Glenn Greenwald's Anarchy Problem

Update below.

Hmmm

Glenn Greenwald

And if you look at how tyrannies have used surveillance in the past, they don't use surveillance in support of their tyranny in the sense that every single person is being watched at all times, because that just logistically hasn't been able to be done. Even now it can't be done -- I mean, the government can collect everybody's e-mails and calls, but they don't have the resources to monitor them all. But what's important about a surveillance state is that it creates the recognition that your behavior is susceptible to being watched at any time. What that does is radically alter your behavior, because if we can act without other people watching us, we can test all kinds of boundaries, we can explore all kinds of creativity, we can transgress pretty much every limit that we want because nobody's going to know that we're doing it. That's why privacy is so vital to human freedom.

But if we know we're being watched all the time, then we're going to engage in behavior that is acceptable to other people, meaning we're going to conform to orthodoxies and norms. And that's the real menace of a ubiquitous surveillance state: It breeds conformity; it breeds a kind of obedient citizenry, on both a societal and an individual level. That's why tyrannies love surveillance, but it's also why surveillance literally erodes a huge part of what it means to be a free individual.
...
And a big part of it is anonymity, because that kind of freedom is possible only if you're secure in knowing that the conversations you're exploring, the kind of ideas you're testing out, the identities you're assuming in order to gain entrance to certain places or to see how people are reacting to you in different circumstances is possible only if you're able to do that anonymously.

Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up (Q&A) | Politics and Law - CNET News

Tom1

Tom Usher

It's no secret that Glenn is a homosexual. It's no secret that I'm opposed to homosexuality. It's also no secret that I've often linked to, quoted, blogged, etc., in a favorable way concerning lots of Glenn Greenwald's work, writings, video interviews, and so on.

This particular interview though is fairly unsettling in a negative way. The title somewhat suggests where I'm going with it.

Anarchy isn't bad to the anarchists. It's liberating. There are even people who consider themselves Christian anarchists. I understand where that comes from. In true Christianity, there's no government over one and all save righteousness in the heart and mind reflected in words and deeds, always. That's why Glenn's statements are negative to me.

Glenn doesn't hold what I consider to be righteous as righteous. He views where I draw the line on morality as denying him the freedom to engage in what he may think is at least quite risky, maybe even harmful for sure, but he just wants to do it, to be "free" to do it.

The subject or focus of the interview is against the "surveillance state" a far cry from the state of heart and mind I have in mind and mentioned above. However, just because that surveillance state, headed up by Barack Obama, is fraught with inherent evils itself doesn't mean that every reason given under the Sun against it is a good argument.

I'm not suggesting for a second that Glenn Greenwald wouldn't instantly point out that he's not advocating for an anything-goes "anarchy." After all, he's been opposed to the imperialistic wars waged by the US also because they kill innocent people: war crimes. Therefore, to suggest that he'd be okay with people killing others for the creative experience of it would be to assume he's totally insane rather than just off here and there. To be sure though, no one's perfect in this here and now, at least not yet.

Just where Glenn thinks the lines should be drawn though is worrisome. Exactly how libertine does he want society to become? He's being given an even larger megaphone now, so this matters a great deal.

He's a perception creator who doesn't have a problem with deceiving people about his identity so he may be what he calls creative. Is that really where we want to go as humanity? It's not where I want to go. I'm interested in shaping a world where deception is unheard of.

Maybe this world "belongs" more to the Glenn Greenwalds and his enemies who head up the Empire(s) than it does to me. Of course that's the case. It's always easy to tell by the numbers on the various sides. I don't see that "ownership" as a permanent situation though, even if I give up the ghost before my spirit prevails in the human spirit. Deception, the devious way, will die. It will die out of humanity. Glenn won't like it, but I will love it. I wish it were already here.

I know the NSA was watching me. I knew they were doing their dragnet spying. It's on this blog from years ago, and it began years before that. I let them know that I knew. I acted in ways that they couldn't miss it. Edward Snowden has vindicated nearly everything I wrote about what the secular state was doing and still is, though even more compartmentally. I'm not with the NSA, but I'm not with Glenn Greenwald either. They're both wrong.

Peace, love, and truth.... There's no truth in deception. There's no peace or love at the end of it either, only death of the soul.

By the way, Glenn, God is watching. You're not hidden. Repenting is good for the soul. I speak from repetitive experience in that department.

Here's an update:

I find a great deal of merit in that video. Let me add though that I do not agree with Sibel Edmonds that porn is okay (if that's what she meant). She may have meant that the state shouldn't coerce people (adults) concerning it. I advocate that people freely choose to forgo pornography, to get rid of it, to never supply it, etc. It is a dangerous addiction that leads to a host of ills.

I also firmly believe that Jesus Christ existed, still does, and was, and remains, the ultimate Truther.

Is the divide between the Glenn Greenwald camp and the Sibel Edmonds camp that of "Progressives" versus "Libertarians"? The lines are not always clear there, but do exist. There are camps within camps, of course; but one line within both is over Zionism.

It's quite often the case that while sometimes being critical of Zionism, Progressives find it "expedient" to protect Jews from racism by way of being soft on Zionism. It isn't necessary to be soft on Zionism while being foursquare against racism though.

Let those issues be added to the discussion as well.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.