Hi Liam, thanks for offering your input. A couple of thoughts, comments, and a question(s):
1. Your welcome but it was my pleasure (best job I ever had).
2. I don't think the article attacked the intel community but wouldn't care if it did, I left the IC for a reason. I didn't think they were "bad" or "evil", I just thought they were inept…
Hi Liam, thanks for offering your input. A couple of thoughts, comments, and a question(s):
1. Your welcome but it was my pleasure (best job I ever had).
2. I don't think the article attacked the intel community but wouldn't care if it did, I left the IC for a reason. I didn't think they were "bad" or "evil", I just thought they were inept and hampered by bureaucracy . That said, the point I was trying to make was that relationships to the intel community are often used to create doubt or undermine trust in people that are said to be associated with it. (See the comment from Marty below. Yes, my wife actually believed I was sent to her for darker reasons than what I was actually there to do. Not because of anything in my demeanor or actions, simply because I had a history of employment with Military Intelligence and Government Intelligence). My mention of this was to highlight that it is important to see the intel community as a tool/employer, not as a club or cult full of bad actors.
3. The article seemed to cast a a shadow of doubt or at least open up suspicion as to the LDS's intentions, associations, etc. Maybe those intentions are good, maybe they are bad...I don't know. I do know that my experience with Mormons has always been very positive. But the context in which LDS is mentioned seems intended to cast a negative light on that church and/or those who may be affiliated with LDS. If I read that wrong or interpreted it differently than it was intended to be interpreted, than I am happy to read the article again at a different time of the day.
4. I know I am not the subject of the article unless I had just changed my name (prior to reading the article) to Tim, or Eric, or Peter. I also don't care if I am the subject (or not) of any article. I'd rather be focused on creating rather than investigating...with some time set aside for wasting time. In a perfect world you and I would be playing cards and talking about our favorite sports team rather than having this discussion. But here we are.
5. I don't really think #5 requires a response as it's a given.
6. My wife's company, which I am only associated with as a contributor (I am not privy to their business operations). I would assume that if a company has ads on a website they most likely have a relationship. But that's a question for her and her staff, not for me as I have no idea the nature of that relationship (My wife doesn't know who my clients at my company Centurion Intelligence Partners are either...it's just good business practice).
That said, I do have the highest respect for Peter McCullough, and he is a friend of ours (well hers, he only has met me once when he promoted her book in 2022). So obviously, in the face of this content that seems heavy on confirmation bias to support a theory rather than fact-based, objective analysis, I felt the need to respond to this article to provide some balance to the discussion. But, to be totally transparent, what really caught my interest was the heavy reliance in this article on legacy media sources (sources that are not even primary and are widely considered sock-puppets for special interests [i.e. "Vice" and "USA Today"]).
What also caught my attention is that this author only seems to "investigate" Freedom and Health Freedom movements in her other work. Why is that? To me, this is extremely suspicious. But I am open learning about her motivations behind the subjects she chooses to focus on. As a well seasoned, highly trained, and highly educated professional in the areas of propaganda, covert influence, intelligence analysis, and intelligence operations I am constantly on the lookout for articles and content that may have ulterior motives other than those stated by the author, if stated at all. Not saying that is the case here, but I can say I am less confident after reading the article that it is not.
Those are my comments, here are my questions:
Why are you responding to me rather than Ms. Elizabeth? Is this her work or is this your work? I see she references that it is based on your work, but does that mean it's simply a reposting of your work, is this her work, or is this a collaboration?
And please note, my focus is doing my small part to protect America and our way of life. I don't care about being right or wrong in any argument...if I am wrong I am wrong and if I am right I am right...as long as transparency and truth the final outcome. In this case, I see nothing in this article that creates doubt in TWC, but actually creates doubt as to the author's intentions in the subjects she chooses to cover and the motivation behind this and other articles she has written (I've never heard of her before I came across this yesterday). If I missed something I am happy hear what that was. No one is perfect, but I hope we all are striving to be, at a minimum, good.
Brian, your wife Naomi Wolf claimed two different stories on how you met. In one article she said she hired you to protect her and later began to date you. In the later article she claims that you began dating first and that she was afraid of you and your friends. At a minimum, one of your wife's tales is a lie.
Hi Liam, thanks for offering your input. A couple of thoughts, comments, and a question(s):
1. Your welcome but it was my pleasure (best job I ever had).
2. I don't think the article attacked the intel community but wouldn't care if it did, I left the IC for a reason. I didn't think they were "bad" or "evil", I just thought they were inept and hampered by bureaucracy . That said, the point I was trying to make was that relationships to the intel community are often used to create doubt or undermine trust in people that are said to be associated with it. (See the comment from Marty below. Yes, my wife actually believed I was sent to her for darker reasons than what I was actually there to do. Not because of anything in my demeanor or actions, simply because I had a history of employment with Military Intelligence and Government Intelligence). My mention of this was to highlight that it is important to see the intel community as a tool/employer, not as a club or cult full of bad actors.
3. The article seemed to cast a a shadow of doubt or at least open up suspicion as to the LDS's intentions, associations, etc. Maybe those intentions are good, maybe they are bad...I don't know. I do know that my experience with Mormons has always been very positive. But the context in which LDS is mentioned seems intended to cast a negative light on that church and/or those who may be affiliated with LDS. If I read that wrong or interpreted it differently than it was intended to be interpreted, than I am happy to read the article again at a different time of the day.
4. I know I am not the subject of the article unless I had just changed my name (prior to reading the article) to Tim, or Eric, or Peter. I also don't care if I am the subject (or not) of any article. I'd rather be focused on creating rather than investigating...with some time set aside for wasting time. In a perfect world you and I would be playing cards and talking about our favorite sports team rather than having this discussion. But here we are.
5. I don't really think #5 requires a response as it's a given.
6. My wife's company, which I am only associated with as a contributor (I am not privy to their business operations). I would assume that if a company has ads on a website they most likely have a relationship. But that's a question for her and her staff, not for me as I have no idea the nature of that relationship (My wife doesn't know who my clients at my company Centurion Intelligence Partners are either...it's just good business practice).
That said, I do have the highest respect for Peter McCullough, and he is a friend of ours (well hers, he only has met me once when he promoted her book in 2022). So obviously, in the face of this content that seems heavy on confirmation bias to support a theory rather than fact-based, objective analysis, I felt the need to respond to this article to provide some balance to the discussion. But, to be totally transparent, what really caught my interest was the heavy reliance in this article on legacy media sources (sources that are not even primary and are widely considered sock-puppets for special interests [i.e. "Vice" and "USA Today"]).
What also caught my attention is that this author only seems to "investigate" Freedom and Health Freedom movements in her other work. Why is that? To me, this is extremely suspicious. But I am open learning about her motivations behind the subjects she chooses to focus on. As a well seasoned, highly trained, and highly educated professional in the areas of propaganda, covert influence, intelligence analysis, and intelligence operations I am constantly on the lookout for articles and content that may have ulterior motives other than those stated by the author, if stated at all. Not saying that is the case here, but I can say I am less confident after reading the article that it is not.
Those are my comments, here are my questions:
Why are you responding to me rather than Ms. Elizabeth? Is this her work or is this your work? I see she references that it is based on your work, but does that mean it's simply a reposting of your work, is this her work, or is this a collaboration?
And please note, my focus is doing my small part to protect America and our way of life. I don't care about being right or wrong in any argument...if I am wrong I am wrong and if I am right I am right...as long as transparency and truth the final outcome. In this case, I see nothing in this article that creates doubt in TWC, but actually creates doubt as to the author's intentions in the subjects she chooses to cover and the motivation behind this and other articles she has written (I've never heard of her before I came across this yesterday). If I missed something I am happy hear what that was. No one is perfect, but I hope we all are striving to be, at a minimum, good.
Thank you for your comments!
Brian
Brian, your wife Naomi Wolf claimed two different stories on how you met. In one article she said she hired you to protect her and later began to date you. In the later article she claims that you began dating first and that she was afraid of you and your friends. At a minimum, one of your wife's tales is a lie.
You tell me. Which is the lie?