The reactionaries

There are people in this world who do not want the systems of dissociation removed, the oligarchs dethroned and the principles that govern us rewritten. Some of those are people who know things are never so bad they can’t get worse. Some do not see the box they are in or a different way of living. Some are those advantaged by the current structure, now or in the recent past.

We can all spot reactionaries when they take the form of extreme nationalists fighting against immigration or against anyone from a different ethnicity, religion, gender or similar, but today the loudest voices calling for revolution are equally reactionary. The very fact that their voices are the loudest under the current system is reason enough that they don’t want to change the paradigm. A longing for tradition and nostalgia for the good old days, advocacy for reform, and focus on issues instead of underlying principles, all indicate the speaker is from a demographic only lately inconvenienced by the system.  

Anyone fighting for a reform or a reversal of the current system is a reactionary. Anyone objecting to one bill or victim at a time instead of universal principles is only objecting to one manifestation of a problem and that is the one which affects themselves. The principles we are ruled by were created to advantage an elite few and no matter how far back their effects are rewound, if the principles remain the same the elite few will recur and the ponzi schemes of wealth, celebrity and power will continue. Anyone wanting an effect of the principles reversed but not the principles themselves is asking for a personal exemption to a situation they have no problem seeing others living in. Their objective is to go back far enough that the whole process can continue again in the same way, rewinding only the parts where it became uncomfortable for them. As soon as other people’s problems are mentioned they become ‘realists’ who don’t want to ‘tackle the whole world’ at once (ever) just the part with them in it. They do not want to dismantle the structure or keep the door open, they just want to scuttle in themselves before it shuts. 

Exceptional lives

Those enjoying media spotlight for being questioned at international airports without mentioning the stateless masses in prisons, floating on oceans and being murdered by traffickers and fascists are co-opting and minimizing the global horror of militarized closed borders. US military personnel protesting US military force only when it is used in the streets of the US are saying they fought for their exceptional position in the ponzi scheme and they want to retain it. A US thermidor is far more likely than a US revolution as anyone who has enjoyed the sight of ‘anarchists’ demanding allegiance to their constitution can tell.

Occupy Sandy was a grass roots campaign which many inside the US Occupy movement considered their greatest achievement and many outside considered most illustrative of everything wrong with US Occupy. Sandy was one hurricane, occurring in one region, and US Occupy completely obliterated the voices of those dying in the Caribbean with their pleas for Hallowe’en candy for the children of Manhattan. All efforts to expand the action to include those outside the US with far greater need were ignored or dismissed as unrealistic and not their concern. While regional actions like Opsafewinter are required and have local variants worldwide, to co-opt one issue and section off only the part that concerns your own state is as nationalist and reactionary as any fascist fighting immigration.

The exact same US based social media accounts who built their platforms by appropriating everyone’s protests and revolutions, broadcasting information from others as if it was their own and fundraising to send themselves as war tourists to gain celebrity by broadcasting over top of local voices suddenly went into hard reversal when they had a protest of their own, calling for all of their hugely powerful circle to attack anyone outside the US attempting to discuss ‘their’ protest. The worst backlash was for those who dared compare a struggle in the US with one outside. While every conflict of any kind in the continent of Africa is happily billed by US pundits as ‘the next Rwanda’, pointing out that Israeli trained police were throwing US produced tear gas in the streets of both Palestine and the US was unacceptable co-opting of ‘their’ protest. They have no desire to stop tear gas production or dismantle the US or Israeli military, they simply want their exceptional status back. When they fight against minimum wage, they identify with the workers in Australia, not those in Bangladesh. The policies of trickle down economics they deplore for themselves are what they prescribe for the rest of the world.

Those in Ferguson fighting for the safety of their neighbourhood are part of a global movement against police and military violence worldwide. Those furious that Palestinians have pointed this out are imperialist exceptionalists demanding a global spotlight on them and only them. These are the same people, with the same mindset, who feel that three killed in Boston is worth far more media than thousands in Nigeria, that thousands killed in the US trade towers is worth hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq. Self governance is choosing who and what to amplify. Those demanding or taking greater amplification seek to be part of the oligarchy, not to dismantle it. They are not revolution, they are not resistance, they are simply reaction.

Panelists, the new politicians

The 2012 US NDAA caused an international uproar as exceptional lives used their exceptional media power to convince the world of the importance of this bill, which extended to citizens of the United States the same threat of indefinite detention that had been a fact for all non-citizens of the US since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. In a wonderfully ironic twist, a very wealthy caucasian woman from New York (employed by her very wealthy stepfather) gave laughably false testimony that her interview with Guantanamo child detainee Omar Khadr (who she states is a member of al-Qaeda, with no evidence or background knowledge of the case whatsoever) put her at such risk that she refrained from publishing the interview out of fear of the NDAA. Omar Khadr has yet to be interviewed by anyone to this day and she had absolutely no authority over publication or anything else on the site she is claiming to have censored. I was the person fully responsible for all editorial and administrative decisions on the site she references and also for assigning interviews. I actually did censor an explosive interview I conducted around Omar Khadr which had absolutely nothing to do with her. Both Omar Khadr and myself were put at risk eleven years prior by the Patriot Act, and he had spent the last decade in hell due to the fact that this nightmare already existed for everyone but herself and other US citizens. This fact was completely ignored along with all of her other easily disproven false testimony in the hysteria surrounding the NDAA. An exceptional life appropriated the work and position of one and exploited the tragedy of another, both under real threat from the Patriot Act, and used it to wrap themselves in the aura of faux-persecution so essential to a position on the speaking circuit.

The Congolese who died fighting M23 in 2013 had their efforts neatly lifted and sold by the US based NGO Falling Whistles, which told their donors that their Twitter campaign, funded by selling sterling silver whistles, was responsible for reclaiming the areas of the DRC overtaken by a well armed militia that was only eventually countered by UN and state forces combined. In early 2011, I reported a story as it happened involving a Yemeni journalist ordered imprisoned by Obama for publishing the truth about US drone strikes in Yemen. My sources for the story were Amnesty and Yemeni bloggers, all well documenting the case at great personal risk. A year and a half later, Jeremy Scahill published the same story, celebrated by the old boy circle of US journalists as a coup of investigative journalism and an exclusive scoop. Scahill’s Wikipedia page contained almost nothing but this story with no mention that it had been well documented a year and a half earlier. When the earlier stories were pointed out to Greenwald by Wikileaks, he ignored and continued the same ill-placed hype around his friend that had led to his own success. Kony 2012, One Million Rising, and endless other NGOs and Thought Leaders made 2012 a lucrative year for those selling other people’s tragedy and resistance. Other people are simply a product to sell for celebrity, wealth and power, activism is just the all important panel seat.

The NSA is hardly the only intelligence agency spying on The People if The People are the world. Neither are the anti-NSA activists heroes if they are only disclosing that which violates their own privacy and keeping the rest secure in the name of ‘national security’. Anyone supporting ‘national’ security of the corporate empire which terrorizes, murders and enslaves the world is an enemy of the people, not a hero.

People with massive platforms act as gates to keep the real disadvantaged from power instead of bridges to ensure all voices are heard. This appropriation of the voices and stories of others is called assistance but those they assist are really just marketing gimmicks to aid in their own quest for celebrity, power and wealth. This sickness is now spreading to every part of the world as the Great Men reach out to lesser Great Men who fight first for the uniqueness of their group and then beat back their comrades as if they are the only representatives of that uniqueness needed. It is a ponzi scheme, if they rise, the rest will not. Because these people see tragedy and need as a product to feed off of and a highly lucrative path to the all-important panel seat, they compete for causes like old corporate media competes for stories. Victims are hoarded like sources, that so very apt term for the vampire-like tendencies of narcissistic old journalism. More online energy is devoted to wars over who started a hashtag than the problem the hashtag was meant to highlight. Problems cease to be problems when they reach a level the reactionaries are comfortable with. Noam Chomsky introduces the concepts of ‘normal torture’ and ‘serious torture’ and is happy that the levels at Guantanamo have reached normal

There are no sides, just a top and a bottom. No one on the top is a friend of anyone on the bottom. People from all the right demographics tweet that they are being repressed to scratch their way up onto a panel but once they have themselves firmly planted in a panel seat they will never look at anyone beneath them. They sigh and talk about ‘broke activists’ if confronted with others in need when they are far less broke than all those they claim to represent. If they were looking up before, they will continue their gaze upwards, sitting on panels in suits and starting NGOs and using those below as marketing product. Once they have stolen the voices below them to build their platform, they will defend it as their personal power and use it solely to present the most inoffensive pap to not lose their mainstream acceptance.

Ponzi schemes don’t trickle down, they siphon up.

Anti-imperialism but not really

The global elite cry “We should fix our problems at home!” but empire, communist internationalists and the so-called Islamic State are all borderless. Act local pretends that all goals are the same and what is good for one locality must bring good to others, but the nature of the ponzi scheme ensures that what feeds one, bleeds others. Self-professed ‘anti-imperialists’ pretend the empire starts when bombs start dropping and ignore the bomb manufacturers and the trade economy created to prop up dictators against the people’s will. Global warming and environmental destruction by multi-national corporations don’t know borders but when their victims seek refuge in the states which destroyed their homes they are killed and imprisoned and the reactionary population murmurs completely meaningless phrases like ‘it’s just not feasible’.

Nationalists pretending they are anti-imperialists pretend we live in a bi-polar, left-right world. We have a top down world with a core mafia cartel and outlying splinter mafias. Neutrality, especially by those at the top who are supporting the ponzi scheme, does not just help the oppressor, it is neutrality by the oppressor.

If anti-imperialists are truly anti-imperialist they will empty Coke products which were all violently stolen from others. They will stop Areva, the global blight which destroys Niger to power France. They will block Zim, the Israeli shipping firm allowed to profit off of the US funded Israeli occupation of Palestine, as the true anti-imperialists in the US have done. They will share copyrighted and patented material and dismantle their weapons industry. They will share their megaphone, not to speak for others but to amplify them. Anyone who has an exceptional life they are willing to risk could use it not to collect donations and media attention for themselves to appropriate another’s cause but to attract attention to their cause for them. The international human shields in the Gaza hospital who joined Gazans in solidarity as equals and risked their lives to attract a media spotlight showed international solidarity and respect. A UK livestreamer tastelessly exploiting Gaza tragedy and putting their lives at risk to feed his own celebrity did not.

Action to help people in need in a local neighbourhood is not reactionary until it is silencing others affected by the same problem. OpSafeWinter is not reactionary, it is part of a global autonomous resistance network of similar local initiatives. Occupy Sandy, which took all of the attention from the devastation of one hurricane and pulled the entire spotlight onto those least affected was embarrassingly reactionary. People in the streets of Ferguson and other US cities protesting police violence are acting locally. People in the US calling for the end of US military equipment being used on The People, only themselves, instead of an end to US military being used on any people, are reactionary. 

Anyone saying it is not realistic to look at others in a worse position than themselves, or trying to partition the same problem to address only the part which affect themselves, is a reactionary. Even if just in the rhetoric, solidarity with the full problem must be acknowledged and the megaphone must be shared or there is no global solidarity. Instead of expending all their energy fighting to protect their exceptional status they could recognize the common struggle they share with the exact same enemies as everyone else and instead of trying to lower the bar just far enough to get themselves over it they could remove it. The minimum wage workers in the US could recognize their common struggle is not with the minimum wage workers in Australia but those in Bangladesh, and instead of trying to scratch their way to the top of the ponzi scheme they could use their position already near the top to remove support and dismantle it. The massive and disproportional megaphone given to citizens of the US is to be shared. If it is not shared it should be taken.

Endless fights to pass or block laws recognizes the authority of the state and judiciary, exhausts activists and is a losing game. There is no adjustment to a trade economy possible that will not recreate the exact same situation we are in now. There is no master that will be benevolent and no messiah who will save us. Reform is not possible.

To create a new paradigm, we have to start at the bottom. The bottom is where the principles we live under failed first, it is the canary that predicts the future for all. We live in a world where some being delayed at the airport is considered a gross violation of civil liberties but others being tortured and killed so their own elected leaders can use their body parts as a good luck fetish is not a newsworthy topic. Invasion of privacy is a pimple on the face of the beast killing children in ritual murders to bring good luck for heads of state. Both are manifestations of an empire that thinks it owns its citizens, that they are products to be used for whatever whim the powerful choose, from props in weapons advertising to product for the prison industrial complex. Hysterics over the pimple while leaving the dragon intact will obviously lead to more pimples that will offend even the most privileged.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 thoughts on “The reactionaries

  1. “In a wonderfully ironic twist, a very wealthy caucasian woman from New York (employed by her very wealthy stepfather) gave laughably false testimony that her interview with Guantanamo child detainee Omar Khadr (who she states is a member of al-Qaeda, with no evidence or background knowledge of the case whatsoever) put her at such risk that she refrained from publishing the interview out of fear of the NDAA.”

    I checked the testimony, and I can’t find where this woman claims to have personally interviewed Omar Khadr. I see only where she says that she obtained information about him second-hand.

    The woman does assert Khadr is a member of al quada, which I agree is very strange and awful. How would she know that? It’s simply outrageous to assert that a person is a member of a terrorist group when you don’t know. And she could not know.

    So here you have found this journalist did something quite despicable, yet you are sloppy about your overall reporting of the issue. You say she claimed to have interviewed Khadr when she does not appear to have said that. This woman’s carelessness is serious, but your reporting of it appears sloppy. And emphasizing things like her wealth and race just give an unfortunate smeary texture to your inquiry given that you haven’t substantiated why her race or wealth are pertinent.

    “Omar Khadr has yet to be interviewed by anyone…. Both Omar Khadr and myself were put at risk eleven years prior by the Patriot Act, and he had spent the last decade in hell due to the fact that this nightmare already existed for everyone but herself and other US citizens. This fact was completely ignored along with all of her other easily disproven false testimony in the hysteria surrounding the NDAA. An exceptional life appropriated the work and position of one and exploited the tragedy of another, both under real threat from the Patriot Act, and used it to wrap themselves in the aura of faux-persecution so essential to a position on the speaking circuit.”

    You write, “all of her other easily disproven false testimony in the hysteria surrounding the NDAA.” What other aspects of the woman’s testimony are “easily disproven”? When you haven’t gone through her testimony and pointed these out, why should anyone accept such a generalized assertion?

    “so essential to a position on the speaking circuit.”

    Is the woman earning money on the speaking circuit or not? You’re claiming this, but you provide zero evidence. You’re questioning her motives without providing any evidence.

    Finally, just because she hasn’t joined a lawsuit to protect foreigners from her government doesn’t mean she wouldn’t if the opportunity arose. Protecting her fellow Americans from government prosecution is a worthwhile in and of itself. She’s just one person.

    However, as you point out, you don’t do that by asserting people who are innocent are actually al quada members. It is extremely troubling that she would have said this, but your sloppy account of her testimony, sweeping generalizations, and insinuations about her motives make your piece seem more like a hit-job when, in fact, you have raised one important question. Namely, her baseless assertion that the boy was al quada.

    Like

    • The testimony is not online, only the affidavit. Check them both if you can find it. She refers in detail to an interview which could describe no one else (and was no one else). “my interview with a detainee at Guantanamo who reported that his government-appointed defense lawyer deliberately undermined his defense in a commission hearing resulting in a guilty plea to a modified charge.” If you listen to the interview I linked which had nothing to do with her, it is obviously the one she is talking about, there is no similar interview in existence. “My concerns about the impact of the NDAA in deeming me to have “substantially supported” terrorist groups by the publication of these materials is a significant factor in my delaying publication of these interviews or parts of these interviews.” She has never interviewed a detainee at Guantanamo, neither did she ever have authority to decide any publication on the site and I would know as I was the sole editor and admin.

      Her wealth and race are the entire point. Guantanamo is not filled with rich caucasian women from New York. The rest of her testimony and life, or that of her ilk, are not worth my time to detail, the reader can look into it if they wish. I pointed out three examples of false testimony, including that the CEO who supposedly cost her her job was her father. I am saying the rest was false as well and I am in a position to put my word against hers. if you think using exceptional media access to promote only the part of a problem ‘potentially’ affecting the most privileged class is fine, you missed the whole point of the article. But words like ‘foreigners’ and ‘her fellow Americans’ don’t make it seem likely that you would ever appreciate the point.

      Like

  2. I’m sorry, but I need to put my oar in:

    You refer to anti-NSA types, who aren’t heroes, if they only expose the abuses of their own privacy and leaving the rest under wraps in the name of national security (whatever the hell that is?); I fully agree, and I think that the “national-security” blanket is like wetting your bed, which at first feels warm, but then pretty soon it’s going to be cold comfort. And I’ll stop with the word-play now.

    National Security is such a sneaky thing. First you hold your battle tactics and wider strategy secret in a war, which is the only way to fight a war, I suppose, but then you start withholding everything you don’t want your political competitors to find out. But first things first: War must never be entered voluntarily! That means, that despite searching and scratching their heads for two millennia, nobody has ever come up with a scheme which would supposedly justify war.

    Then during peacetime, national security means what exactly? Military security? The best way to be secure is to not be a military threat to anybody! And I cannot repeat that too often. So what else is there, Financial security? Avoiding situations, where almost all growth goes into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%—or actually a tenth of it—or glaring inequalities in housing security, employment security etc.. Those, among others, will make one’s economy prone to extreme volatility.

    There’s of course Digital security. Understandably, one should make sure that the control network of the electric grid is not connected to the open Internet (which it now is, unless it’s recently been secured); also important stuff like making sure that nuclear power plants are extremely secure, same as wind farms or solar farms anything bigger needs to be behind a very secure firewall. A national security excuse for holding back relevant info about how the country is governed means bugger-all, when one’s nuclear plants are melting, because some cyber-terrorist has caused them to overheat. A proof-of-concept was presented a few years back, but I haven’t heard anything that would convince me they’re secured now.

    So national security can mean various things, and I’m afraid that because the old farts in Congress don’t understand networks, the Internet and securing them, not even securing their own computers, they still think in WWII terms (when they think, which is not often; usually they just obey their donors). And that means they just think of military, and try to keep the enemies (who, exactly?) guessing the actual military strength and strategies. They wouldn’t understand if one tried to explain to them, how easy it would be to bring down the entire electric grid, because they can’t fathom either of the complicated grids, the electric and the communications ones. By the way, since the grid currently loses about 70% of the power input, wouldn’t it be a great time to decide that the electrical grid is crucial to all kinds of functions, invest into some infrastructure reforms by building up the grid to strengthen it, and while at it, approach a smart grid. In some areas of Europe it’s already working, and like in Germany, they really are good at making the most of it. But then that would require that the big power companies accept that customers need to be compensated for the input they make with their solar panels and windmills—so it’s a pipe dream, more or less.

    And finally, I’ve followed how the GOPhers have ranted about how green technology destroys American jobs! Right. Green technology would, on the other hand, to cover for the 50 that the XL pipeline would employ permanently, plus a few hundred getting dumped from closing coal plants, plus on the other hand create at least thousands, more likely tens of thousands in high-tech jobs (those good jobs) in a longer term, when a new industry would start to mature, as new technologies are developed and their manufacturing processes honed to produce them most efficiently. So smart grid, solar and wind farms, hybrid/electric car design & manufacture, solar panels for homes, and smart technology that would be able to input into the grid excess energy, when it’s not being used at home (Europeans have that), lighting fixtures using LED technology to replace those clunky fluorescent bulbs that Americans reportedly hate so much (which I don’t believe, but LED is so much more efficient still) etc.. All those would be on the plus side, but for some reason these GOPhers and Dems, too who have been bribed by Big Coal to represent them in the Congress won’t tell you that, and suspiciously, neither will the liberal media.😀

    Of course, the mainstream media is conservative, because it’s owned and controlled by four to six corporations, the lot. And Fucks news which has been billing itself as the anti-mainstream outlet, is clearly in the mainstream now, with enough angry white men watching it. And liberals who wish to refute (or was it refudiate now?) their misinformation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So many great points in one comment Velska.

      I particularly liked your points about control of the infrastructure such as power. Why on earth should such a thing be left to the judgement of politicians who understand none of it instead of an internationally linked epistemic community providing knowledge and local implementation chosen by the people using it? And the international epistemic community could then include global impact, ie the impact of nuclear power in the US, Japan, et al on Niger which is being poisoned by uranium mines, or the impact of bio-fuel on agriculture in Brazil, Ethiopia, and elsewhere. Considering that impact would also go a long way to discouraging at least some politically minded ‘terrorists’ from attacking the grid as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Her wealth and race are the entire point. Guantanamo is not filled with rich caucasian women from New York. The rest of her testimony and life, or that of her ilk, are not worth my time to detail, the reader can look into it if they wish.

    Like

  4. “The rest of her testimony and life, or that of her ilk, are not worth my time to detail, the reader can look into it if they wish.”

    What about Omar Khadr? My biggest problem with your account was that by not fleshing out more details, more of which you have than was apparent to me reading the article, the misuse/ abuse of Khadr’s story is deprived of vital details. Her details should matter to you if only because Khadr matters to you and because presumably, your readers also matter to you.

    ‘foreigners’ and ‘her fellow Americans’

    To my way of thinking, the life of a American is worth no less than the life of a non-American. These days a poor American is just as fucked as poor man or woman living in many many other countries, very often, far more fucked. Is NDAA intended as a target against the rich white journalist? I don’t think we know the answer. Or maybe you have insight into this (I would like to hear it if you do).

    Usually, the people who get most fucked in USA by laws are the poor. How do you know that this rich white journalist isn’t, in fact, protecting the most vulnerable of Americans by standing up against NDAA? In the USA, Patriot has been used against poor American Muslims. Why wouldn’t NDAA get used against the vulnerable of Americans first?

    Like

    • 1. I understand, but I am one human, I have had no sleep for years, I get paid for none of this and my list of work to do just increases every day. So the point is not that it is unimportant but that other things are far more important.

      2. Re-read the article. All lives are very definitely important. Separating issues and addressing only the aspects that target your own group is reactionary. Appropriating the lives of those left undefended outside your group to pull attention to your already incredibly privileged group is both reactionary and repulsive.

      Like

  5. 1.
    but I am one human,
    That was my point about rich white journalist! Just like you, she can’t do everything. She probably looked at what worthwhile battles she has a chance of winning, and decided one of those was NDAA. Since NDAA law didn’t apply only to rich whites, by attacking that law she was potentially helping everyone in USA. If a rich white woman defending her own interests has a fighting chance to get a law struck down that is bad for 300 million people, I say, you go girl!! More power to you!!! Reactionary optics can be smart tactics. You focus on the symbolism and ignore the tactical merits of the approach.

    Also, if you’re going to use anyone as an example of a “reactionary” your lack of time is no excuse for not backing up your claims with strong evidence. Even if you think you’re right about this person, others should be able to see the evidence and decide if it is sufficient.

    2.
    Separating issues and addressing only the aspects that target your own group is reactionary. Appropriating the lives of those left undefended outside your group to pull attention to your already incredibly privileged group is both reactionary and repulsive.

    “Addressing only the aspects that target your own group” was a tactical decision the journalist made to fight a lawsuit against NDAA. The way the law works is you can only challenge laws that effect yourself in some way. As a private citizen, you can’t go to a court and say you want to challenge a law that hurts people in Africa if you have no connection to Africa. They will say you “lack standing.”

    “Appropriating the lives of those left undefended outside your group to pull attention to your already incredibly privileged group”. Who appropriated the lives of the Gitmo inmates? It was the state. The journalist believed that acknowledging this appropriation would make her attack against state power. You’re saying the ends here don’t justify the means. Would you says the rich white journalist should attempt to fight the state with one hand tied behind her back? And for what?

    It seems to me that the journalist took on state power in the way she could, being who she was, seizing an opportunity. One might say she took the gloves off, played dirty, if she invented an interviews that didn’t happen. Maybe convincing a judge that she believed these Gitmo inmates were terrorists was necessary to the fight. I really don’t like that, but maybe it was important to show the judge she thought that. But I don’t see that any inmate was harmed beyond how they have been harmed by the state.

    If the NDAA case had been successful, millions of people’s rights would be more secure.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. You describe person who tried to fight a bad law as a greedy reactionary. You still haven’t substantiated your insinuation that she was motivated by speaking circuit fees. Even if she’s earning some money giving speeches, pray tell, how would that discredit her hard work? Everyone has to earn a living. If she can get booked for some speaking gigs after all her hard work, good for her.

    How would you feel if someone were to make allegations about you that weren’t backed up with substantial evidence?

    Have you proven that any actual *substantive* harm was done by this journalist to anyone? Not theoretical harm, but actual harm.

    I admire and respect this journalist because of her tireless work on behalf of Chelsea Manning. I think this NDAA case was worth her time. The potential benefit of the NDAA case is clear as daylight to anyone. You accuse her of inaccuracies, fudging the truth, etc., but you haven’t proven these inaccuracies caused damage beyond the unbelievably horrible damage caused to the inmates by the state.

    I don’t see this woman as an example of a reactionary. I think nothing could be farther from the truth based on what I’ve heard so far.

    NDAA is causing journalists, lawyers, NGO people, etc. to think twice before helping victims of their own government overseas. I could be used by the state to put an end to their work! I don’t know why you can’t see that. I don’t know why you can’t see that this particular legal fight, though undertaken by a “rich white woman,” is also a fight for poor Americans and foreigners at risk of being harmed by the USA.

    Bottom line is I don’t know why you thought digging up inaccuracies in her testimony was worthwhile considering that you haven’t proven anyone was harmed by them. But it’s an nice example for your essay.

    Like

    • Indeed. Calling a tortured child a terrorist when he wasn’t and claiming someone else’s work (and risk) as what you call “her hard work” is “you go girl!! More power to you!!!”, “smart tactics” and “tactical merits”. Silly me to “focus on the symbolism” of worrying about foreigners. I have not “dug through her testimony” or accused her of “fudging the truth”, I have stated she is flat out lying throughout, with evidence. For you this is ok because I need to prove *substantive* harm (and apparently no harm to foreigners will ever be substantive or harm at all because hey, they are already in Guantanamo!) but criticizing a US exceptional life by stating her own actions is worth you spamming my site for days in protest. Thank you for the amazing illustration of everything I said above. You probably want to go back to your fellow countrymen now, this site is full of foreigners.

      But thanks for all the personal insight into her motives. I wonder how a person who is not her could know all this?

      Like

    • Sam, are you saying that motivations don’t matter? I think they rather do, because I must agree with GeorgieBC, that the particular person, whom you two have been talking about, is definitely not motivated by her wish help Quantanamo detainees or anybody else, if it inconveniences her.

      So, unless one’s ready and willing to put one’s person behind one’s principles, everything is just posing.

      Like

      • Thank you for replying to me. I’m just a dumb Merican. I can’t read this woman’s mind or make the claim i know her true motivations. Probably she wants recognition for her hard work, maybe money. Maybe she is more motivated when it is convenient, I do not know. You say: “Unless one’s ready and willing to put one’s person behind one’s principles, everything is just posing.” She did more than “pose,” she made a deposition in a lawsuit– not to mention worked her ass off on the Manning case. I would say doing something is better than doing nothing.

        I come from an apathetic country where many people don’t move off their butts except to grab a beer from the fridge, and if this rich lady journalist is trying to doing some things to fight back against the feds, that’s better than 99% of her neighbors. Maybe she will “put more of herself” into it in the future. I suspect there is a way to deliver criticism of her that is not so judgemental. This is not a major public figure with a lot of influence we’re talking about.

        Like

  7. To me our dialogue has been helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns. Your feedback has helped my ideas about this issue progress.

    Where I’m at now is that, ok, supposing the journalist was “flat out lying throughout” (which I doubt), I don’t know what good is achieved by making a big deal about it. I mean, shit, why even bring it up? Surely you are on the side of the journalists in their NDAA case against our government (as, of course, I am). The Government has been known to play really dirty in legal cases. What’s the point of exposing “cheating” by a woman on the People’s side in a lawsuit against the state? At worst, it was petty cheating that didn’t really hurt anyone. In this particular court case, everything was really about “What If’s,’ what if this law is passed? Would NDAA make journalists act in ways that aren’t in the public interest? So if she was “creative” in her testimony, I don’t think she sinned against God and Man. First, there no victim here. She didn’t hurt anyone. Did she sin against Truth? I would ague no, she didn’t even do that. on the contrary, like a novelist, she appears to have been inventive with the facts, her supposed goal being to bring the minds of the judges closer to the truth of the situation than the strictest standards of reporting might have achieved.

    However much of your account is correct, my respect for this journalist remains high. I see that her heart’s in the right place.

    “But thanks for all the personal insight into her motives.” You’re welcome. I don’t know if I got it right. I’ve just been trying to put myself in this woman’s shoes, and use empathy and imagine what she must have been thinking, where she might have been coming from.

    Like

  8. Heather, I love your intent, your commitment and your passion to see things change. However, there’s a layer behind all this that until we begin to document and call out, nothing that you rail about will change. At it’s heart it has one name. Rothschild. The Rothschilds and their minions have controlled our world since the end of the 19th century. If you have not read Henry Ford’s “The International Jew”, I commend it to you. Just as he was, I am satisfied that “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” is a real document as Ford was, and he had it published. When you read Ford and then look at so many other events I the world, they fit the model. For example, although now well buried, the Bolshevik Revolution was a Zionist takeover of Russia and the 60M+ Russians slaughtered were slaughtered by Zionists.
    There are many layers to this, which I’m happy to discuss with you, but until we expose how our world is truly run, nothing will change. These people are Satanists and it is the origin of the horrific global child abuse you have been pushing to expose recently.
    None of this gets to the core of the problem, because the bankers hide their tracks. They are always the victors and they write themselves out of history.
    I seek to expose this on my blog at http://www.richardpresser.com, but I do not have the time to write up all I have found and continue to find.
    From what I’ve seen, my fellow countryman, Julian Assange has not yet woken up to this. I live in hope…

    Dr. Richard Presser

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s