is a prominent Greek Australian economist, politician, and activist. As Greece's Finance Minister in 2015, he gained global recognition during the negotiations surrounding the Greek debt crisis. He led the charge against attempts by the neoliberal globalist institutions – such as the IMF, the European Central Bank and the EU – to force Greece to take out more high-interest loans to pretend to pay back its national debt. He most vociferously fought against attempts to impose massive suffering on the Greek people, the already quite beleaguered Greek people, through mandatory austerity measures, which Brussels was attempting to impose on Greece. 

As is true of most people who try to challenge or defy these sorts of neoliberal power centers, Varoufakis ultimately failed in the sense that he resigned from his government and his position when they began to make concessions that he regarded as "surrender." He did, however, succeed in convincing the Greek population to reject a referendum that would have ratified the EU's demands. Of course, the government ended up ignoring the will of the people as it often does. In the process, he also drew international attention to the way these financial institutions crush the lives of ordinary citizens (a dynamic that continues to drive right-wing populist movements in the EU, the U.S. and throughout the world) and he ended up, whether he wanted to or not, with a massive platform, widely regarded as one of the most informed and most independent analysts of economic and geopolitical debates. 

We certainly regard him as that, and thus we are very glad that he has that platform and has agreed to come on our show tonight. 

Varoufakis is currently a professor at the University of Athens, where his academic work centers on global economic systems, game theory and critiques of neoliberalism. He leads the MeRA25, the European Realistic Disobedience Front, co-founded the DiEM25 movement for democratic reform, and is a bestselling author. His latest book is “Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism” (2023), which examines how technology has transformed global economies. 

 

AD_4nXcAefhhsl7Gb9UQmpBVubEZ1605c4wopv2j3fjgRahrWhmCkxuydqI3g3xpf9jWXU28tR5gnQSdEP2OQnqiWXbpo966G0lW9CDSxWKwijo9ylPnjyg8w6mX8dDtbs6FCH4oFmseIJOOk9VD3rSlq8I?key=kwQxdomNV3oPRWlQKkpsfA

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 Reacts to Breaking News: American Pope Chosen, Trump and Netanyahu Split Over War with Iran, MAHA Drama, and More
System Update #451

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!

AD_4nXcDUAthJ2oJl8LOYhSPNrikTBSxiDQyh67uUlB3y840_2fvFEiLkJ8wcqVd9RiHiNwzLJ3MuuAtpVl8s_uOnn8JpLfD9au4NScaPHc3oM5zcfZsdIxAJYXtAqBi8TZ84O3I0VrmhRCDdo4L3rrYofM?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

 The headline news in most countries in the world is the selection of Cardinal Robert Prevost to be the new leader of the Catholic Church, replacing the prior Pope, Francis, who died late last month. Prevost is now known as Pope Leo XIV. 

Born in Chicago, he is the first-ever American Pope in the history of the Catholic Church, though, as a fluent Spanish speaker, he has also done substantial work in the church in Latin America. He's widely viewed as a close ally of Pope Francis and, to some extent, at least likely to follow in his footsteps. 

I do think the reaction of political and media figures in the U.S. to his selection is worthy of attention. As is true for almost everything now, his life and worldview were instantly reduced to a handful of tweets, and then grinded through the ideological and political prism to instantly determine whether he's good or bad – a very strange discourse, especially for someone that nobody who was commenting on him knew anything about prior to the moment he was unveiled. We'll tell you all about it. 

Then, we have several other topics. It was a big news day including all sorts of significant movements and events taking place in the Middle East with reports of a clear split between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu and thus between the U.S. and Israel and Trump's selection of the close RFK Jr. ally Casey Means as Surgeon General, which caused far more indignation and accusations than, at least, I expected. Time permitting, we will also explain the withdrawal of Ed Martin to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Moments ago, Trump announced his new selection and that person is Jeanine Pirro, better known to Fox News viewers as Judge Jeanine. So, we'll tell you about all of that. 

AD_4nXcDUAthJ2oJl8LOYhSPNrikTBSxiDQyh67uUlB3y840_2fvFEiLkJ8wcqVd9RiHiNwzLJ3MuuAtpVl8s_uOnn8JpLfD9au4NScaPHc3oM5zcfZsdIxAJYXtAqBi8TZ84O3I0VrmhRCDdo4L3rrYofM?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

AD_4nXdAiw44784N3JQuQmzHRKvIuPLNCM_In4UkxfARji67YOU8zib1uik6Rom0Xe2RLUy6Go-ADhWNidWSAR89QzMLPSFTLnRvoaIutQsWPriYFXOElelmY6BmDbTs5A0ib6039T8FNp-H7TO_H4x6Xg?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

Early this morning, white smoke emitted from the Vatican, which, as most of you know, signifies that the conclave of cardinals assembled in the Vatican has chosen a new pope. The new Pope that they agreed on is the first-ever American pope. He was born in Chicago, he is fully American, he obviously speaks English in an Americanized way, which would be very strange hearing the Pope speak in Americanized English, but, obviously, that's his first language – although he speaks several others as well. 

As I said at the start, he was a close ally of Pope Francis who was regarded as a reformer or on the more progressive wing of the Catholic Church, although the progressive wing of this Catholic Church is still quite conservative, it's a very conservative institution by its very nature, by its age, by its function, by its purpose, by its dogma. But one of the things that Francis did was he was very, very outspoken about the growing income inequality in the world, the need to be humane to immigrants. He was also, I suppose I could say, a critic of the destruction of Gaza, but certainly a defender of the rights and suffering of the Palestinian people. Whether Pope Leo XIV follows some of that or all of that remains to be seen; he's been a little bit of a cryptic figure, not really seeking out those kinds of controversies. It's a little bit unclear, I think, even to Church Insiders, where he stands on them. 

Here is the scene at St. Peter's Basilica early this morning, you see the new Pope standing on the balcony with people cheering. This is his first public appearance as the new Pope. 

Video. Pope Leo XIV, St. Peter’s Basilica. May 8, 2025.

The faithful of the Catholic Church are always going to welcome a new pope with that sort of extremely happy, welcoming, loving and positive emotion, and that's what you saw today. 

I'm not a theologian, I'm by no means a historian of the Catholic Church, but the pope always does have this religious role. Obviously, he's the head of the Catholic Church, this 2,000-year-old institution, but he also typically has a political profile. I mean, he's the head of the Vatican, which in theory is an independent state inside of Italy and popes have always played a significant political role. I talked about some of Pope Francis's views. I remember growing up in the 1980s when Pope John Paul II was aligned very much with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. 

There were times when the pope followed the Church's longstanding opposition to and contempt for communism, given that communism, by its dogma, seeks to eradicate religion, it's the opioid of the people, as communists see it. So, there was always a strong political alignment between some popes and conservative politicians. Then, recently, there has been a greater alignment – I don't want to say with left-wing politicians because certainly on social issues, the Church still has very positions widely considered conservative on things like abortion, which they vehemently oppose, as well as same-sex marriage which though they've softened a little bit the rhetoric about obviously they still oppose that but they also have been traditionally associated with certain I guess you could say left-wing positions. After all, if you read the gospel, the gospel is not a teaching of support for elites or for venerating the wealthy. Jesus spent his time, according to all four books of the gospel, ministering to prostitutes, lepers and the most downtrodden, so that has always been part of the church's mission: to minister to the poor, to care for the poor. 

Then, also the same position that makes them so opposed to abortion, namely the sanctity of human life and the sin of extinguishing it, has also led them to be opposed to the death penalty. That was certainly Pope Francis' position, and I believe it's Pope Leo XIV's as well. 

Here is Donald Trump's reaction, because, again, I understand why people want to put him immediately through a political prism of saying, Oh, is he like MAGA, is he like Republican, is he Democrat, is he liberal? Even though the Church really does transcend those kinds of characterizations, especially just trying to reduce someone who's been in the Church their whole life to a few tweets you found and then want to place them on the political spectrum. It almost is like a non-sequitur, but that's what a lot of people were doing. Donald Trump did not do that. He posted this:

AD_4nXfqWrFF4yalYC-zDFtCh1tORjtO3edrOGVJbvl4exjI_oWPtMa0fT7I3W9XnkY1qUFXUIJ_C_wHmexUoSZBNoYzicPxWLC0cTIuPm-XyMTB9p3FppBiclSZAdY_a5Ne4aAq511o8z4vUx4sBjtxCgI?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

I saw somebody satirizing Trump by saying, “Tomorrow he's going to say, ‘Hey, there are a lot of people who are saying the reason an American pope got chosen for the first time is because of me. I don't know if it's true, but it probably is.’ That's a very Trumpian way to say it, but obviously that was satire. What I just read to you is what he said, I would say very proper and well-crafted congratulations that were appropriate for a president. 

His Vice President, JD Vance, interestingly, is somebody who this new Pope has criticized on social media, at least twice in the last six months, and here is what JD Vance said, also an appropriate statement, no acknowledgement of the fact that the Pope has criticized JD Vance personally and things he believes in and things he has said, JD Vance is Catholic and so, obviously, he is expressing the sentiments of what I would assume are the sentiments of most Catholics around the world, where he said, quote:

AD_4nXdCiPd_fkXIavhNvBaIGhDmqLlWMQmoYJE12QO9TvAMolm59JHoqH3Y2Wiqinyob22NKbWIHfqCh-InviujpSVYxSiR5D-yo9ZQeE28OkY8EXM_1v4uTW9_8wmNcGCWbdxgzEVWy5nsdDd25w8Oco8?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

 I was online when this happened. I went online, actually, when I heard that there was a new pope selected. It's a significant moment for anyone who pays attention to world events, world politics and also religion, obviously. 

There was this hour period between when the white smoke was emitted, signaling the selection of a new pope, and before the pope was announced, during which a very conservative cardinal, for whatever reason, people started assuming that that's who was selected and in the betting markets, he just skyrocketed to like 70%, 80%, and everybody else who were the favorites or dark horses started dropping. And so, people were very happy because he was a conservative choice. But then, when they unveiled the pope, it wasn't him. It was instead Robert Prevost. And at first, American politicians and pundits were celebrating the fact that we now have an American pope for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church and the history of the United States. 

Immediately, people started to find tweets. He didn't tweet often about non-Church matters. He tweeted very sporadically about the Pope, the Pope's health and just generalized kind of conventional sentiments that cardinals express in behalf of their Catholicism, but he did actually have some political tweets as well that, one after the next, every sort of 20 minutes, emerged and a lot of MAGA people, a lot of right-wing people went from celebrating this choice to immediately panicking almost, or at least denouncing the choice on the ground that this is not somebody who aligns with their political ideology. 

So, here's something he posted in February of this year, so just two months ago. The tweet that he wrote says:

AD_4nXcwMBg0541p5emYS15_EkW5Oyp1GEGvlp6fehK9ZTnJWwJbxVN4kUgonW_LXhYZU00UcUm2ZG15oGdx4-oFZIZLbGgvMBhyLbnEwub4AN8ocJwv1yteK41hLIVGqwKL6uniGSAzGzl3MDf2MVocA5Q?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

And then it links to an article that he didn't write, that's not his sentence, that's really like the headline to the article, but he's obviously endorsing it. 

What happened there was that JD Vance had given an interview where I think somebody asked him about the religious mandate, the Catholic imperative, to care for immigrants and to care for people who are expelled from the country or stateless. To defend on a religious ground why he believed in a hardline stand, JD Vance said there's a Catholic doctrine that says, first, you take care of your family, then you take of your community and then you take care of your city, your state, your country and then after that, only then, you care about the rest of the people in the world. 

There is a Catholic doctrine that was affirmed more or less that way, but it's been rejected by the Church, it's not the prevailing view of Catholicism, it doesn't really reflect Catholic action in terms of how it reacts in world and this is what the new Pope was pointing to, an article arguing why JD Vance's views of what the teachings of Catholicism are when it comes to prioritizing who you care about and who you don't is Catholic dogma. The new Pope said Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others; your love for humanity, for other human beings, is just the love of Jesus. That was his view. 

In 2015, when Donald Trump was running for the first time on a very anti-immigrant platform – not just a platform, but the way he was speaking about immigrants, it didn't sit well, apparently, with the new Pope either – because, on that date, he cited an article by Cardinal Dolan. 

AD_4nXcpTI5eTFYzEfyMORGKZTWDGmYAoeEfRtTY8gCM6PTzylGXxmm4NZ1wpu0ndx66xGd_QpGJPkIJOBSwMQ9zdisdIZHooYn57l1y8N4kFmuddmwXmvkmO4QAbLFnglSHr2nI9h8Cidqw9UV9DvHZRiU?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

And then Laura Loomer, the quite effective influencer, I guess you could call her Trump whisperer, I mean, she's one of the few people who gets away with constantly bashing the administration of the White House. Still, the more she does it, the more her influence and credibility seem to grow with Trump. When she complains about people, they often end up being dispatched or fired in the case of some people as well, but she replied to that tweet today with this comment:

AD_4nXf9Lbye7MWYLhbqPzBQ1IicsUEcZodDFOJ_PrOC1bzQqUDBq8EPeAi6aW4oGAUo5EVwkoW40JWogop2BtVjtNAWMB9_ZBTmNfXEZ8xlkf6BVE0-Jhqj2YaGPjJISlIml4zo8AZsvF4Enw284yDCy_Q?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

So, I guess she thinks the Pope is both woke and Marxist. She's Jewish, but within like, I guess two hours, she was able to summarize his entire worldview based on a few tweets. And she's here to say that this Pope is both Marxist and woke. It's kind of odd for a deeply religious figure, someone who's devoted his entire life to spreading the word of Jesus, to simultaneously be a Marxist. It's sort of an incompatible doctrine, but who knows, maybe she's right. I don't think there's a lot of evidence for that, but she seems to think so. 

Here's Sean Davis, a very smart right-wing commentator and analyst who is also Catholic:

AD_4nXc2i8__q2LejKqllZxxc5FOV5Xj2BldMbCVZAkcT5CN5N-UL95zxuerMS0L7CP3PR3XIaqrO2VvXLOWC1ygQZc_rrf6kjglOWQcbBhSTH8Zgu4LWkTs9UtvmkochKOVYM0zOXciW1N7iybIilV2kQs?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

Which, again, if you look at just these disconnected tweets, you could put those together and make a lot of leaps of reasoning and maybe assume that. But certainly, he's pro-immigrant. I mean, the Catholic Church has always been pro-immigrant, and you can go back hundreds of years and you're going to find that. 

Megyn Kelly, who is also Catholic, said after all these tweets emerged:

AD_4nXd8ecjj1XqQGO-DCh7fOVPx27ydgR4LabgWTOW2mbZC93qmNbFOCPRcgI-53NAMUQJle40h2XS5dHPAlXB4Fgv_AKaphpgGY3le8aTjHqMzYCkw_QSLuPj9S8Ub24BnIb6CyLk8Oso2z-yJ-dwKP6c?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

That doesn't seem likely to me, to put it mildly. And again, I'm not really sure why people are finding these sentiments surprising; they seem to align extremely well with what the Catholic Church is often – I don't want to say always, but often –represented. 

Mike Cernovich, another right-wing influencer whom I also often find insightful, said:

AD_4nXejtDD9Em607YjmWf2aK1EiBO4abxp6_yoyr4qpOj-q1H39PAvFtlbAFzJraNq5snKI1c8gnAeBHuAmIzaFtHT_kMx9TM07nNFAbLKuY3tFVm1947wk83JhRMLyvCtL9G1OcxDAs9fd7MnjJwogEkQ?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

There has been this sense for some time – again, I’m not a theologian – but there has been this sense that the Catholic Church, since the reforms in the early '60s, has basically been sacrilegious or even satanic, not true Catholics. Those sentiments have sometimes grown among the Orthodox wing of the Catholic Church. I guess that's what's being channeled there. 

Here is Jack Posobiec. He is Catholic. He was in the Vatican, and he said this:

AD_4nXdk16-7ptmDuwT-bZft6jFrASGX845eNNWmCPefdfEtdJwTh18NkCoftlQYvSLZSXqdVomdJzGE_YEDlQNuwZs7Y0LA01nCQM9CLNLqNoRfoLx5uvZHRjD0ZY4qL5z6irTn3riWe9P91cL7vUusVTo?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

And I do think that's an interesting observation because, as I said, the Pope in the modern world and actually in the ancient world going back many, many centuries to the time it began, always had this dual function of being the interpretive body that defines the meaning of God's word through Jesus Christ. But then, also obviously playing a very political role, the Church is very powerful, it's very wealthy and it influences a lot of people. It's inherently a political position as well and this is what you often hear from Catholics. If the pope says something they dislike, they're like, “That's political, that's not canon. You don't have to assume that's the word of God.” 

Amazingly, a lot of this was based on a handful of tweets that they were trying to reduce this Pope to being, oh, he's not MAGA, he is anti-Trump. They found some voting records that they claimed proved he was a Republican, so maybe he was like an anti-Trump or a never-Trumper. But then, obviously, some of them thought he was a woke Marxist as well. 

Here's Matt Walsh, who is not just Catholic but someone who speaks a lot about the Church and Catholicism. He did not react well to this attempt to reduce the Pope to nothing more than someone who you can just place on the American ideological spectrum. And he said this:

AD_4nXeELLHnh0ql4BbjCNgMcVEWHjCZpoHtXdP2pO_ccbsfn89OyyHpAu_dMTixcK8omXWxSyFjfgk9ohLTwvgArOjL4QbCB3AfGDjYlPUmfzYvIizlpb5EvT_BpuV8ufOt6MloGXwUfM6ZuAQnf6ZjHjs?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

And there were other tweets as well that we didn't include here. The new Pope retweeted a tweet from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy from 2017 when Trump just got elected, where Chris Murphy was basically saying, “We need to do everything possible to fight against and resist this new authoritarianism,” so the new Pope retweeted Chris Murphy, the Democratic Senator. He also retweeted very recently, I think it was one of his last tweets, a different cardinal who was reacting to the meeting between El Salvador’s President Bukele and President Trump in the Oval Office where they kind of mocked the whole notion of court-stopping immigrants being sent to El Salvador. The cardinal reacted with horror and indignation that they seemed to be so cavalier about the fate of these people, who hadn't even been given due process, that they were just putting them into dungeons for life in a country they'd never been to and the new Pope retweeted that indignation from a cardinal in response to that policy of sending people to El Salvador. 

Again, I'm not surprised personally that the Pope is conservative on social issues, anti-abortion, opposed to same sex marriage, opposed to the death penalty, which is not a conservative view. I'm not surprised that he teaches compassion and empathy for immigrants, including people who are illegally entering countries. This seems very consistent, very compatible with the Catholic Church to me, as somebody who has not paid the closest of attention in a scholarly way, but certainly as someone who understands Catholicism to the extent I do, so, I don't really understand all this acrimony, all this kind of panic, this antagonism.

Also, when you're a cardinal or when you were within the Catholic Church, he rose pretty quickly as a result of his relationship with Francis, there's not always total freedom to express your worldview or who you are and what you believe and what your priorities are. And so, we'll see with this new Pope what he decides to make of his position and I think only then will we really know his ideology or place on the ideological spectrum if a pope can even be placed on that.  I think as Matt Walsh actually said, and I basically agree with it, in a way, the idea of the pope and the Catholic Church transcends modern political debates, even though they sometimes have an impact on it. 

AD_4nXcDUAthJ2oJl8LOYhSPNrikTBSxiDQyh67uUlB3y840_2fvFEiLkJ8wcqVd9RiHiNwzLJ3MuuAtpVl8s_uOnn8JpLfD9au4NScaPHc3oM5zcfZsdIxAJYXtAqBi8TZ84O3I0VrmhRCDdo4L3rrYofM?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

AD_4nXdDa7Dcjzt_vGLMnueYCnPJgY8KxSnqMxrPYDo6FFngopvkqZ_J95HnPl_qsaSRN3_Jj4jDprSxqYx60cIMa4ctK5hOtUUXFsXGtz19GtVAGryOloVVl0h0IrJZGiAxSN_U7unxLJAFmmCcABMBi48?key=Dh58bm1mhZCrarukbBA_LQ

All right, let's move to the next topic, which is these reports that there has been a breach in the relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. 

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