Friday, March 12, 2010

Objectivo Challenges MAMZ's CIA Roots At DailyKos

Yesterday, a writer who goes by the name "Objectivo" pointed out to DailyKos MAMZ minions that their fearless "leftist leader" was also a two-year CIA trainee. It's worth noting that MAMZ has acknowledged that he was in training to be a CIA agent, 2001 - 2003, at the very time in 2002 when he founded DailyKos.

Now, look at the comments to the diary, made inevitably by MAMZ minions. None of the deal directly, meaningfully or seriously with the fact that MAMZ is a CIA-trained leftist, which is an oxymoron, an internally impossible contradiction. In an audiotaped interview, MAMZ tries to rationalize his contention that he was trained by the CIA to be an anti-establishment leftist. Listen to what he says. No one who has listened to it thinks it makes any sense whatever. It doesn't make sense for two simple reasons: It's not true and it's utterly impossible for it to be true.

Some people wonder why I insist on referring to Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga according to his initials, "M.A.M.Z." Although MAMZ hates to hear anyone refer to his Spanish-language surname "Zuniga," that's perfectly understandable because the name connects him directly to the Salvadoran oligarchy family into which he was born.

MAMZ says that he was born into a family that was "not wealthy or influential" and yet the manager of his "family hotel," who shares MAMZ's last name, is listed in this online book, an international who's who, as the president of the Association of Salvadoran Hotels and president of the Salvadoran National Tourism Board. The unavoidable truth is that MAMZ is a liar.

So, who are those idiots at DailyKos who laughingly deride substantive and fundamental criticisms of MAMZ? Who trained them to all laugh and joke all at once when someone, anyone writes and publishes a diary at DailyKos that critically addresses the forbidden subjects MAMZ, Israel, 9-11 and coordinated activities that constitute conspiracies, which is defined at Merriam Websters dictionary as follows:

1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators

One need only look at all of the idiotic, derogatory, threatening and off-topic responses to Objectivos diary to see that there is an ongoing "plot" to discourage, intimidate, threaten and ultimately ban those who challenge the site's owner's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency. Remember that, as defined above, a "plot" need not be illegal to constitute a conspiracy.

The word "conspiracy" is six hundred years old (see above), and yet DailyKos insists that the word no longer has relevance in the context of today's CIA operations and, in particular, the super-secretive Townhouse Group whose purpose is to coordinate, mold and lead the messaging in the whitosphere without publicly acknowledging their conspiracy, or the effects that it has on the blog world. See "CIA-Trained Blogger [MAMZ] Disbursing Money to "Progressives."

Returning to the discussion of Objectivo's diary that was ridiculed at DK, it apparently is entirely permissible for MAMZ to confess to this covert behavior of training with the CIA (he never told us until 2006 that he was at the CIA in 2002. when he started DailyKos). But it is impermissible to discusses these bizarre facts are at DK, whatever these astounding discoveries ultimately include as the blogworld discusses and researches the facts more.

Although MAMZ confesses to fact that utterly undermines his credibility as a leftist, this fact cannot be meaningfully discussed at DailyKos or at any other of what I call the "MAMZ minion" blogs. These are (typically) whitosphere blogs such as MyDD, whose owner MAMZ refers to as "the blogfather." At such blogs, reporting and discussing negative facts about MAMZ is considered "troll-like behavior." Research and reporting are troll-like, while joining a mass idiots who deny the significance of CIA infiltration of the left is considered "troll-like."

Many bloggers ignore DailyKos and its fellow MAMZ-minion blogs precisely because readers quickly realize these are part of a fake Alice in Wonderland version of online communication and activism.

Are they all doing so spontaneously, or is it a subtle message to others at the blog that they must not try to have a serious conversation, because anyone who takes the facts seriously will be banned from participation?

That's how it works over at DK, and the comments to the above-linked diary prove it. If they all endeavor to evade, mock and ridicule the truth simultaneously, does that constitute a conspiracy? I think it does.

No comments: