Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Glenn Greenwald defends Republicans trying to sabotage Iran negotiations. [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)117. It all fits nicely if Greenwald is a negative nationalist with the the West, the US and Democrats
as his perceived antagonists, which is my contention.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word longeur, and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the word, we have the thing in considerable profusion. In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word nationalism, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.
By nationalism I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled good or bad(1). But secondly and this is much more important I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By patriotism I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself unshakeably certain of being in the right.
.
.
.
------------------------------------------
Orwell's concept of the negative nationalist describes Greenwald to a T. Just like Trotskyists had "become simple enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit", Greenwald is simply an enemy of the West, US and Democrats without a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. Greenwald will explore any angle to attack his designated antagonists, fair or unfair, honest or dishonest. Just like he behaved as an attorney by the way.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
203 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Glenn Greenwald defends Republicans trying to sabotage Iran negotiations. [View all]
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
OP
I was neutral on him till today, it is clear what his agenda is now. Fuck him big time
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#176
If that is really true, I should point out that the OP misrepresented what GG said.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#191
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, don't fail me. What you posted is swell but
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#195
Agreed. Those of us who are not big fans of Greenwald remain of the same mind.
Buzz Clik
Mar 2015
#53
Agree, but the people who agree with Greenwald on this AT LEAST get pointed out for who they are
uponit7771
Mar 2015
#76
"give up"?.. reporting GG's tweets? Oh, and I've seen some GG fans saying he's wrong on this..
Cha
Mar 2015
#96
We'll, it's Democrats and Obama opposing war and libertarian golden boy Rand Paul
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#5
Or, he's just a mendacious hack who subverts his beliefs whenever they collide
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#8
Four tweets from Greenwald attacking Democrats and defending Republicans--zero
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#4
He actually made several tweets criticizing the Republican efforts to derail it, including one
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#11
Eh...the twitter link from your first post? Did you bother to actually look at his tweets before
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#14
If you're really trying to be obtuse, where did he say what Reid was doing was a bad thing?
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#20
So you admit that none of the criticisms you mention in your OP are criticisms per your bizarre
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#25
You didn't have that tweet in your original OP, yet you seemed to still be capable of seeing the
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#29
Speaking of links, why don't you give us some links supporting your quotes? nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#137
No, the point is that there is no criticism there and that's why no one sees it
Number23
Mar 2015
#37
Well, you know how it is. Must defend Greenwald at all costs. Integrity be damned.
Tarheel_Dem
Mar 2015
#181
Even when faced with the fact that it is beyond obvious that the man is simply NOT criticizing the
Number23
Mar 2015
#184
"All while they bray about how they are true and REAL Democratic base, of course."
Tarheel_Dem
Mar 2015
#185
True, but hopefully it will show others the level of deception going on and make them think twice
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#197
We would need nothing but the finest GG bullshite tweets coming down the pike.. and Hoorah! Siding
Cha
Mar 2015
#100
Greenwald is an expert on "..a phrase half stupid and half toxic on multiple levels".. he's had so
Cha
Mar 2015
#98
Shocker! I am quite sure his fans will be along shortly to explain how he he is just misunderstood
Egnever
Mar 2015
#10
He isn't wrong if he didn't say what the OP contends. Ask the OP for links. nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#140
I like Greenwald for all the issues he had helped bring into the spot light, especially working
Hutzpa
Mar 2015
#28
Even if not prosecutable, the behavior is seditious in nature and spirit. nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#33
I was wondering if any of DU's attorneys would comment on Greenwald describing himself as
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#54
And those statements by Greenwald sound more than "zealously representing one's client"
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#57
I don't find the need to follow Greenwald but he seems to be looking for the big deal.
Thinkingabout
Mar 2015
#38
More like swings, loses control of the bat, and the bat takes out half the crowd.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#47
There is a difference between criticizing the deal and Contact a foreign government
nakocal
Mar 2015
#41
Oh, OUCH! Perfect. that might ruffle more than a few GG fan feathers here..if he had the temerity
Cha
Mar 2015
#99
And of course, no response. There is no response other than taking it back or attacking Bernie.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#121
Dug himself into another pit with his knee defense of republicons over the Democratic Party &
Cha
Mar 2015
#133
The asshole is helping Republicans undermine a peace deal here. All because he hates Democrats.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#43
I'm really curious which Republican candidate he will endorse for President in 2016.
Cali_Democrat
Mar 2015
#51
He is a negative nationalist that views the US and Democrats as his antagonist.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#61
It also wasn't "any member of congress" doing free speech. It was official, collective action. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2015
#70
dear glenn, the repucks are humping for war....the President is trying to avoid it.
spanone
Mar 2015
#75
Yeah, so it's GG who has the Dick Cheney playbook and is being faithful to it.. not Sen Reid.
Cha
Mar 2015
#103
Well....isn't GG the featured speaker at a Koch-funded lecture series named after a racist
MADem
Mar 2015
#80
Everything GG does is for GG, and the bank balance of GG alone. Translation = $$$$$$$.
Tarheel_Dem
Mar 2015
#182
Look closely folks -- THIS is the renegade senator Glenn Greenwald is cheerleading:
Blue_Tires
Mar 2015
#82
Not a hypocrite--he's a clever dissembler who has kept his powder dry for a long time.
MADem
Mar 2015
#120
It all fits nicely if Greenwald is a negative nationalist with the the West, the US and Democrats
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#117
You're kidding!? Even he wouldn't be that stupid! Oh, wait.. nevermind.. he's so full of shite.
Cha
Mar 2015
#94
The list..yep, Rand Paul is on there. It's GG who's "faithfully using the Dick Cheney Playbook"..
Cha
Mar 2015
#95
Iran and the Rude Pundit disagree.. "The authors may not fully understand that in international law,
Cha
Mar 2015
#109
He always at least gave the appearance of fence-sitting. Now he's not even bothering with that.
randome
Mar 2015
#113
What is the point of this OP? From the headline I expected something juicy, instead of nada.
GoneFishin
Mar 2015
#114
Greenwald conflates 'criticism' with what the GOP did, which is to actively undermine the country.
randome
Mar 2015
#118
I only see one quote about Sen Reid with no context. How about the other quotes? nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#153
I don't care about Reid. I care about Greenwald conflating what the Gang of 47 did with 'criticism'.
randome
Mar 2015
#154
No one has provided me with a link showing what is claimed here other that
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#163
He said both actions were wrong. That's far from "defending" the 47 Republicons.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#177
I'm sure the OP will be updated to explain this...oversight...which was obviously unintentional
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#143
I would like to hear a theory as to why "disinformation" about GG. He isn't
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#168
I'd like to hear a theory about why, if Greenwald is so bad, it's necessary to make stuff up
Chathamization
Mar 2015
#198
There is a difference between QUESTIONING the policy and being traitors to your country
LynneSin
Mar 2015
#127
I hear what you are saying. I guess I am a little stunned that some here would actually go to
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#196
GG is going to end up like Ralph Nader if he isn't careful: a one-note parody of himself. nt
Hekate
Mar 2015
#129
Translation: "I'm going to criticize substance of Republicans and style of Democrats
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#134
That's what I thought. Your hatred of Greenwald is misplaced. He isn't killing the middle and lower
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#139
As any English professor will tell you. Synonym means similar meaning, not necessarily exactly
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#203
That's because you are engaging in a dishonest rhetorical exercise to avoid addressing the truth
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#155
The OP states, "Glenn Greenwald defends Republicans trying to sabotage Iran negotiations."
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#156
And now you have moved the goalposts from "Supports" to "Defends" in your rhetorical game
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#157
The OP did not provide any source or context for Greenwald "defending" the Republicons.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#160
The OP provided the exact twitter quote where Greenwald did just as I described, WITH LINK!
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#170
He also said this, "GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous on the substance:
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#178
Given everything he has done to undermine Obama, he almost has to support the GOP on this
Sheepshank
Mar 2015
#159
I hope not because of this thread. Greenwald did not "defend" the Republicons.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#164
I dont see the follow up part at the link, where can I see that 1000% remark?
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#179