Sunday, September 13, 2009

Is Markos Moultisas (Kos of DailyKos) Really Latino/Hispanic?

Moulitsas Says His Attitude Toward Latinos and Hispanics is "detached selfishness".

Although articles written and published by Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) at his alma mater, in the Northern Illinois University (NIU) student newspaper, the "Northern Star", all disappeared from their archives two weeks after I first published some their despicable contents, they now seem to be available again, (search archives here) but with new and different http addresses.

MAMZ claims that he was an important Latino leader at Northern Illinois University, but there is no evidence whatsover to support that claim in the archives of the student newspaper. In fact, I have read every single article there mentioning the name "Moulitsas" (some two or three dozen articles if memory serves me) and not one article at his college newspaper, written by Moulitsas or anyone else, reports that Moulitsas took part in ANY Latinos student activities at all. He was far more concerned with publicly essaying against ALL participation of gays in the US military.

Among the two or three dozen article that carry his name, not a single one reflects the student involvement in favor of Latinos in which Moulitsas he participated. As Fritz Mondale said in a debate with Gary Hart in 1984, "where's the beef?" Where's the evidence?

In fact, the evidence that is available in the NIU archives proves exactly the opposite about MAMZ's claims. After writing a string of articles about "racism", which was a task to which he was involuntarily assigned, he wrote in an opinion piece at NIU,

I was terribly happy to escape the ugliness of a racist world for the safety of my every day-to-day life. Sure, I could always talk against racism, fight ignorance and prejudice wherever I ran into it, yet I would always be looking in from another room and I could always close the door. My life, in my world, in my own detached selfishness.

And as I left the ugly reality of racism behind, it struck me that what was such an easy and trivial exercise for me would be impossible for anyone whose skin color or religious persuassion made them the target of bigotry and discrimination. They would never be able to escape who they were.

Since the articles Moulitsas wrote were about Latinos and Blacks on campus, and since he refers to them as "they", while stating in unambiguous terms that he can and does escape from the "racism" that effects other, by leaving them behind, he is quite clearly disclaiming any public identity or role as a Latino.

Today, when people point out that MAMZ never addresses issues specifically affecting Latinos, and that only 1% of participants at DailyKos are Latino, MAMZ's defenders point out that he is Latino himself, as if his DNA prevents him from ignoring people from El Salvador. We all know from the Clarence Thomas example that no one can conclusively determine another's political orientation strictly on the basis of his skin color or geographical heritage.

Those who have not read the two paragraphs above, or who choose to ignore them, insist that MAMZ cannot be anti-Latino or averse to Latino progress, because he is Latino himself. Moulitsas, however, considers himselt to be a white man who can and does escape "in detached selfishness".

There is considerably more discussion of this topic in my article entitled, "Markos Moulitsas: A Lifetime of Insensitivity to Democratic Party Constituencies."


socrates said...

Hiya Francis. Good stuff from you as usual.

If you look into Brad Friedman's past, there are a lot of tinfoil hoaxes to be seen. My opinion is that Brad is a disinfo spook who receives a paycheck to spread bullshite. I see no other explanation since figuring out his deep ties to the Speedway Bomber and after taking a real look at his website, its history, and Brad's close ties to other dubious bullshiters, many of whom have been posting on so-called progressive outlets.

He's closely tied to Larisa Alexandrovna. She is in love with Larry Johnson, a "former" CIA shitehead. Brad is also tied to Tinoire of Progressive Independent, a domain affiliated with Brad's and Brett Kimberlin's Velvet Revolution. Tinoire has been supported by Wayne Madsen, an alleged former NSA employee. Tinoire herself once claimed that she was in military intelligence. She proclaims herself as being a lefty, but she has supported Ron Paul. She has supported Michael Rivero and anti-semitism. Rivero used to work for McDonnell Douglas, the largest military contractor at that time. Many of Brad's regulars like to link to tinfoil extraordinaire Alex Jones. This whole enterprise has often been described as being right wooing left.

Now Brad is pimping out more Sibel Edmonds bullcrapola. He's saying look at how a conservative paper is churning out info concerning her truthiness. And fancy how this new article is written by yet another former intelligence officer.

I admit I'm somewhat burnt out from trying to expose disinfo shenanigans on the internet. I also no longer think Sibel Edmonds is pretty. The word frumpy now comes to mind.

Hmmm. Check this out. Larisa Alexandrovna made a post at Daily Kos and someone named Guy Caballero took her to task for her nonsense. That guy Guy is one clever focker. I wonder who he is. [/Dr. Evil pinkie to the side of mouth]

socrates said...

Oops, I forgot to mention that Brad recently did a radio interview with another former CIA arse, Ray McGovern, who claims that Obama and Panetta may be afraid of being assassinated by the CIA. Oh yeah, let's believe everything that former intelligence officers say. Not. And I think this is tied in somehow with Moulitsas' claims of how wonderful the CIA is. It goes back to the illegal war in Iraq. It goes to plausible deniability. Was it the CIA's fault? Was it the Bush Administrations' fault? How 'bout those fockers are all on the same team, just like Buckner, Stanley, and Schiraldi gift wrapped the 1986 World Series for the New York Mets.

socrates said...

Francis, I was wondering if I could get your take on something. I have often used the word spook to describe intelligence creeps. Yet, the word is also used by some as a racial epithet. So should one not use the word at all? Another word thrown around a lot in the past has been the word monkey. That's the one that you got called during your end days at DKOS. Some of them tried to make it seem that it had nothing to do with racism, but I think they just said that as some form of plausible deniability. Now while I do think there is less racism today than at any other point in our history, that America has become more classist than racist, I still think it's better to stay on the side of political correctness than to think everything is now hunky dory. So I do get a bit distressed when I hear sports guys using the word boy too often. Myself, I always have liked the word spook. I always thought it primarily referred to CIA types. But now years later, I kind of feel some perhaps white guilt or confusion over myself using the term. I guess I'm not even really asking for your opinion, for even then it will be like I am asking the black guy for his take. Ugh. See what I mean? But anyway, I'm not trying to bust your chops or make you feel uncomfortable, and I am grateful to yourself for having attempted to be a mainstream blogger at Kos, and for your subsequent exposing of Moulitsas after that domain unfairly kicked you to the curb. You are a true hero. Peace and fond wishes from some nobody white dude from Massachusetts.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Socrates, I have to say that I don't like the term "tinfoil" because it serves to ridicule assertions without offering any information that disproves them.

For example, the Townhouse Group is an example of a well-known conspiracy by CIA-trained Markos Moulitsas and co-conspirators to control information within and among blogs. If you say at these blogs that the Townhouse Group exists, and explain its purposes, someone will say that you are inherently insane because you believe in conspiracies. Well, Federal juries must suffer temporary insanity sometimes because they regularly find people guilty of conspiracy.

As for whether to use the word "spook" or not, I prefer to say what I mean in as clear a manner as possible. That's why this blog is called "Truth About Kos". The name states succinctly what you can expect to find at this blog.

I refer to Markos Moulitsas as a CIA "supporter and agent or asset", because he acknowledges that he spent two years training with the CIA to be, in his own words, a "secret agent".

There's no need or value for me to call Kos a "spook", using epithets can distract people from the proof you have to offer, and can lead people to believe that you are too emotionally involved to present the facts objectively.

If you believe you have evidence that leads YOU to believe that someone may be a secret agent, then just say, "The evidence below leads me to believe that "X" may be a secret agent." Keep it simple and clear.

There's no point in alienating people you are trying to convince by using epithets that are emotionally charged. If you've got your facts in order, then the facts alone will do the job that you are trying to accomplish through epithets.

In the run-up to the 2008 election cycle, I wrote incessantly about the importance of ending the "43-term white male monopoly of the presidency". I was describing the circumstances with very specific and truthful terms, but the truth indicted some people and they didn't like that.

socrates said...

Thanks for the response. I respectfully disagree with the use of the term tinfoil. I think it is quite useful. I do acknowledge your point, however. There are people I have referred to as JREF debunker cultists. They will debunk anything and everything, from the grassy knoll to the moon landings being faked. The former is a realistic theory of where certain shots were fired at John Kennedy. The latter appears to be a ridiculous subject. I completely see your point. However, I believe outrageous ideas are planted in an attempt to conflate all mysteries into the one term of tinfoil. It's tinfoil by association. Your example of the Townhouse memo is perfect. I researched that a bit, and in I found that Markos Moulitsas had told his network of "liberal advertiser" bloggers to starve the oxygen out of the Jerome Armstrong story. A reporter could investigate this and see that Kos truly wrote that letter. Or there's the example of myself going to DKos as LetTheSunShine and Guy Caballero. Markos Moulitsas did say what he did at the Commonwealth Club shindig. Yet, the responses to my diaries indicated that DKos is rigged. The predictable cries of tinfoil were the response. Yet, the truth is that Markos is a supporter of the CIA. He and a bunch of others are trying to rehabilitate an organsation that should be disbanded along with the NSA and the other military intelligence divisions. Obama has announced the end of the Star Wars defense initiative. That is a good start. But we need the military industrial complex budget slashed to the bare bones. We need to invest in humanity, not the death industry. As for the use of the word spook, I like it in regards to describing intelligence agents. I don't care anymore what people think. The closed-minded are going to call us conspiracy theorists no matter what. Those who agree with us are censored at the major forums. Cointelpro was real. Anyone who doesn't think there is a form of it on the internet is naive at best. My hope is some intrepid reporter gets off his or her ass and breaks this story. Otherwise, like you have said before, this will all be told in the history books at some later point.

I don't believe that the greedy people will always control the world. I believe good will eventually triumph over evil.

I have compiled tons of proof of internet fakery and of the affiliations among all the major players. You are commended for figuring out the Moulitsas connection. Yet, he is only a part of it. He has been neutralised, in great part due to your efforts. Yet so have many more disinformation specialists such as Michael Rivero. He worked for McDonnell fricken Douglas. I can tie him to BradBlog and many others. It's called right woos left. It's all about tinfoil by association and raising the noise to signal ration. Everything about internet fakery has been figured out. It just hasn't been televised or reported on in a major paper, just like with your story.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Socrates, you should publish, at your own blog, (perhaps at a new blog for this particular purpose) all of the facts that you've found, particularly the ones that you can prove. And provide copious links that people can follow.

It would be useful to me to have a flow chart of what you've found, with links to prove each of the connections in the flowchart.

Most of what people come to the Truth About Kos to read and get links is based on research I did in 2007. I'm too disgusted and tired of MAMZ to follow him around and write about his every engagement, except e.g. when he announces that he's offering scholarships to train new bloggers (all white males naturally)(?).

I HAD to report on that because training with a CIA-trained blogger is no better than training directly with the CIA. I didn't want people to be duped.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Socrates, twenty percent of the Democratic Party is Black (the party Moulitsas is trying to influence) and I don't think Black people will hear what you are saying as well if you use the word "spook". I know a Black blogger once referred to me that way and I still don't know whether he was insulting me or not, but I found it offensive.

I'm not going to try to convince you not to use the word "spook" because:

(a) You're going to do whatever you want to do, and

(b) The word "spook" has only appeared 1,640,000 at Google, in its various meanings, over the last year. Meanwhile, the much more problematic word "race" has appeared at Google 470 Million times over the last year to assert a biological fantasy, even though "race" doesn't exist and the concept was created to legitimize the subjugation of Blacks and exaltation (sp?)of whites.

So, "race" is a much more damaging word and concept to be using in the 21st century, and I'm going to focus my linguistic efforts where I think they can do the most good: spreading the word that, as a matter of science, "race" does not exist, and the continued use of the word is for the purpose of propagating the belief that whites and Blacks are fundamentally different and that whites are superior.

You only have to visit the Stormfront.Com website to see how the concept of "race" is essential to their belief that they are superior, even though more recent science has proved that "race" does not exist.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

By the way, Socrates, you're making a lot of allegations about people's relationships to each other without providing any citations. Your word is not good enough for me, and neither is anyone else's.

I am not going to spread rumors about anyone until I have satisfied myself that the rumors are absolutely true. And in the Internet age, that requires citation to somene who know, and who can say HOW they know.

Otherwise, what you offer is hearsay, if anyone repeats it, and it's no more useful than gossip, which doesn't interest me, unless it can be shown that it's related to an underlying important truth.

Gossip is only useful as a source of tips to research and prove or disprove.

At this blog, I don't ask anyone to believe any fact "just because I say so." I want to provide links and encourage people to read the facts for themselves.

If the truth can only be shown by connecting the dots, then I want to provide links to the dots that people need to connect.

It's like the Twin Towers 9-11 story. The 9-11 people do not ask you to believe their speculation about who took down the towers. They just offer convincing scientific proof that the towers did not and could not have falled for the reasons and in the way that the US Government and the Commission told us.

Who DID take down the towers and why is a matter that no one has proved conclusively, and so there is only circumstantial evidence.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program:

"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."

In other words, the Human Genome Project has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call "race" does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to "race" are references to a fallacy.

socrates said...

From what I now know about the word spook, I am not going to use it anymore.

As for your claims that I am spreading opinion or rumours as fact, I respectfully disagree. I have proven my allegations elsewhere. If you have a specific question about any of my claims, then I will provide you the proof. Otherwise, I refuse to reinvent the wheel. I don't make one cent from blogging.

You don't seem to have any awareness of propaganda disinfo circulated by many in the so-called truth movement. I am not going to do anyone's homework. You seem fixated on this one guy Moulitsas and are missing the forest for a big tree.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...


I'm glad you're not going to use the "S" word. I think it'll make whatever you write much easier to understand and agree with.

You said that you've proved your assertions "elsewhere". Where is that "elsewhere"? Can you provide readers with one or more links? If not, readers won't know what to make of your assertions.

If you've got some scoops, I'd love to link to them, but most of the time I can't, because I don't have any links. I did link to your article at DailyKos, because I knew where to find it and I thought it was important for people to read what you had written as well as the idiotic comments that talked about everything EXCEPT the substance of what you had said.

I personally think that's psy-ops technique that Moulitsas learned during his two years training at the CIA, but I don't have an evidence of that. I don't think ANYONE knows exactly what Moulitsas learned at the CIA or how, specifically, he's using it now.

My sense (and you can read the "Townhouse" article at SourceWatch for more information) is that he's doing what CIA agents do overseas: developing contacts throughout the area to which they are assigned; gathering information; strategically spreading misinformation or ideas that have strategic value if believed; and developing assets that the CIA can count on when they need to make a move.

His yearly conference and training scholarships, the Townhouse group, and his books all serve these purposes and increase his personal wealth at the same time.

Am I fixated on MAMZ? Readers can decide, and they can decide whether my attention to him has born unexpected and even shocking fruit. Readers can decide whether they get something out of my attention to MAMZ.

What I can say if that if you Google Moulitsas and CIA (and even limit your search to the last year, after the whole Valerie Plame thing) then you'll find 44,300 hits in English alone, in the last year. That tells me that the information at Truth About Kos has been "sticky", "viral" and has been cited in a whole lot of other places. Everyone who wants to know knows about MAMZ's contact with the CIA.

However, I also have blogs called, "Truth About McCain,", the Police Brutality (and Atrocity) Blog, Electrocuted While Black, and literally forty-seven other blogs.

I don't know what a "tinfoil hoax" is. Can you explain that to me in a way that even people who never visit blogs would understand?

I think one of the mistakes that we can make is to use vocabulary invented recently in the whitosphere that is based on and false assumptions. Tinfoil is an epithet that really just tells you, "don't believe what so and so is saying," but without giving you any reason or proof why what so and so is saying is false.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

It's like saying that President Obama is of the Black "race." His mother's white, so the assertion that he is of a different "race" from his mother is inherently dubious. It's just pseudo-scientific nonsense. But the other purpose of saying Obama is of the "black race" (they refuse to capitalize the 'B') is to tell white people over and over again that Obama is fundamentally biologically different from them. If you accept to use the word "race" then you have accepted their world view, which is like agreeing to drink lye.

I encourage you to explain what you mean in ways that even someone who has never used a computer can understand.

One of these words is "truthiness". If understand "truthiness", it's saying something that is true but with ulterior motives that are bad. And so the word "truthiness" allows people in the whitosphere to acknowledge the truth and assail the truth, all at once, if the truth doesn't fit their goals.

Another such word is "credibility". It seems to me that bloggers in the whitosphere are more concerned with being perceived as "credible" than they are with telling the truth. And the wish they could discredit truth by assailing the credibility of the person who demonstrates what the truth is. In their twisted minds, you should not believe that 2 plus two makes 4 unless somebody with credibility tells you that it does. The corollary being that if someone with "credibility" tells you that two and two are five, then you can go ahead and believe that because it comes from a good source, even in the face of other evidence that disproves the "credible" assertion.

socrates said...

I didn't realise it was such a bad word. Yes, I knew it was used in other times as a racial epithet, but I've always thought of it as primarily being about spies.

People can get to my forum by clicking on my username. I have a bunch of scoops. I did email you personally about a sophisticated cybersmear script that has been put in place against me. My gut tells me that is a direct result of my scoops. I've been pretty much doing the kind of stuff you have but on different topics. We are considered to be amateur, internet cybersleuths. We are well-educated people. We know academic principles. What we lack in journalism training, we can make up in knowing we must abide to those historical ideals of truth, justice, and the American way. Oops, that's from Superman. But you know what I mean.

The word tinfoil is derived from a specific conspiracy theory, that the evil new world order can zap our brains with mind control rays, but that if we wear a tinfoil hat, we can deflect such rays. It has turned into a catch-all phrase for any kind of idiotic, off-the-wall conspiracy theory. I know not all conspiracy theories are bogus. Some are fact, as in how the Bush Administration lied us into an illegal war. There is also the Townhouse Memo you brought up proving that Kos was trying to control the flow of information on the net. The late David Weintraub proved that the moderating at Daily Kos is a conspiracy with its roots to the very top of the rotting Kos head. What we have experienced and sensed about DKos being a rigged forum, Dave proved.

Truthiness is a word coined by Stephen Colbert. It refers to something that is not true but is presented as fact, like when Bush said we do not torture.

There are always different perspectives to ideas. There is your point that solid ideas are turned into appearing as ridiculous strawmen. Yet, my point also stands that ridiculous tinfoil has been produced. It is muddying the waters 101. It is like when you mention what the CIA/NSA psy-ops might actually look like. Smoke and mirrors. Rabbit holes. Tinfoil. Misdirections. Limited hangouts.

I'll give you one example in response to your wondering about the credibility of people mattering about, as in reputation. On one angle I agree. People like Biko and Mandela had the right idea but were persecuted. The minority idea can be the truth over any consensus among masses of people. The leader of the election integrity movement is someone named Brett Kimberlin. He put Brad Friedman on the map. However, if you look into it, Kimberlin is a conman. He is better known as the Speedway Bomber. Brad Friedman and Kimberlin have been circulating hoaxes for years. Whether they have been doing so for propaganda purposes in addition to looking for money, I don't know. A guy like Michael Rivero is easier to say he is some form of intelligence. I found out that he used to work for McDonnell Douglas, the largest military contractor at that time. He is some kind of film animator or something. He has also claimed to work for NASA. But nowhere has he ever admitted to working for the military contractor. He has been spreading tinfoil for years. You were a big supporter of Clinton. You wouldn't believe the crap he used to circulate about Bill Clinton. He's also closely affiliated to neo-nazis. One person he is affiliated to is Tinoire from Progressive Independent. Guess who she is affiliated to? Among others, she is affiliated with Brett Kimberlin. A couple months back I found her saying she used to work for military intelligence. One won't find her saying that anywhere else. Now why are all these military-industrial complex employees ending up in positions of power on the net. I don't think it is a coincidence. I smell rats in the kitchen. What we gonna do? That's from a reggae tune, if it sounds familiar. My main point is it does matter who we associate with. I believe we need clean elections, but I don't want these confidence men in charge of some fake movement whether it is cointelpro-like or just scamming.

Anonymous said...