Re: proposal

On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Anyway, I shouldn't complain, because I'm blessed with a lot of people in PM who are very honest and decent people who are working hard to help achieve something that is important to all of us, and I've received a great deal of help from people like you who been kind enough to actively assist a young writer in getting these things accomplished in a manner that will hopefully achieve results. I want to thank you again for everything you've done to help; it really means a lot to me as well as to those who share my concerns. Think of how many people could easily transform the world into something a little better, a little less murderous, a little less cruel, but who instead sit around laughing at those who do. That makes people like you so much more valuable to me. Again, thanks.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> wrote:

Oh, well. I think the best thing is to do as Greenwald does: just follow the facts where they lead, interpret as impartially as objectively as possible, and don't worry about people whose agendas are such that they view such journalism as a personal attack.

FWIW, it's hard for me to understand why any thinking person who values democracy would be against WL. Actually, it's not that hard to understand, but it is hard to respect.

On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Great, thanks. Charles Johnson, with whom I've had a working relationship for a year now, is opposed to Wikileaks and so are some of his major commenters. Several of them are now digging up articles I've written in which I've criticized Israel along with the U.S. for lying about aspects of the boat incident. They don't bother looking up the attacks that have been made on me by folks like Raimondo for supporting Israel, of course. Johnson received an award from Israel and his posts are syndicated by a major Israeli website and many of his readers are likudnics; in fact, back when Johnson was still very anti-Muslim, Pamela Geller and other borderline-genocidal bloggers got their start there. In a second I'll send you a link to a post I cross-posted at LGF and which was immediately responded to by viscous comments by people who once admired me for my work on evolution and revealing the white nationalist ties of people like R.S. McCain. Meanwhile, the League has proven to be a very honest place, even if some participants have concerns about Wikileaks; my ties to Anonymous have not been a problem at all there,whereas at LGF people are justifying the likely false and black-op rape charges against Assange and calling me insane for pointing to facts about U.S. military targeting of Al-Jazeera offices and Bush-Blair's discussion in 2005 of bombing main HQ in Qatar. I wouldn't mind but these are people I once trusted.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> wrote:

Will send you Inside Out, the latest, today, plus a few older ones. Read 'em when you have time if they seem up your alley; otherwise, there's always eBay... :)

And sure, feel free to use the excerpt. If my publisher balks, I will explain with the time-honored "oops."

What have you said about WL that would cause people to distance themselves from you?

On Dec 15, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

I just remembered you offered to send a copy. Can you autograph it? Here's my address?

3419 Westminster Ave #25 Dallas, TX 75205

Thanks for that, by the way, I really look forward to reading it. I don't read much fiction at all but with Hastings and Anon both recommending them so enthusiastically, I just have to read one. Just remembered you offered to send me a copy; here's my address:

3419 Westminister Ave #25, Dallas, TX 75205

Also, would you mind if I used that below excerpt in my arguments on Russian attacks? Or, if that's not possible due to your contract, you don't mind if I mention that you're using my article as a source, do you? I've really damaged my career by discussing these and having someone such as yourself acknowledging Northwoods and Russia would help to convince intellectually honest people. I've also lost a lot of friends over the past few days on this Wikileaks things - really just Charles Johnson and some of his followers, but it's going to get worse as some of them continue to run around the internet taking my words out of context.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> wrote:

Argh, dying to write a response. But I'm massively behind on the new manuscript (Wikileaks is part of the story, BTW). So no, I had to hold off. Also BTW, the Russian false flag attacks are mentioned in the book, too, with a link to your blog post that'll appear in the sources I list at the end:

You dont think it can happen here? Do yourself a favor. Even if you dont want the job. Google COINTELPRO, or Operation Mockingbird, oh and especially Operation Northwoods. You might also look into Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, Operation Mongoose, and the so-called Strategy of Tension. And these are just the ones that have leaked. There are others. Unless you think the Reichstag Fire and the Russian apartment bombings were unique to their respective times and places and could never happen elsewhere, least of all in America. But you dont strike me as that naïve.

You think 9/11 was an inside job, too?

It wasnt, though the way its been exploited, it might as well have been. But are you arguing that because not all cataclysms occur behind a false flag, that none of them do?

On Dec 15, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Did you ever write the article you were talking about a week back when I jokingly mentioned that you do a parody of something the Post was doing? Also, I'm doing a series of posts about the 1999 Russian false flag piece and mention you in passing for having edited my manuscript. Also contains a debate I had with that nutty fellow Justin Raimondo. http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2010/12/14/conspiracies-and-pseudo-skepticism-part-i

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> wrote:

Right, good point -- there is the Helen Thomas route. But yeah, I can't think of one who's been bounced for being repeatedly wrong about war etc.

On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Technically, yes, pundits can lost their positions for violating actual media taboos like racism or anti-semitism (Rick Sanchez, for instance). But they are never unmade due to anything they might do in the course of their crucial and life-or-death work.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Barry Eisler <barryeisler@mac.com> wrote:

This is great. And BTW, it occurs to me, can you think of any pundit who has ever been un-made? I can't, but maybe I'm missing some. At best, they just fade away with age.

On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Barry-

Here is the bulk of the "summary" portion of the two-pager Ted wanted; the remainder will mention the other major subjects of the book and then conclude. Let me know what you think so far, if you would please.

In 2003, Thomas Friedman won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. In 2005, Friedman was invited to join the board of the Pulitzer committee. Our nation is killing itself from within.

Most every industry contains within itself a system of negative feedback by which to ensure that those who fail in their efforts are discouraged whereas those who succeed are encouraged. The most notable exception is the opinion media, which is itself among the most crucial and fundamental of all industries, being fundamental to the manner in which the public thinks - and thus votes, donates, and convinces its fellows, with the cumulative process thereafter being translated into action on the part of the greatest superpower to have ever existed. Thus it is that one of the most influential institutions in the world - the institution of the American punditocracy - is the least accountable. Once a pundit is made, he is rarely unmade.

Thomas Friedman is one of the most influential individuals to work in the most influential of industries, having written a popular New York Times column for well over a decade, having graced the various network news and cable networks for a similar period of time, and having written several bestsellers which are themselves read and respected by a large swath of the nations decision makers right on up to the current United States president. That Thomas Friedman has made a large number of terrible predictions while not elsewhere having made any particularly astute predictions, that his assertions sometimes directly and hilariously contradict assertions he mas made elsewhere, and that other columnists and even bloggers of far lesser influence have exhibited a far superior track record without having won any comparable acclaim is among the most obvious of indications that the United States is incapable of managing and distributing the information it requires to perform its role as a global superpower with reasonable regard for the consequences.

To the extent that we actually examine the output of the most influential and widely-read of what a hippie or Nixon might term to be the "establishment" pundits, we find the same extraordinary failures perpetrated by the majority of them. Charles Krauthammer has managed to get entirely and profoundly wrong every U.S. military conflict of the past twelve years as well as a smattering of other nation's engagements. Having opposed the surge before a year later supporting it and attacking those who opposed it, Krauthammer even missed out on the conservative consolation prize. Nonetheless he has grown only more influential over this period and is now commonly counted as being among the finest of commentators.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302