David Duke and Glenn Greenwald

Selective Affinities:  David Duke and Glenn Greenwald

To David Duke, Glenn Greenwald is a great source of wisdom.  He cites him, he quotes him, he basks in the reflected prominence of this apparent soulmate.  Offhand there would seem to be a problem  for someone like Duke,  the very Duke who is unashamedly a hater of Jews and is often considered “extreme right.”  Yet here Duke is  drawn to  Greenwald, yes the Greenwald who is openly gay, Jewish, and conventionally considered “extreme left.”  No, as we shall see, there is no anomaly here.  “Left” or “right,” we are dealing here with figures on the lunatic fringe where the logic of ordinary life plays little role.  Among a slew of other affinities, Greenwald and Duke both see the American government as wholly evil, and not coincidentally, both see Israel as the great scourge of our time.

(Here is a list of articles on Duke’s website in which Greenwald is admiringly used as an authority.)

The surface differences between Duke and Greenwald are as obvious as they are misleading.  Where Duke freely intones against “Jews” and “Zionists,” Greenwald speaks only of “Israel,” “Israel’s” alleged war crimes, and so forth (all while praising Hamas and its “resistance”).  Neither are good at standard English prose, but Greenwald’s infelicities are minor compared to Duke’s.  But these differences only obscure the similarity in the underlying manichean philosophy, a philosophy in which the West and all its institutions are presented as personifications of the Devil.

So here is our cast of characters, David Duke and Glenn Greenwald.

First of all, David Duke, or, as he would have it, “Dr. David Duke, Ph.D.”  Yes indeed, Duke has a Kandidat Nauk degree from a private Ukrainian institution (which, according to a US State Department assessment, is “one of the most persistent anti-Semitic institutions in Eastern Europe”).  Duke, but nobody else, interprets  this degree as a Ph.D. The title of his, well, “dissertation,” was Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism.

What else is known about Duke ?  Quite a bit, actually.  Wikipedia summarizes as follows:

David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American white nationalist, conspiracy theorist, far-right politician, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a political writer. A former one-term Republican Louisiana State Representative, he was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988 and the Republican presidential primaries in 1992. Duke unsuccessfully ran for the Louisiana State Senate, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and Governor of Louisiana. Duke is a felon, pleading guilty to defrauding supporters … Duke describes himself as a “racial realist”, asserting that “all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage.”An advocate of antisemitic conspiracy theories, Duke speaks against what he considers to be Jewish control of the Federal Reserve, the federal government and the media. Duke supports the preservation of what he labels Western culture and traditionalist Christian “family values”, Constitutionalism, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, voluntary racial segregation, anti-Communism and white separatism.  He opposes what he considers to be “promotion of homosexuality” by Jews. [You say that his friend Glenn Greenwald has a husband ?  No matter]

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Duke as “the most recognizable figure on the American radical right” and “a neo-Nazi”. His views are characterized by conspiracy theories, racism, antisemitism, and Holocaust denial.

As we shall see, Duke currently maintains an extensive website, from which I quote a few characteristic items:

Boehner out Zios Obama by inviting Netanyahu to lecture Congress

ISIS threatens to behead two Japanese hours after Netanyahu predicts Japan will experience terror

Israel attacks Syria in support of ISIS

CNN fires Jim Clancy after 34 years over tweeting row with Jewish activists. Welcome to Press Freedom in Zio-America!

Are You an “Anti-Semite”? If You Dare Quote the Jewish Elite Themselves — You Are!

More Zio-Treason Against America! Spymaster Admits Israeli President Lied to US over Pollard

Jewish Supremacist “Refugee” Hypocrisy: Yes in America, No in Israel

Zio-Control of US Government: Blatant Jewish Supremacist Appointed Head of DHS Task Force on “Foreign Fighters”

Chutzpah: $3.1 Billion US “Aid” to Israel as it “Buys” $2.75 billion Worth of F35 Jets

Zio-Racists Welcome Obama Immigration ‘Amnesty’—but Support Immigrant Expulsion from Israel

But enough about Duke;  on to Mr. Greenwald.  Since I have already devoted  a number of previous postings to Greenwald’s writings and his website Intercept, a brief summary here must suffice.  Financed by the enigmatic multi-billionaire Pierre Omidyar, Greenwald’s Intercept has certain bed-rock principles:  1)  The US, and especially its President, are war criminals and are by far the greatest danger to the world at this time;  2)  Israel, as an appendage of US imperialism, is a “murderous state;” Hamas is not at all a terror organization but rather a laudable resistance movement   3) terror actions by hapless Moslems, for instance the recent shootings in Ottawa, are but natural consequences of the West’s relentless aggression against Islam.  In its first year of operation, I counted seventeen “anti-Israel” postings on Intercept that I would consider anti-Semitic in intent.

Most recently Duke and Greenwald have taken similar positions,  and Duke has cited Greenwald, concerning the arrest of the French anti-Semite “Dieudonne”  in the aftermath of the Paris terror killings. (See Greenwald here, and Duke here.)  As far as I can make it out,  their somewhat torturous  reasoning seems to be as follows: 1)  the Charlie Hebdo materials constitute an attack on Muslims;  2) the Western media laud such attacks;  ergo 3), we must all applaud  all incitement of hatred against Jews. Neither Greenwald nor Duke seem to see a difference between blasphemy (as in Charlie Hebdo)  and the incitement to hatred against actual living people.  Greenwald took the opportunity to publish a particularly ugly series of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Stürmer style:  big ugly “Jewish noses,” and all the rest.  The article on Duke’ site on the subject reads Dieudonne arrested as French Zio-puppet kill free speech for good.

Strange minds like those of Duke and Greenwald have always been with us.  Only rarely do they constitute real threats, as they obviously did, in retrospect, in the Germany of the 1920’s.  But what worries me now about the Duke-Greenwald duo is the enormous wealth that sustains Greenwald.  Not only does the Omidyar organization supply Greenwald with apparently unlimited finances, but it has also used these resources to largely silence effective criticism.  Intercept and its parent First Look Media  have hired high-priced help, all of whom seem to be in full support of the manichean line, at least in public.  As if to mock critics, Omidyar has spoken of his crew as “fiercely independent,” which means, in Omidyar-talk, fiercely obedient to the Greenwald take on the world.  If the seriously strange ideas of Greenwald cannot be expected to enforce total loyalty in the Omidyar organization, the serious Omidyar dollars may do the trick.  And that will work out as a diminution of the free market of ideas in America.

Read my previous posting on Dieudonne, the French anti-Semite now promoted by Duke and Greenwald

Addendum — May 4, 2015

 Mr. Glenn Greenwald, the Ayatollah, and Mr. David Duke all Celebrate the anti-Semitic Cartoonist Carlos Latuff

On January 9 of this year, Mr. Greenwald introduced the anti-Semitic cartoons of his friend, the Arab-Brazilian Carlos Latuff.  He presents this propaganda as  “some not-remotely-blasphemous-or-bigoted yet very pointed and relevant cartoons by the brilliantly provocative Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff.”

In 2006, Mr. Latuff had won second prize for Holocaust Denial at the Teheran International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.  Whatever victims there may have been in any so-called Holocaust, they were, by Mr. Latuff’s lights, Palestinians, not Jews.

Not to be outdone by either Mr. Greenwald or the Supreme Leader, Mr. David Duke (who defines anti-Semitism as “stating basic facts about the subversive, criminal nature of organized Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel”)  is as  proud as Greenwald to publish an anti-Semitic cartoon  by Latuff, on April 16, 2015.

Addendum – July 21, 2015 

Among the ostensibly Jewish writers who attack Israel, none is more hysterically anti-Semitic than Max Blumenthal.  As he is described in an excellent article by David Mikics, nothing less than the physical annihilation of most of Israel’s Jews will please Mr. B.  For this, Blumenthal has received the enthusiastic endorsement of both Greenwald and Duke.  If anyone had doubts about Greenwald’s maniacal hatreds, this posting of his, endorsing Blumenthal, will dispel them.

Bartnicki v. Vopper, Intercept’s Whopper


I have had occasion, as have many others, to speak critically about the online publication Intercept that is  run by Glenn Greenwald and financed by the multi-billionaire Pierre Omidyar   I have pointed, for example,  to the many instances of anti-Semitic postings on that site.  Now I am putting these larger concerns aside to call attention to a very flagrant, deliberate and obvious misrepresentation that can in no way be described as a matter of opinion.

The posting in question is by Greenwald’s associate Micah Lee.  He writes about the legal issue of whether news organizations can freely reproduce materials that have been stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.  Greenwald has always vociferously maintained that he has the right to do this, without limitation.  The occasion in the Lee  article is the recent leak of Sony documents.

Lee writes as follows:

Sony should realize that journalists are completely within their legal rights to report on documents that are illegally obtained as long as the journalists themselves don’t break laws to obtain them.

The 2001 Supreme Court case Bartnicki v. Vopper found that: “A broadcaster cannot be held civilly liable for publishing documents or tapes illegally procured by a third-party.” Perhaps Sony’s lawyers should look it up.

Now in contrast to Lee, Bloomberg LAW describes the BvV case as follows:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The anti-wiretapping laws make it illegal to disclose the content of a conversation which was itself illegally intercepted. However, if these provisions are made to apply to the disclosure of information which has been obtained in a legal way from the party which intercepted the conversation, and if the information relates to some matter of public concern, the said provisions violate the First Amendment.

In other words, according to Bloomberg, the court in BvV made its findings contingent on the particular circumstance of that case, i.e. a  “matter of public concern.” The opinion in BvV is not, pace Lee, a general permission to publish stolen documents but rather a finding that is limited to the circumstance of that case.

The question arises, for Sony or any other such case, whether and how the findings in BvV would apply.  (As we shall see, BvV most likely does not apply.)  By failing to mention the case-specific limitations  of BvV,  Lee fundamentally distorts court holdings concerning the legality of publishing secret materials.

If you were to ask an attorney to advise you on this (or any) case, how would he approach the problem ?

Much of first year law school is devoted to instructing students on  “Shepardizing”  cases,  i.e. on  studying how the courts have applied  or have failed to apply a given case to other cases.  Now quite a few legal scholars have done this “Shepardizing” for BvV.  As a result of these scholarly analyses  we know to a reasonable degree of certainty how and whether a court would apply  BvV  to  Sony.  As I read these studies, the courts would uphold the Sony claim for privacy.  Others may well disagree, but Lee is clearly misleading when he suggests that the case is one of slam dunk on the side of license to publish stolen documents.

Among the several studies on the topic, at least two are representative of the prevailing legal opinion.  One is by Shoop (available through law libraries), the other by Easton (on the open internet).  (See the references below.)  Easton in particular (p. 334) makes it quite clear that B v S would not apply to Sony. 

Unfortunately,  Lee’s article  is typical of the systematic distortions found all over Intercept.  Lee’s piece differs from the many others  only in that its falsity is so glaring and so obvious to anyone who cares to do the research.  The founder and current leading spirit of Intercept, Glenn Greenwald,  was a licensed attorney (he no longer is) before he became the ultra-Left publicist that he is today. It is obvious that Intercept and its staff  know very well how to interpret a court case.  The fact that they tell the public the opposite of what they must know to be true, IMHO, is indicative of  the whole sorry nature of the Intercept enterprise.



Eric Easton, Ten Years After: Bartnicki v. Vopper as a

Laboratory for First Amendment Advocacy and

Analysis, University of Baltimore, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-5


Richard D. Shoop, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 449 2002