I am consistently amazed by people like the former New York
Times reporter James Risen. After all they've experienced, after all they've
seen and been exposed to, they still harbour a fundamental faith in the system.
Are they naive? If they are it's concerning human nature. I am immediately
suspicious of anyone who has spent a career in journalism, especially reporting
on politics, military and the security state and yet still believes that people
are fundamentally good or that apart from a few bad apples... the state
apparatus is inhabited for the most part by good, honest folks possessing
honour and integrity.
Risen who has written exposés on government waste and abuses
of power still possesses a fundamental misunderstanding of what 9/11 means and
the transformation it initiated.
The fact that he would in 2003 write a book with Milt
Bearden, the CIA operative who led the Afghanistan operation in the 1980's
exposes him as essentially an insider. And though he has suffered grief and in
other cases been placed under threat of incarceration by the Bush and Obama
administrations for refusing to reveal a source, he essentially functions in
the role of mitigation. Judith Miller a consummate insider and producer of
intelligence community propaganda actually went to jail for refusing to reveal
a source. The Deep State does not protect its assets in every case and often
there are conflicts within the state apparatus, each facet of the bureaucracy
vies for power and sometimes factions even though they share the same devotion
to the state will come into conflict.
Risen was (and most likely still is) a journalist with obvious
inside access, possessing multiple sources and connections. Did Risen cross
some lines and get himself into trouble? Did his sources cross lines? This is
probably the narrative many would put forward with regard to someone like
Jeffrey Sterling. Is Risen in fact part of a Mockingbird-like effort to control
the narrative?
The Deep State and even the larger Establishment would be
foolish to try and simply ignore the scandals and sins that others have already
written about. Additionally in some instances a case can be made that Deep
State operatives will leak classified information in order to push the debate
and shape public opinion.
Time and time again we've seen in almost Hegelian fashion a
bold thesis put forward, a leaked programme or a provocative policy. This stirs
debate and yet once the 'cat' is out of the bag, no one really suggests a
complete negation. Instead after much debate, a compromise is reached. One has
to wonder, and in some cases I'm hardly left to wonder, if this isn't done
deliberately. The fact that some expendable people are burned or destroyed in
the process means little to those in power.
Risen's publications while insightful function somewhat as false expose, a phenomenon all too
common among authors and journalists who wish to remain within the
Establishment and retain access to its larger sphere. They report on something
controversial and unleash some bombshells but then at the same time help to
explain away and obfuscate the real dirty material and most important the
source and heartbeat of the corruption, its contexts and motivations.
Once again at this point it needs to be stressed that the
Establishment and the Deep State are not one and the same, nor are either of
these somewhat fluid and nebulous entities monolithic. There are factions and
struggles and groups and individuals rise and fall from power. It's like a
Premier League in which the low-performers eventually drop off and are replaced
by rising stars. But now imagine a Premier League in which teams forged
alliances, stabbed each other in the back, traded players without anyone
knowing and sometimes goals are scored... but who scored them and how are
misunderstood.
Risen waged long wars with the journalistic establishment and
(to a degree) elements within the security state. Doesn't this label him as the
real deal a true adversarial
journalist?
He may even believe to some degree that he is the real deal
and yet at the same time he is a tool, a pawn in the hands of other players...
players that are willing to use him and yet if he goes down in flames, they
don't really care. He's expendable and as a journalist, doubly so.
Also, I've watched some of these reporters, politicians and
others change over time. Depending on how they read the data and are affected
by their interactions, their thinking can shift. How many embedded reporters are able to stay objective in their reporting?
Others like former Marine and CENTCOM spokesman Josh Rushing
were exposed to a news organisation like Al Jazeera and in light of what they
saw within the American system, they underwent profound change, even
transformation. In 2004's Control Room
he's somewhat antagonistic to the Doha based news outlet. A year later he had
left the Marines and was part of the fledgling Al Jazeera English channel.
Some applauded Risen's recent arrival at The Intercept and
yet I wasn't so sure. While I didn't think he would represent the kind of
Reformist Leftism of someone like Naomi Klein, I was afraid he might (for all
he's been through) nevertheless represent intelligence community views on many
issues and that's pretty much what he's done. The Intercept has brought on
several writers including Klein and Risen who have bought into the DNC
programme regarding Russia, Syria and are effectively echoing what can rightly
be called a Neo-Bircher line, a new Left-wing version of Russia or Red Baiting.
It's bizarre but at this point there are only a minority of American journalists
(like Chris Hedges, Seymour Hersh, Mark Crispin Miller, Glenn Greenwald and the
recently deceased Robert Parry) that seem able to navigate what's happening
right now and all of them will admit they are stunned, their heads are spinning
and the DNC, the Left in general and certainly the journalistic establishment
have gone off in directions they wouldn't have thought possible.
The Intercept was a pretty exciting publication in 2014 and
for a couple of years afterward. Since the 2016 election cycle something has
happened and the online magazine is (from my point of view) in a rapid almost
death spiral. Apart from Greenwald there are only a couple of other authors
that I find to be worthwhile. I visit and read the site less and less. While
still adversarial on some points, the magazine for the most part has adopted
the DNC agenda. There are exceptions of course but the alternative media has
largely been (at this point) co-opted. That's a story in itself.
It's also been interesting to watch pop figures like Stephen
Colbert. Always tilting toward the Left, his rise and success has seen a
transformation and now it could be argued the Late Night talk and comedy shows
are functioning in a role for the Left in a similar way to Talk Radio for the
Right.
Risen's latest piece argues that all the conspiracies
regarding the hacking or leaking of DNC data should now be put to rest.
Why? Because of Mueller's indictment of twelve Russians.
In reality I think Risen erred in his title. I'm referring to
his piece at The Intercept. He's part of the faction that argues for a hack.
It's the Russia-gate doubters that believe it was a leak, the group he refers
to as 'harebrained conspiracy' theorists. Ironically Risen (along with Klein)
represent the Establishment Reformist faction (as I've called them) that are
hostile to figures like Edward Snowden and especially Julian Assange. The
latter are viewed not as heroes, but destroyers, harmful to the state and
system they as journalists actually support.
Why? Again, I must emphasise this is why I refer to them as
'Reformist'. They still believe the system possesses a basic integrity. If we
could just change some laws, get the right people into office then everything
would basically be okay.
Others like Assange believe the system is irredeemable,
wholly and absolutely corrupt and that it must be more or less destroyed to be
rebuilt. The rulers of the Western imperialist order are not people of
integrity enduring a few bad apples. Rather, there are but a handful of 'good
apples' as it were among a sea of filth, lies and utter corruption.
I understand where Risen is coming from but he still amazes
me. He believes the Mueller indictment settles this issue? You would think of
all people James Risen would know better. The government lies. The FBI lies,
steals (and sometimes kills) on a regular basis. Mueller himself is an
obstructor and obfuscator. He's part of the Establishment cover-up of 9/11 and
the myriad of crimes that took place afterward. He oversaw the trampling of the
US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as he led the most powerful police
apparatus in the United States and an espionage machine second only to the CIA.
Mueller is about the last person I would trust and yet Risen
along with the intelligence establishment hates Trump and so in the cause of
their war against him they have set aside any concern for truth. The Mueller
investigation is not about truth. It's about scoring a political victory.
The salient point with regard to the Mueller indictment is
very simple. It's timing. This was released just days before the Helsinki
summit between Trump and Putin. It's being used to put pressure on the
administration to drop the summit and refuse to meet with Putin.
Additionally, even if the summit takes place, any
announcement, agreement or breakthrough is immediately overshadowed if not
negated by these indictments.
So what about the indictments?
I view them as more or less meaningless. They will never be
prosecuted. Mueller et al. will never have to make their case. They can make
all the claims they wish and yet they will not have to face serious scrutiny.
They may go after Roger Stone and others but like their pursuit of Manafort,
the crimes are in the end unrelated to the larger collusion narrative. It's
like a police DUI checkpoint. While the police set it up to ostensibly bust
drunk drivers when you read about the next day in the paper, what they really
did was shake down the public and write tickets for a bunch of unrelated issues.
Along the way, they might have stopped a drunk driver or two but the DUI data
alone usually would indicate the checkpoint was unsuccessful and a waste of
time and resources. But when they can point to all the other tickets, searches
and seizures, enforced warrants and everything else they did, the checkpoint (itself
a gross violation of the Constitution) can be reckoned a success.
I say all this as someone who would not shed a tear if Trump
were impeached or otherwise removed. I am no fan of Donald Trump but as a
politically disinterested and yet (for other reasons) interested outsider I am
put off by Donald Trump to be sure. I am mostly concerned with what he means
for the American Church. As far as the Empire, if he damages it and its interests,
I find such matters to be of little concern. Again, I think he merely
represents a faction (perhaps a somewhat dissident faction) within the larger
Establishment. I view this as an internal battle, a political civil war in
which both sides represent the same evil system and more or less are pursuing
the same evil goals.
That said, I am not buying into either the narrative or the
assumptions being made by the Bircher-esque Neo-McCarthyite campaign being led
by the DNC and the intelligence agencies. This does not mean I share the views
of such vile people as Jay Sekulow or Sean Hannity. The Right-wing Talk Radio
scene is despicable and the aforementioned figures are mere shills for the
Trump regime. Utterly lacking any credibility or integrity their opposition to
the Democrats does not in any way vindicate the DNC narrative.
We're living in confusing times and sadly the Alternative
Media has for the most part, due to its embrace of identity politics and hatred
of Trump embraced a pro-statist, pro-Establishment position. Monetary
corruption has also played no small part. There have been significant shifts on
the part of the Left with regard to the 1st Amendment and many have
succumbed to the lie of so-called humanitarian military intervention. From the
Balkans to Africa to the Middle East many on the so-called Left have
unwittingly embraced forms of Neo-Imperialism and even militarism. Many have
utterly failed to understand the link between Wall Street and the Washington's
imperialist wars. While many would 'reform' the economic order, they still in
essence support the system and thus whether conscious or not, support the
American Empire.
Have the parties reversed? Are the Republicans now the peace
party, the advocates of free speech and other 1st Amendment
freedoms? Not in the least. The lesson here is about the corrupting influence
of power and how once attained, attitudes necessarily shift and what was once
abhorrent and tyrannical becomes necessary. Idealism quickly dies in the face
of political reality. This is not to impugn idealism but rather demonstrates
the evils of power. As I have said repeatedly there are some solid lessons in
this for the Church.
Sorry James Risen, but Robert Mueller's indictments mean next
to nothing. I am not convinced but instead your commentary and the trajectory
of The Intercept reveal the essentially false and corrupt nature of Reformist
Leftism and the dangers of consequentialist ethics in the realm of reporting.
Was Seth Rich the leaker and was he murdered as a result? I
just don't know but if he was and if he was murdered, the fact that it has been
covered up is hardly surprising and that the key agents in the public cover-up
are FBI leaders and certain carefully placed journalists.... well, that would
just be par for the course.
Can it be proven that Seth Rich was not the leaker? Yes. The
claims regarding Rich and the leaks are certainly falsifiable and yet at this
point in time, like so many other shadowy political and politicised events in
the past, the truth will probably never be known.
But Mueller, the FBI, the police and the crime labs are all
corrupt and cannot be trusted. This statement itself is unthinkable and
unfathomable to many... maybe even some like James Risen.
What I am expressing is a fundamental doubt in the system
itself, in the United States and the larger American project. I make that
expression without hesitation, without a second thought. How anyone can spend
any time looking into American history, politics and scandal and not come away
reeling is beyond me. And if anyone has actually had contact with these worlds
and yet still believes in the system... we must necessarily conclude they are
either painfully blind, perhaps woefully simple, corrupt or at best pragmatist
and consequentialist in their ethics. They are able to excuse lies and great
evil for the cause of some kind of so-called greater good.
Regardless of what position or nuanced variety they hold, one
thing is painfully clear.... they are not seeking the truth, are perhaps unable
to articulate it, or have other commitments that are more pressing.