General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLouise Mensch March 2017, a year ago.
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MelissaB
(16,420 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And probably before because of Nigel Oakes and the SCL Group. Why didn't you?
I've asked here on this forum more than once, when is Cambridge Analytica finally going to hit the news? How about Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel and Palantir Technologies?
Aren't the right-wing swiftboaters and their Kool-Aid addicts, Trump and his trumpsters, and now Russia teaching people anything? Sure, check out anyone who appeals, but to see how what she's saying goes along with or deviates from other sources also being checked. Sources with reputations to protect, sources with editorial standards and review procedures, sources that invest in top-level investigative journalism.
And if something in some of us won't accept those, maybe we should at least google our tweeters' statements to see if they're really anything new instead of taking their word for it.
But for real conspiracy immersion, may I suggest Jane Mayer's Dark Money, the Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right? As a start to build on. It's the real thing. These are the kind of people who are hiring companies like CA for corrupt purposes. Then all the books and articles published more recently for additional information behind the current event. Hey, just google the few names dropped here and get started.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)MelissaB
(16,420 posts)My philosophy: read and wait for msm confirmation. It took a year for this one. 
Is she always right? I don't think so. That's why I wait.
triron
(22,007 posts)On all points.
blake2012
(1,294 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)I never understood the hostility toward her. And still don't.
She deals in deep inside information, some of it may be or have been wrong, but much of it hasn't, tho the verification by "credible" sources may not have come immediately as most people here demanded.
It's basically gossip plus well-informed speculation. Take it for what it is, is my philosophy.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)I don't see your point -- or why you're directing that at me.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)about Sen. Sanders...and there was a snowball effect. That is when I first noticed the hostility towards her. She has been right about some things though.
PubliusEnigma
(1,583 posts)Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)when louise lost support here.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)There's more but really that is enough.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)What is with you people? Did I say she was God's gift to #TrumpRussia journalism?
I frankly don't CARE. Go read my post again, carefully. I didn't say she's a wonderful person. I said I like the gossip. She DOES have contacts -- she DOES get some things right, and it's usually weeks if not months or YEARS ahead of time. I rather like that. As I've said here before: I take her posts with a grain of salt, but I take them.
And I can't think of much that would change my mind about the matter. So go try to persuade someone else about something else 'cause you're wasting your time with me on Mensch.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)She has dozens of fantastic conspiracies including that Putin killed Brietbart. She works for Rupert Murdoch. She openly stated that what she puts on Twitter is not substantiated, but she believes. The most honest thing she ever posted was that her children don't take her seriously as a journalist.
Malcolm Nance considers her "Bashit Crazy".
You can admire the scholarship of Nance or you can put your nose up Mensches ass and cherry pick her hits and disregard her hundreds of ludicrous misses but all you cannot do both and if you think you can then you have zero grasp on how scholarship works.
At least Mensch has openly admitted that she in fact does NOT HAVE sources for most of what she posts and simply believes it to be true.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)Talk about an overreaction.
Plus, you have really just RUINED your reputation with me Absolutely ruined it CAN YOU READ? I tell you she's mostly an unserious but interesting source to me, and you get even more insulting plus vulgar.
After all that, it appears YOU follow her more closely than I do because you sure as hell know a lot more about her than I do. I can't even remember the last time I read one of her tweets or articles -- but you go right ahead and have your shit conniption.
GUESS WHAT! I STILL DON'T FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU THINK. I'll read her tweets if, when and how I please. But I'll for sure alert you post haste if I EVER think of her and "scholarship" in the same sentence.
I don't consider Nance a scholar either, but Nance vs Mensch is a false choice -- at least for me. Nance is an expert with years of experience and ongoing involvement in the world of intelligence. In comparison, Mensch is a comic book. I GET TO READ COMIC BOOKS IF I FUCKING WANT TO.
But you go right ahead and have your hissy fit meltdown. I suspect you think you ought to come weigh in on my choice of television, movies and music too?? Fugeddaboudit. And forget about EVER having any credibility with me hereafter -- not that I expect you care.
But good grief, man, get a fucking grip.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Imagine a long street with pedestrian on both sides going in two directions for 20 miles.
On both sides of the street are people going in two directions.
On the far eastern end of the street is the principle of universal health care on the far western end of the street the final destination is no governmental involvement in health care.
On the south side of the street are people who used fact based logic streams, exegetical reading of source material, unbiased data and rational discourse.
On the north side of the street are people who use eisegetical reading of source material to pick data points that they agree upon and disregard anything that is not consistent with their pre-established point of view.
Most of the people on the south side of the street are moving east, but some are moving west. Most of the people on the north side of the street are going west but some are going to the east.
The methodology of the Mensch cultists are on the north side of the street don't care for an objective looking at the facts and a reading of the complete body of work, they are satisfied with picking and choosing and agreeing with what they believe in and regarding everything else, regardless of how bizarre or reckless it is, or the actual motive involved as long as they find something that confirms what they believe. There is no difference between that methodology than the methodology of fundamentalist Christians, for example (or fundamentalist anything) who search the bible to find a verse that confirms their point of view while the miss the fundamental point of the larger arc.
Now while people who support going in the same direction appear to be policy allies those that use the methodology of reactionaries actually undermine the broader philosophical approach, lets get particular in regards to Mensch:
She made the point about CA. At about the same time she accused Putin of assassinating Breitbart. The problem is, obviously, that when people see the second observation the tend to not believe the first. Especially when she openly states that she has no basis of fact for most of her observations.
You seem to be oblivious to what Mensch's commercial interest is. On a number of occasions she has launched internet platforms so that she can cash in on the internet. Here is her attempts to date:
1) A political rival to twitter called Menshn (failed)
2) Unfashinista (failed)
3) Hired by NewsCorp to develop competition to Breitbart and other sites and launched Heat Street which is funded by Murdoch
4) Leaves Newscorp and founds Patribiotics. She openly targets marketing to Breitbart followers by inventing a whole line of conspiracy stories about his death. She then turns to focus on the Putin/Trump scores a few hits but is swamped by a flood of ridiculous assertions that she sometimes makes fun of her self.
Once you sell your soul on the methodology there is no turning back. Either you are going to proceed on the basis of fact based analysis or you going to throw facts away and just agree with anything anybody says if they make you feel better because occasionally agree with you.
A person who is rigorous in their methodology but in disagreement with policy, like David Frum is a much more honest interlocutor than you are who cheers for discredited sources simply because they very occasionally confirm a point you want confirmed.
Your assertion that "I don't consider Nance a scholar" simply codifies my assertion that you do not base your opinions on facts but on your beliefs, much like Mensch has admitted.
The working definition of a scholar is someone who publishes works that are peer reviewed. While it is also true that Nance is trying to bring methodology of the intelligence community to the general public and can be pedantic and repetitive it nevertheless has received favorable peer class reviews:
Nance's main published works
1) An End to al-Qaeda: Destroying Bin Laden's Jihad and Restoring America's Honor
Journal of Strategic Security published a book review of Nance's work written by Keely M. Fahoum of Henley-Putnam University.[1] Fahoum wrote, "An End to Al-Qaeda presents a thought-provoking discussion about Al-Qaeda (AQ), its leadership, intentions, and attempts to recruit members in the ideological battlefield."[1] The review noted Nance's expertise in the subject matter, "The book draws on the author's expertise as a counterterrorism (CT) officer and Arabic linguist, and his experience studying AQ in the field, including in combat."[1] Fahoum concluded, "An End to Al-Qaeda is a good read for those analysts in the CT community still developing their understanding of information operations and understanding the role of religion in the battle between AQ and the rest of the world's Muslims".
2) Terrorist Recognition Handbook: A Practitioner's Manual for Predicting and Identifying Terrorist Activities (Not a scholarly work by nature, it nevertheless was widely supported by industrial and peer reviewers)
Nance's work received a book review from Midwest Book Review, which wrote: "Terrorist Recognition Handbook offers an examination of common and uncommon terrorist tactics – and how to identify an attack before it happens."[5] The review concluded, "Terrorist Recognition Handbook: A Practitioner's Manual for Predicting and Identifying Terrorist Activities is highly recommended for those in charge of security and community library military collections."[5]
Terrorist Recognition Handbook received two separate book reviews in the academic journal Perspectives on Terrorism.[2][3] The journal placed the book on its "Top 150 Books on Terrorism and Counterterrorism".[2] Joshua Sinai wrote for Perspectives on Terrorism, "Written by a 20-year veteran of the U.S. intelligence community, this book provides an assessment of terrorists’ motivations and methods, including a listing of pre-incident indicators of potential terrorist activity, and the methodologies required to organize such information into actionable intelligence for effective response measures."[2] Sinai wrote of the resources contained within the monograph, "The information is explained through numerous illustrations, including explanations of the types of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction that might be used by terrorists."[2] In his second review of the book for Perspectives on Terrorism, Sinai wrote that the book, "provides a comprehensive and detailed treatment of terrorism and counter-terrorism."[3]
Ben Rothke reviewed the book for RSA Conference, and called it "required reading".[4] Rothke praised the author's expertise and writing style, "Terrorist Recognition Handbook: A Practitioner's Manual for Predicting and Identifying Terrorist Activities, is unique in that author Malcolm Nance is a 20-year veteran of the U.S. intelligence community and writes from a first hand-perspective, but with the organization and methodology of writers such as Pipes and Emerson. Those combined traits make the book extraordinarily valuable and perhaps the definitive text on terrorist recognition."[4] Rothke's review concluded, "The Terrorist Recognition Handbook is a must-read for anyone tasked with or interested in anti-terrorism activities. One would hope that every TSA and Homeland Security manager and employee get a copy of this monumental reference."
3) The Plot to Hack America: How Putin's Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election
The book was a commercial success, and The Wall Street Journal placed The Plot to Hack America in its list of "Best-Selling Books" for the week of February 19, 2017, at 7th place in the category "NonFiction E-Books".
In a review for the New York Journal of Books, Michael Lipkin was effusive, writing: "Malcolm Nance's The Plot to Hack America is an essential primer for anyone wanting to be fully informed about the unprecedented events surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election."[1] Lipkin wrote of the author's expertise on the subject matter: "He is a patriot and a highly experienced and respected intelligence expert bringing to bear his own deep and extensive knowledge and conclusions in perhaps one of the most important developments in American history."[1] Lawrence Swaim gave Nance's work a favorable reception, in a book review for the Napa Valley Register.[6] He wrote, "It's a quick read, and at present easily the best book on the subject."[6] Swaim recommended resources at the back of the book, writing, "But what’s really killer about the Nance book is the appendix, which contains extremely revealing assessments made by American intelligence agencies, all presented in an unclassified format."[6]
Kenneth J. Bernstein wrote for Daily Kos "to convince you to read this important book", he echoed the warning in its conclusion about the dangers posed by cyberwarfare.[28] Bernstein wrote that the book's argumentation was strengthened because, "Every single assertion Nance offers is backed by material ... clearly documented in end notes".[28] Bernstein wrote favorably in addition of the book's foreword by The Guardian editor for national security, Spencer Ackerman.[28] Italian language newspaper La Stampa called the book "molto bello".[29] Writing for The Independent, Andy Martin, commented, "I suppose the only weak spot in the subtitle is the word 'tried'. Surely they did more than 'try'?"[30]
4) Defeating ISIS: Who They Are, How They Fight, What They Believe
U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations retired Colonel Millard E. Moon reviewed the book for Journal of Strategic Security, and wrote, "Nance offers a compelling argument to support the concept of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a cult set apart from the Islamic religion."[1] Moon said that, "Nance has done a really good job of providing detailed information about the growth and activities of ISIS components".[1] He praised the author's ability to structure the book as a reference resource, writing, "there is a wealth of factual information on ISIS".[1] As for the religious nature of the organization, Moon acknowledged, "Malcolm Nance does an excellent job of outlining what ISIS believes".[1] Moon concluded, "This book is a good reference source for anyone in the professional field and for individuals seeking to understand the enemy and what we and our allies face."
Current Affairs journalist Adam Patterson called the book "One of the more intelligent, incisive mass-market books on ISIS."[2] Patterson emphasized, "The central value of Nance’s work is ultimately written into its title. Defeating ISIS outlines that the jihadi group can, with intelligent application of diplomatic and counterinsurgency methods, be eventually defeated."[2] Rachel Maddow referenced this book as a source she used to educate herself about ISIS.[32] The book received a negative review by Paul Monk in The Australian.[8] Monk criticized the writing style, and disputed Nance's view that ISIS wished "to destroy Islam".[8] The Guardian national security reporter Spencer Ackerman praised the author's expertise, citing the caliber of his works The Terrorists of Iraq and Defeating ISIS.[9]
Your "feeling" that Nance is not a recognized scholar is laughable but it is not the most laughable thing you posited, that would be
Nance vs Mensch is a false choice. Usually positing two figures like Nance and Mensch involve taking two people who are in different cultures or different times. In this case these are two people who have openly denounced each other
Mensch:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/thenextMilo?src=hash&lang=en
I am not the resistance. You can stuff the resistance up your assLink to tweet
I’m telling you she is an alt-light plant to make #Resistance look crazy. And it’s working. She also makes money.
False choice, no they are openly and vehemently against each other. You are free to embrace Mensch and her nuttery even as she occasionally will hit pay dirt. That is nothing more than somebody firing a machine gun in the air and hitting an occasional bird.
As to your patronizing "get a life" dribble you simply don't understand where the big battles are. The big battle for progressives is not in convincing the rest of the country what they should think but to engender a thirst for how to think in a progressive, fact based, empirically driven intellectually honest way.
If we can get people engaged in epistemological discussion then we really don't have to worry about where the conclusion will lie because an honest respect for the facts will make us winners 80% of the time.
Every time we embrace reactionary methodology simply because they reinforce our perception because they happen to agree with us at that particular point it is a step backwards.
The fundamental fight isn't for left or right its for intellectual honesty. Intellectual honest will affirm our point of view on policy an overwhelming percentage of the time.
In terms of these two personalities you have to chose there is no prevarication: Nance or Mensch. I chose Nance, I give you Mensch.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)someone who can't take a hint.
Or even a BLAST of: leave me the fuck alone.
GOOD bye.
ETA: Don't think for a minute I read beyond the first paragraph or two. Why? Because I don't care. You are refusing to understanding and respect my position, which is: you have no right to tell me what I am allowed to read. Further, a corollary: you are invading my boundaries. Further: you have no right to speak to me the way you did in your previous post. I don't come here to get lectured, esp. with vulgarities. I'm almost embarrassed by the degree to which I overestimated you.
I get it: Mensch is a very bad terrible good for nothing person. YOU don't get it: I don't care. I WILL read whoever I want.
And I WILL rid my life of bothersome, arrogant people who think they know it all, and have some right to tell others how to live their lives.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)She wasn't an unknown character. She was an elected Conservative member of Parliament, Fox contributor and her racist views are well known as her extensive friendships on the alt-right. Certainly you were aware of all of this and her racist rants when you stated:
I take her posts with a grain of salt, but I take them.
interesting source to me
I GET TO READ COMIC BOOKS IF I FUCKING WANT TO.
(btw your vulgarity and capitals detract from your point)
So the question is why do you defend reading racist "comic books" (to use your term), quoting them on DU and find them worth reading? How does she differ from Trump and even David Duke?
https://www.indy100.com/article/louise-mensch-went-on-a-fox-news-rant-about-refugees-and-had-a-complete-nightmare--b1g_IKSurlZ
Former Tory MP Louise Mensch moved across the pond last year, but she appears to have found her spiritual home on Fox News.
Appearing on The Intelligence Report on Fox Business on Tuesday, Mensch was asked what "openness" means when it comes to taking in Syrian refugees.
According to her, for Europe it's been a "complete disaster, blood, chaos, carnage”:
. . .
We in Britain look at the disaster of Angela Merkel saying 'come one, come all' and what that's actually meant, is that there are no real refugees.
The criminal attacks, the massacres that were carried out in Brussels and in Belgium, carried out by young men who have mostly just abandoned their women folk and abandoned their families. Young men of fighting age who’ve literally stormed into Europe and pretty much taken it over.„
There isn't any distinction between Mensch and Trump on any issue except Russia. Given that why do you still think she is a source that you want to follow and post on DU? Would you also give the same consideration to David Duke? The list of lies (like the debunked statement on Brussels and Belgium attacks) are so extensive and yet DUers, like yourself find her "interesting", want to "take them" and give her credit if one of the thousands of things she said a year ago turns out to be valid.
Finally the corollary is that you said that you do not consider Nance a scholar. Why? You thought about that before you wrote it and you gave it weight when you typed it out. What is the reason that you do not consider Nance a scholar? Is it because of his race? Do you have any other substantive reason to, in your opinion, given the lengthy peer review acceptance of his work detailed above to claim that Malcolm Nance is not a scholar?
At no point have I "told you how to live your life" or tell you who you "should read".
You can continue to read Mensch, David Duke or Donald Trump for all I care but give them a pat on the back and I will respond.
I spent 10 years in refugee camps, everyone in my family was born outside of the US including two undocumented son in laws. If you want to give a pat on the back to one of the voices that want to destroy my family and the values of inclusion and support of refugees you can expect that I will spend the time to hold you responsible for "supporting" "finding interesting" "take them" for someone that is attacking immigrants, refugee, the poor, besides being a well documented liar.
flying_wahini
(6,606 posts)She usually is pretty close.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)peggysue2
(10,832 posts)Well said, RA.
triron
(22,007 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)Be sure not to let grantcart know. He'll chew your ass, and won't let go no matter fucking what.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)delivered notice of Impeachment to Trump?
Mensch is a loon. She made hundreds of predictions and pronouncements.
The fact that a few of them might, eventually, turn out to somewhat resemble what actually happens is nothing more than luck.
Throw enough shit against the wall, somethings bound to stick.
Sid
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I'll point out this Jan. 2017 article on motherboard
The Data That Turned the World Upside Down
How Cambridge Analytica used your Facebook data to help the Donald Trump campaign in the 2016 election.
This article was originally published January 28, 2017.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win
---
She is a self-promoter and is retweeting something that was common knowledge among many here and other well-informed people.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)said 'oh that has nothing to do with Trump and the Russian'. She has been right.
Thekaspervote
(32,778 posts)If you don’t like her... then I say don’t read the posts that make reference to her. Stop picking!!!
peggysue2
(10,832 posts)Which is why I don't get into debates over Louise Mensch anymore. We're all adults who can choose to read who and what we want and take everything we read with a grain of salt. Or not.
She's definitely become a lightning rod for some. That's okay, too. Reader's choice.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)This is not intended as hostile in the least bit - just a point. I have never seen her come out with specifics: Who, what, when, where, and why? Dropping a quick tweet that “X is trolling at Y!” is not real journalism - it’s playing whack-a-mole in anticipation of a lucky guess.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Her sentiment on refugees, migrants and minorities doesn't differ from Donald Trump or David Duke
Its kind of like Trump saying "not every one on the other side is bad", not everything she is says is bad just some of it.
We should just ignore her racist points and embrace those few posts out of a hundred where she appears to validate something we want validated (and in so doing she would be so grateful if you would contribute to her patribotics.com site).
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)Notice how she said “AT Cambridge,” like it was the school. I don’t believe Cambridge Analytica has any association with Cambridge the university.
She throws out such generalities that she’s bound to get “semi-correct” hits like this. That’s how psychics operate. She’s a con artist.
Stallion
(6,476 posts)he is the central figure in the development of the strategy to mine information
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)If you need to go into “X worked there once!” then it isn’t valid. It’s no different than saying, “Ah, yes! My grandfather used to have a favorite chair! What a great psychic!”
If this is not an official Cambridge institution, then it absolutely did not exist AT Cambridge!
If there were Russian trolls at Cambridge, who were they? What department were they in? How were they found out? Who were their contacts? How and where did they troll, etc. etc. There are so many unanswered questions about her statement that it’s useless. Imagine if CNN said, “there are Russian trolls at Yale!” and refused to elaborate? That’s not real journalism - it’s a game of blind-folded throwing darts.
Beware of charlatans who try to sound legitimate. There are so many of them on Twitter. I’ll take Mensch seriously when she operates in specifics, not broad statements. Remember: Who, what, where, when, and why? Anything else is not worth your time.
Stallion
(6,476 posts)Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)Cambridge Analytica is a private company, and is the result of the Mercer family, Bannon, etc. To say that it is the brainchild of Cambridge University is like saying a rogue Russian scientist who builds a nuke is representing Russia. Here is a nice (NYT) overview:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html
I would not doubt his colleagues are upset at the way he used his research. It’s highly unethical! Your own article explains their complaints as well.
To use him as proof of “Russian trolls at Cambridge,” though, really is a massive reach.
FakeNoose
(32,645 posts)It's clear that at least some of her sources work undercover and she can't reveal everything she's given. But often the hints and incomplete stories she publishes, turn out to be true and substantiated by mainstream media somewhat later.
The same can be said for Malcolm Nance. Nance has sources that he can't reveal, but we believe that he tries very hard to report only things that he knows to be true. For all we know, Mensch and Nance may be working with some of the same sources, and maybe they aren't even aware of it. But there seems to be some rivalry between the two. I don't know either of these people and I don't have any personal attachments to the espionage underground. If anybody on DU has any inside information that they can share, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it and like to read it.
But on the other hand, I don't think we need to participate in these snide back-biting comments from the fanboys either. Let's just take a breath and step back from this OKay?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)I think it is also a word in Yiddish also meaning a human being.
I think it is used in some circles very commonly to mean a very human being. There is a sort of connotation to it that goes beyond just "person." I can't explain this really well.
But "Mensch" has a special meaning. Sort of like "mankind."
Remember, in German, the pronouns reflect gender even more than ours do in English.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)she has my respect. She might be inelegant in her presentations and so far ahead of the curve that no one can see the oncoming train, but she has been throwing out signal flares for a long while.
