It is not a new thing to try and shame or blackmail an individual into silence. Whether the evidence is real or doctored doesn’t matter; only the judgement of the public is needed to destroy a person’s credibility.
Governments and criminal organizations have deployed this tactic for a long time. The U.S. government used these methods against civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., in an attempt to discredit his message. Foreign leaders have also been the victims of honey traps, which in turn led to photos of them indulging in sex acts; the Soviet Union used attractive women wisely in their espionage and blackmail for this purpose. During the Cold War, the promiscuous and homosexual nature of key figures in the British government ensured that they spied for the Soviet Union, rather than have such evidence divulged.
Journalist and prominent antiwar voice Glenn Greenwald was recently the victim of such an attempt to sully his character, and it has had mostly the opposite effect.
Greenwald has been a consistent and heroic voice for human rights for many years. The present onslaught against the people of Gaza and the complex nature of the war in Ukraine are just some areas which Greenwald has covered factual analysis and moral clarity. His journalism has drawn denunciation from the political establishment, including online trolls that relish in personal attacks at his expense. And now, video of him performing kinky sex acts is cover for another attempt to discredit him—apparently it’s not “revenge porn” when it’s targeting a political enemy. Further, being an openly gay man has invited personal abuse far harsher than any levied at Douglas Murray or Dave Rubin, who share Greenwald’s homosexual proclivities but are staunchly Zionist in their advocacy.
Greenwald speculated on a recent appearance with Tucker Carlson that it was the Israeli government who leaked the material against him, using spyware such as Pegasus, which he has repeatedly reported on. This is technology that a government can deploy not just against terrorists or malicious criminals, but journalists and civil rights activists.
The footage that has surfaced online of Greenwald performing intimate sex acts were timed after his most recent condemnation of the Israeli government. His critical assessment on the mass murder and starvation of innocent civilians, most of them children, is too contrarian it would seem. Instead of meeting him in debate, he has been met by attempts to discredit his character. Certain consensual sex acts can still draw an ire of condemnation, even from those who consider themselves socially liberal. Drug use, alcholism, gambling, even domestic violence all seem to be rather forgivable and seemingly understood acts of vice and reckless conduct. They can be lovingly interpreted, not as slights on a person’s character, but as a quirk. Consensual conduct between adults in the extremes of normative sex, on the other hand, can ruin a person’s reputation. Is not the narrative being pushed that the killing of children is far better than sodomy or sexual role play dress ups? This is why people are pressured into the closet. But that won’t stop prying eyes, gossip hounds, and blackmailers from trying to dig it up.
With the nature of social media algorithms and the frenzy to share content that gains engagement, even those who do not seek out such imagery saw it. It was pushed in front of many eyes, either as a screenshotted meme or as the raw original video. Greenwald owned his sexuality; he re-posted and replied to the leaks immediately. He took the barb of the attackers away. In doing this, many people from across the political spectrum (including known critics) arose in support. It seems many others did not care. They are not interested in what he does behind closed doors. That’s his business. It’s only the degenerate obsessed, the sexually fixated who find glee in re-posting and attacking a person for sex acts—leaked ones at that.
When David Letterman went through a form of sexual blackmail—he had been having an affair with an employee—he announced it all live on his television show. The blackmailer then had nothing, and the bribery was meaningless. Letterman admitted to infidelity and misconduct. That was for him and those in his personal life, not for the public. It did not ruin his career (but perhaps his marriage). It did not change him as a performer; the world may have learned a little more about the real man that he was. Likewise, Greenwald as a man was stripped naked; we saw things of him that we did not need to or request to. He confronted and shamed those attempting to shame him. He did it with dignity, despite the indignity thrown upon him.
If a performer or a person becomes famous enough, the mob feels entitled to their life. Paparazzi and hackers can hunt them, ambush, and spy into their lives. Now with AI image generation it no longer matters if it’s real or fabricated. How will we know what is real, what is artificially generated? Now we are all naked.
The refreshing result is that, in the case of Greenwald, the old tactics of blackmail and public shaming no longer work. The public is either beyond that sort of attack or they simply are uninterested. What this does mean, however, is that those who would murder innocent people, spy on everyone, censor, and prohibit must themselves adapt. The means of blackmail, leverage, and shaming tactics will evolve accordingly.
The real orgy is the genocidal violence that Greenwald’s remaining critics seem to adore. It’s mature and conservative to indulge in the mayhem and bloodshed, with no disgrace or even sense of hypocrisy. Seeing a respected man like Glen Greenwald in an intimate state is not shocking or disgusting. The truly disgusting act is the killing of children. That is what should matter most. That is what should hang people, what should disgust the public.
Some of those who believe that NATO and Ukraine’s government are above criticism will see the leaks as a win. Those who believe that the Israeli government has every right to murder children and conduct a genocide may also see this as a victory. They never needed this “evidence” to discredit Glenn Greenwald; he was always discredited in their minds because he disagreed with them. The many others who see this for what it is would rather focus on the real issues: when it comes to sex and violence, violence is always far worse.
