Showing posts with label Information warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Information warfare. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

important accouncement on the upcoming DC madam account

The final manuscript is now locked at 622 pages, after adjusting for formatting, so that's everything, nothing removed, index included. I couldn't be more proud. There are no rules and there is no road map writing a historical account, there is only you and whatever wits you might possess. For even the most independent-minded of us, this is like walking a tightrope over a lava pit, and it is an excruciating, awful process writing about yourself. What's right? When you first start out, it goes well beyond writer's block. There's a natural hesitancy not to want to, not simply because we all tend to paint ourselves as better than we really are. I'm pretty certain that in the span of human history, there have been no people on this earth who were able to get around that problem wholly. No one's exempt.

That's not to say that people consciously lie--I haven't in my account in any place, on any page--but that we're all pretty much the same, and who wants to look at themselves as a piece of shit? No, the BDSM crowd don't count, sorry. Maybe it's part of the Cartesian-split, the mind-body problem, that we aren't always good at looking at ourselves because we've been taught how to look at the world incorrectly.


Unlike Jeane and a lot of people in America, I don't believe we live after death. What I believe is that mind came from body, and that we die with this body. Why isn't it obvious that our mind and bodies are one? Religion, but it's a problem also embedded in science, politics, culture, you name it, it's pervasive. I'm not a total materialist, or an atheist, but agnostic. Life has enough mysteries to be pretty bizarre. For some reason, this isn't enough for some people, I don't get it. Yes, dying isn't great--it's not supposed to be. Accept it or not, but we're all going to die one day, so live it up. Unfortunately, yes, some of us are going sooner than others. That's what will always bother me about this goddamned case. Jeane died before her time, it was avoidable. They let her die, we, let her die in our indifference, the same apathy that's given us the biggest police state apparatus in human history. The flaw in Western thinking is this weird idea that things are separate when they're not. We poison our water and believing we're removed enough from it that we don't need to worry about it, let the people downstream deal with it, fuck 'em. We've gone crazy enough to believe that we can now control the weather. We believe that people are separate from one another, when this is completely untrue--just watch how an outbreak of something spreads, just one example. It's some hippie crap to say that we're all interconnected, when it's the simple truth. The Occult tradition in the West produced this gem of wisdom: whatever you put out there comes back, multiplied. (Often in threes, justice found in mathematics no less.) Knowledge is power, but so is wisdom, and you learn the latter through terrible suffering, the kind that makes death look inviting.


I believe that I've overcome most of that tendency to recast myself as someone wearing a white hat, hence the pain, and brother, there is no pain like it. Nothing touches how deep it reaches inside of you and tears you apart. You cannot fault yourself for accidents or errors--mistakes--that no one could have had control over. It's not that I was self-deprecating in the writing of this book, it's that I and many other people failed someone, and so there it is again: We're all the same and are imperfect. That's what being a human being is, to be flawed, judged by the very standards we made up along the way, more often through habit. Talking can be addictive. Everything is an addiction. Reading is an addiction. Watching is an addiction. Food is an addiction. Drinking too much water can become intoxicating and ultimately kill you. Sex, as everyone knows, can be an addiction to the point that it becomes unhealthy. We all have a lot of habits to break. Whether I  break the writing habit remains to be seen.


The book will, I hope, stand on its own legs, and that word will get out far and wide about it. That, of course, is up to me, but also you, the reader, to spread the word if you believe I've gotten most of the story right. I think it's going to be a mixed-bag: there are so many things in it that are simply factual, and opinions about facts mean nothing. Most of the book is my participation in the case. I will be writing more as the release date approaches at another location, probably copying to here as well, so either site will be a go.


There is not one thing, one line, one quote, anything, that was put into my account that I knew or believed to be untrue. I haven't included many things--you would end up with a book over 1,000 pages long, easily. The reader should come away from the book feeling that not only was this about someone's experience, therefore a primary historical document, but that it's a reference book. I can say with absolute certainty that there has never been a book like this, and that's not knocking Montgomery Blair Sibley's book, Why Just Her, just the opposite, I think they're complimentary of each other, one augmenting the other. While I didn't use quite as much legal language--legalese--I believe it will stand up over time as part of the case, its residue. A couple of centuries ago, writing on historical events was considered a form of literature. For that and the sake of readability, there is a literary approach to some of the book, but in the end, this is all my voice. I'm feeling a little hoarse now, and, oddly, that was the meaning of the French surname, Palfrey.


This was almost as bad as being the poor, dumb asshole journalist in Citizen Kane, looking everywhere to find out what all this Rosebud business was about. What were some of Palfrey's deepest secrets? With the CIA thrown into the mix, anything's possible. I cannot claim to know, her family might, and they should be left in peace. It should be taken into consideration that there will almost certainly be things that I'm wrong about in the text, misreadings of events and information, not just by me, but by the subject and many other players, it's inevitable, and none of it would necessarily be conscious. There's smoke down in Hell, which sometimes causes a natural occlusion. And, again, I could simply be wrong about something.
The DC Madam case is a mostly incomplete mosaic, and I make it clear in the text when I'm speculating. This is due mostly to the fact that whole swaths of the record aren't available to the public. There are also selfish motives by any number of people who communicated with Palfrey to sit on what they know, information they might have, but then there are confidentiality agreements. Most of this is understandable in an era where certain information has a very real world value, we all get this by now, even Ret. General Petraeus.
A late November release looks good, but no later than December, a blackened X-Mas present for the GOP to themselves, by way of me, a woman whose death they own.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Is Wikileaks under serious online attack lately?


At 2:06 PM EST, this was posted on Wikileaks' Twitter account: "Please bittorrent Wikileaks Insurance release 2012-02-22 (65GB) wlstorage.net/torrent/wikile…


A comment below it from a French Twitter member ("m4de") states: "torrent file is offline..."

The link is code, computer language. Have fun.

 
02-23-2012 Addendum: I've been told that the link now contains the 65GB file without a key. What did I download within the first six hours the above Twitter post (w. link) was up? This must be a backup archive. There doesn't seem to be any definitive answer here. The main site's been under cyberattack for some time. 65 GB sounds like everything from the Wikileaks site, the State Dept. cable inclusive.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

The 7 CIA KIAs in Afghanistan: When revenge really means reprisal


Occupied Afghanistan--Remember all those WWII movies where the Nazis are being attacked by partisans and members of the resistance? This is what's happening in Afghanistan.
This doesn't mean the Afghans are "good guys," they're just reacting naturally, and they have their own issues. We're worse in our behavior at this historical moment.

The CIA are calling for "revenge" in an illegal war and remembering that this is an illegal occupation is the key (wars of aggression are illegal under international law): they're already kidnapping, torturing, and even slaughtering Afghan nationals, and now, someone they thought was going to be their "snitch" (informant) got into a military facility knowing seven of them were going to be there and blew himself and them up with a bomb strapped to his torso. That's desperation under a bloody occupation, not some arbitrary act for the hell of it, and it's not even necessarily extreme. It's what happens under bloody occupations.

What the CIA should have used was the term "reprisal," the one that the Nazis and their victims frequently used when they retaliated for deaths within their own ranks. The problem in their logic at Langley--and our own if we accept such arguments--is obvious. We're the wrong side, and we're the aggressors, not the Afghans. This kind of wrong-headed thinking is only going to keep us digging our own hole, and eventually, we're probably going to get our own Stalingrad in some form or another. This "revenge" is really reprisal, don't kid yourself. We're the bad guys. We're the wrong side. The Afghan that did this killed people who might have been there to torture in his mind, and certainly came as bringers of death.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Steve Canyon, learned ("that'll learn ya'!") intellectual


Ed.--Hey kids! This really rational and intelligent fella sent me this well-reasoned piece, and I thought you'd all love a good larf. Steve's wrong, what I said in the ancient piece he read was that PACs/GOP/the Defense Dept. have had people roving the internet responding to various-points they have a problem with.

We know for a fact that the Bush administration was (is?) using military personnel to do this regarding opinions surrounding the war, and not just countering the news sites.
We know for a fact that the Pentagon had information units trawling the internet countering stories. They could easily have been responding to comments on blogs, particularly the large-ones like Huffington Post or Rawstory.

Go to the comments sections of just about any "progressive" blog or site, and you'll find the "trolls" there. Where do they come from? Surely, most of them are just really pathetic-morons with nothing to say, and too much time on their hands.
Do I think political operatives and right-wing activists have been "payed" (Steve's misspelling in another harassing e-mail he sent me) to try to counter progressive opinions and sites throughout the internet?

Consider this: Cindy Sheehan was confronted by this ilk at Arlington cemetery--sometime last year--and one of them told her "I make $60-per-hour to do this." OK, fine, it could be bullshit, but it could be real. Why do I think I know "Steve"? He's been trying to bait me into a "debate" for a few-weeks, maybe months and I haven't been biting.


Perhaps "Steve" is frustrated since his president's in so much trouble, and the GOP's poised to implode (not Alan Keyes)? I think he just needs a hug, so give him one, and be nice: insanenowchuck@yahoo.com In case you didn't notice, almost all of Steve's comments ARE CAPITALIZED TO ASSERT HIS (lack of) MANHOOD.
Since I consider his e-mails harrassment, I'm publishing his address here.


Prolix...

Dear Fuckwit.

I found your website where you post the names of the "Trolls." I want to tell you how fucking stupid you are. How can I count the ways? Let me try fuckstick:You preamble to you[r] shitstain website states:["]How-many of these people are conservative PAC-operatives? How-many of them are working-for the GOP and the Bush administration? They have all the same talking-points, sometimes before the Bush administration voices-them. This is very suspicious. If you see them on other liberal' blogs, report them to the webmaster.["]
POINT BY POINT DISECTION [SIC] OF WHY YOU ARE STUPID AND LIKELY PRONE TO SUCKING BAGS OF DICKS: How-many of these people are conservative PAC-operatives? WHY THE FUCK WOULD A CONSERVATIVE PAC PAY SOMEONE LIKE ME TO SPEW VILE RIGHT WING PARTISAN RHETORIC ON LIBERAL WEBSITES WHEN DOING SO WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON CHANGING THE LIBERAL VIEWS OF ASSHATS SUCH AS YOURSELF WHO GO ON BLOGS TO POST LEFT LEANING PARTISAN RHETORIC. DOING SO WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO WASTE MONEY. THINK ABOUT IT SHIT STAIN. PRETTY FUCKING SIMPLE LOGIC. [Ed.-actually, no. You know why--to disrupt the dialogues already going-on at my site and others. Waste money? One word: Iraq]
How-many of them are working-for the GOP and the Bush administration? FIRST, REREAD MY CRITICISM OF YOUR FIRST POINT AS MUCH OF IT APPLIES DIMWIT. DO YOU THINK THE BUSH ADMIN IS GOING TO PAY SOME RIGHT WING HACK TO BLOG ON DAILYKOS? YOU ARE ONE SIMPLE SON OF A CUNT. AND IF THE GOP OR BUSH ADMIN DID PAY PEOPLE TO BE OPERATIVES AND POST ON LIBERAL WEBSITES, DO YOU THINK SAID OPERATIVES WOULD USE SCREENNAMES LIKE scalitofan, cheneyhastheweathermachine, and hillaryscock? YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID FOR THINKING SUCH THINGS. STOP SMOKING DOPE AND SUCKING COCK. [Ed.-this one's my favorite!] They have all the same talking-points, sometimes before the Bush administration voices-them. This is very suspicious. EVER NOTICE HOW THE DEMOCRAT, LEFTY, PINKO, COMMIE HACKS ALL SAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER? THE RIGHT HAS ITS TALKING POINTS AND SO DOES THE LEFT. YOU ARE SO FUCKING DUMB ITS RIDICULOUS. FURTHERMORE, WHY WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE GOP LEAK TALKING POINTS TO FUCKTARDS LIKE ME WHO WOULD SPEW THEM IN A VILE AND HARASSING MANNER ON SOME DIPSHIT LIBERAL BLOG. [Ed.-Hmm? Please tell us] IT WOULD LESSEN THE USEFULLNESS [SIC]OF SAID TALKING POINT. [Ed.-Which you're displaying well right now] RIGHT FUCKWIT? If you see them on other liberal' blogs, report them to the webmaster. THIS I DON'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL. YOU WANT TO LOCK YOURSELF IN A ROOM WHERE YOU HEAR NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW REPEATED BACK TO YOU? [Ed.-Classic projection at work here...]PUSSY. DEBATE YOU LITTLE FAGGOT. DON'T FEAR FREE SPEECH OR DEBATE. IT'S WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT YOU DUMB CUNT. THE ONLY THING FUN ABOUT BLOGGING IS BANTER AND REPARTEE. EVEN IF ITS VILE AND OFFENSIVE. And finally, you are most stupid for having read all the way down to the sentence when I have call you a fuckwit, fuckstick, asshat, dimwit, a simple son of a bitch, shitstain [SIC], cunt, pussy, faggot and one prone to sucking on bags of dicks. grow some balls. AND HAVE A NICE DAY. DIMWIT.


"Steve's" what...13? I wonder why people tend to ignore him and his kind. Funny, I didn't detect any thesis in the mess he sent me. And I thought I was hearing the right's viewpoint 24/7, the majority of my adult life. Day-after-day--they they blare their vomit at the American public through their own news channels. They virtually own all of the national media (squeezing-out all the other viewpoints), and control most of our economy and political process. Yet, they just cannot seem to accomplish very much...or to lead at all.

"Steve" should start his own blog. Nobody's stopping him, but who allows some social retard to come into their home uninvited to bloviate on a bunch of twaddle? Steve, the inarticulate bozo. The interesting thing is that someone I used to work with used all of these expletives...