The NSFWCorp/Exiled/Pando crew have always hated Glenn Greenwald, probably because catty bitches fight each other more than anyone else. Their (potkettle) complaint about Greenwald has always been that he's about Greenwald first and foremost, then how Greenwald relates to the story, then the story.

Personally, I'm a lot more temperate about warrantless wiretapping and the NSA than - no, you know what? I knew they were doing all that shit from 2003 on and when the whole world suddenly knew it's like and now you care? this shit's been public domain since Bamford's first book. So that hasn't changed.

What's changed is there is a much more proximate threat than there used to be.

“We don’t talk about all the ways the Democratic Party is a complete fucking disaster and a corrupt, sleazy sewer, and not an adequate alternative to this far-right movement that’s taking over American politics.”

You go to war with the army you have, Glenn. They give credit to that quote to Rumsfield, but I think it's older.

Speaking of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, the other Bush... they were evil, but they were Lawful Evil. You knew where you stood with those guys. They believed in America and they were bloody well fighting for it. It wasn't my vision for America, but there was room in it for me. I opposed them in nearly everything they did but I knew what they stood for, they stood on principle.

Trump? Trump is Chaotic Neutral. The only thing he gives a shit about is Trump, and everyone hitching their wagon to him is casting aside their own scruples to do it.

And that scares me more than the NSA.

I think it's a good profile and a decent way to suggest an alternate worldview, but that view also contains a little (or a lot) too much begging the question for my tastes.

For example:

These critics note the irony that many who were critical of national-security abuses during the Bush and Obama years have now, in the name of defending the republic, put their faith in opaque intelligence agencies and retired generals.

I mean, fair enough, but what's the alternative? It's like saying someone who belongs to Black Lives Matter has lost all right to call the police if their house is robbed.

It's also bordering on whatabout-ism. I don't really understand the criticism of liberals' taking the intelligence community seriously when that community is doing what they're supposed to be doing, namely seeing whether a foreign entity interfered in a way we're not happy with. I mean, that's in essence what counter-intelligence is.

“For me, the fundamental question is: How satisfied are you with the prevailing order, with the status quo?” By this, Greenwald does not mean life in the Trump era but the behavior of American elites over the past several generations. “How benevolent do you regard American power and American institutions?” The answer to that question says a lot about how you rate the Trump threat.

Over the past several generations? Can you show me a time when elites in the U.S. or anywhere else didn't throw morality out the window as soon as it lost alignment with some other interest?

The problem with positioning yourself as an iconoclast is that you start attacking whatever narrative is popular without regard for whether it's right.