Blogs That Don't Print the Truth About Kos Must Be Controlled By Kos

The news that the most well-known blogger in the pseudo-progressive blogosphere spent six months training(?) at the CIA is certainly shocking. It goes to the foundation of what the blogosphere is about and what prospects it offers for real change. And yet, some blogosphere outlets have NEVER printed a single story about this news and have banned writers who have done so.

There can only be one reason for ostensibly leftist blogs failing to print the shocking news about Kos. Those blogs punishing writers for publishing this information are controlled formally or informally, directly or indirectly, by Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) and, perhaps, by those to whom MAMZ reports, if indeed he still maintains some variant of whatever relationship he had during the six months he spent at the CIA in 2001.

And yet, there are many, many blogs in the pseudo-progressive blogosphere that have a policy of discouraging criticism of ex(?) CIA contact MAMZ. I have been banned from MyLeftWing, Culture Kitchen, MyDD, MyBlueMass, As Ohio Goes, and Blue New Hampshire for publishing negative information about Kos.

Is there any good reason why we should refrain from publishing negative information about a pseudo-progressive who opposed gays in the military, supported Ronald Reagan, supported George H.W.Bush, tolerates and encourages misogyny at his blog, and still supports "states rights," which is an ideology also advanced by the Klu Klux Klan?

Is DailyKos a White Supremacist Group?

Why in the world would we want to refrain from "Kos-bashing"? We should be bashing MAMZ just as furiously as Germans should have bashed Hitler when Hitler was trying to take over the world.

Does that sound alarmist? When David Duke, the KKK leader, was running for president, he too was an advocate of "states rights," just like Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga. If you think the United States has become a dictatorship with George W. Bush in power, then just imagine what it would be like if Markos Moulitsas or David Duke came to power.

When I see ANY leader acting like Adolph Hitler, I say, "Never Again!"

Any blog or news outlet that steadfastly refuses to report the Truth About Kos must be an "asset" of Kos or influenced by Kos.

Is Daily Kos a CIA operation to control the opposition?

The Truth About Kos is gaining traction, because the truth is mightier than the Kos. And you can tell which websites are "assets" of Kos because they are the ones that steadfastly refuse to post the news that Kos spent six months at the CIA simultaneously with starting DailyKos. I found the following article over at Conceptual Guerrilla, which clearly is NOT a member of the DailyKos family of "assets." "Assets?" Maybe only metaphorically. Yes, let's see. Who are the closest blogosphere associates of Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga?

Submitted by Pen on Tue, 2007-08-14 19:36. Hat tip to Capital Grilling

Is Daily Kos a CIA operation
to control the opposition?

Outrageous? Not quite so much after you consider the fact that Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, or Kos, worked for the CIA.

In an article that didn't surprise me at all entitled Daily Kos: CIA Engineered Controlled Opposition? , I find out that Kos was in the employ of the CIA.

“In a one-hour interview on June 2, 2006 at the Commonwealth Club, Moulitsas, also known as ‘Kos,’ admitted that he was a CIA employee and would have ‘no problem working for them’ in the present.”

“I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services,” Moulitsas admits in the interview. “And it was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off and I had to make a decision whether I was gonna kinda join the Howard Dean campaign, that whole process, or was I was going to become a spy. (Laughter in the audience.) It was going to be a tough decision at first, but then the CIA insisted that if, if I joined that, they’d want me to do the first duty assignment in Washington, DC, and I hate Washington, DC. Six years in Washington, DC [inaudible] that makes the decision a lot easier.”

So he worked in the CIA right up until Deans campaign took off. His website, btw, had ALREADY taken off long before Deans campaign did. Meaning he set up the Daily Kos while he was with the CIA. I was there when Deans campaign got going and the Daily Kos was about as anti-Dean a crowd to run with as you could find. Markos didn't do much to support Dean on his website. Kinda strange if you ask me. Well, maybe not when you consider how the place has been run from day one.

Markos is an ex-Republican who professes to be a libertarian who set up his website to be a Democratic Party only website and who worked and possibly still does work for the CIA. What effect has the Daily Kos had on the political scene?

First off the site forbids any diaries that can be considered "conspiracy theory". A rather broad definition the effect of which is to shut down any talk of 9-11 and even other potentially explosive topics.

The site is about electing Democrats only. It's about maintaining the status quo. In 2004 that meant they were behind Kerry and Dean supporters were snubbed without mercy. It's Dems first, what the candidate stands for second. Is it any wonder, therefore, that people like Webb who got elected because of DKos support, then turn around and pass the new FISA bill? Progressives get spat on if they try to primary a centrist Democrat. The tide is turning against the DLC, but Daily Kos only hinders that tide with its Democrat first policy.

The other effect of the Daily Kos has already been touched upon here by none other than Conceptual Guerilla himself when he wrote Fuck Daily Kos!.

Here’s the bottom line -- the realization I had as a result of this. There is nothing particularly important or useful going on there -- other than assembling a group of leftwing lemmings, only distinguishable from the lemmings over at Little Green Footballs by the pitch of the dog whistle they respond to. There are “activists” exactly to the extent that they can be motivated by those dog whistles to “make noise” in response to the stimulus. Don't get me wrong, there are some original and interesting individuals around, but they mostly fail to connect with the community as a whole. Meanwhile, original and interesting writers at other places are dying out.

And that's the point, isn't it? The CIA wants to maintain the status quo. Elect Dems, just don't elect progressive ones. And while we're at it, let's direct all online progressive traffic into our little website here and make all the other websites that we don't control dry up.

Here's the thing, I don't think people get. The days of the "wide open" blogosphere are over. If you weren't on the ground floor 3 or 4 years ago, you missed the boat. Today, a half a dozen blogs dominate the market, and it's damn hard to write your way in. A lot of good writers out there have given up.

As for Kos, he's not helping. His site is a mini version of the same phenomenon. A handful of folks who got in early dominate that market, and he won't open up the place to allow some other talent to emerge. The result are a lot of writers over there who can't any traction, simply because they can't get any visibility.

Which is exactly the way the CIA wants it. Because if enough voices are drowned out, no one will realize they're being had on both ends, Democrat and Republican.

And it's no coincidence that Kos repeats the corporate talking points whenever possible. Not blatant ones, but ones that the left still buy into. Like how he reinforced the notion that Chaves gave himself dictatorial powers.

I have no love for Chavez. Despite his populist record, he's also given himself dictatorial powers usurping his nation's courts and legislature.

Nevermind, as I pointed out, that

ummm, about those "dictatorial powers"

It's their nations tradition to allow their president a period during which he has an incredible level of control. Chavez was given those same "dictatorial powers" by the government in his previous term as well. He didn't abuse them. They are temporary powers granted to every Venezuelan president. Why they do that I have no frickking clue, but no one claimed the capitalist presidents before him were "Dictatorial".

And let's not forget that he didn't "give himself" those powers, the congress did. As they've done before.

Tell me, does THIS sound like the talk of a liberal leaning libertarian?

Moulitsas considers the CIA “a very liberal institution,” never mind the agency, according to John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola (see my John Stockwell: The Third World War video), is responsible for killing more than six million people.

This is a very liberal institution. And in a lot of ways, it really does attract people who want to make a better, you know, want to make the world a better place…. Of course, they’ve got their Dirty Ops and this and that, right but as an institution itself the CIA is really interested in stable world. That’s what they’re interested in. And stable worlds aren’t created by destabilizing regimes and creating wars…. I don’t think it’s a very partisan thing to want a stable world. And even if you’re protecting American interests, I mean that can get ugly at times, but generally speaking I think their hearts in the right place. As an organization their heart is in the right place. I’ve never had any problem with the CIA. I’d have no problem working for them.

An ex-Republican, left-leaning libertarian calls the CIA "liberal"? It's like finding that piece of the jigsaw puzzle that snaps into place and then everything else suddenly makes perfect sense. Of course DKOS is drying up the blogosphere of writers. Of course frontpagers like Miss Laura are defending Hillary Clinton with polls from Fox News. Of course they rip into anyone who says Nader was right about Dems and Repugs being identical. Of course they're Dem first, progressives, well, if you don't vote Dem you'll get a Repug. Beware the boogey Repug man! Of course they were all about Kerry and putting down Dean despite the fact that Kos alleges it was the Dean campaign that made him not join the CIA.

Yet if he HAD become a spy he wouldn't out himself would he?

Of course they want to control both sides, that's what they're all about.

Freedom of Speech: How Long Until It's Gone?

This excellent and supportive article
courtesy of Dave J.'s Wandering Ether blog.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Freedom of Speech:
How Long Until It is Gone?

Freedom of speech is constantly under attack these days. Whether we link this slow erosion of our civil liberties to the Bush administration's Patriot Act, Incumbent Protection Act, or the recent executive order that bans any protests aimed at the war in Iraq, it all boils down to one thing; with each passing day Americans are losing their right to speak freely.

In spite of these circumstances, bloggers have held fast to their beliefs, and continued to speak out against tyranny and injustice. Well, most bloggers that is. As Liberal Journal Man points out through his article Censorship In The Blogosphere, there is a dangerous game of censorship and denial being played at the moment, involving websites that call themselves liberal, and claim to be progressive.

Most notably, sites such as Daily Kos and My Left Wing have engaged in the suppression of opinions pertaining to certain realities they do not find appropriate, or don't conform with their view of the world. Noteworthy bloggers, who have been willing to voice these truths have had their comments systematically deleted, and, as was the case with Francis L. Holland, been banned.

When blogs like the Daily Kos reach such high profile notoriety that they are featured on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report in relation to catching heat on The O'Reilly Factor, I understand the reasoning behind their concern for maintaining the integrity of their sites, however, they seem to be forgetting something of great importance. Free speech is an integral component of progressive culture.

When I consider that in many cases, the Daily Kos / My Left Wing supporters have come out in droves to tar and feather anyone who goes against the grain, or who dares to speak the truth that others fear to mention, I am reminded of a line of dialog taken from a certain George Lucas film: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

If you consider yourself a liberal progressive blogger, please take a moment to read Censorship In The Blogosphere.

Editor's Note: Thanks, Dave J. The truth is mightier than the KOS.

Is DailyKos a White Supremacist Group?

"I hate using the word 'diversity.'" --
Jina Cooper, Coordinator of YearlyKos 2007.

During the 2007 DailyKos annual conference in August, Washington Post staff writer Jose Antonio Vargas confirmed that YearlyKos was a "Sea of Middle-Aged White Males." In that article, Democratic activist Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, who is part Latina, said one reason she went to Yearly Kos was to get an answer to this question: "Why is the blogosphere, which is supposed to be more democratic, reinforcing the same white male power structure that exists?"

Alarmed observers within the Democratic Party have observed the statistical anomaly of a group that is 96% white in the Democratic Party where Blacks alone account for 20% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. An internal poll at DailyKos revealed that only 2.5% of participants are Black. Why would a group that calls itself "progressive" nonetheless remain virtually all-white in the midst of the Democratic Party?

Whites at DailyKos insist that the lack of Black and Latino members is accidental, and the result of lack of interest by Blacks or lack of broadband access. Yet, one Black lawyer and Democratic activist who was banned from DailyKos was able to set up a group of Black bloggers that now has sixty members after only four months, virtually none of whom is willing to participate at the all-white DailyKos, because of the group's white supremacist reputation among Black blogger. "AfroSpear members tell me that any attempts to participate in DailyKos will be a waste of time," said Francis L. Holland, who participated in the formation of the AfroSpear back in April of this year.

In spite of the constant criticism, MAMZ avoids discussion the problem in public. When a reporter asked if DailyKos led to increased fragmentation within the Democratic Party, MAMZ insisted that the blog brings Democratic constituencies together, but didn't even mention minorities like Blacks and Latinos when naming the constituencies. "You had the environmentalists in one corner, and the women's groups in another, and labor in yet another group . . . we're all at the same table." MAMZ acknowledges that DailyKos is "quite a brutal place," and one kind of brutality practiced there is the constant use of skin-color-associated and gender slurs. Explaining how the group maintains its all-white character without specifically announcing that it is for whites only, Francis L. Holland said,

As soon as [Blacks] learn that people present would EVER use [words like "jigaboo and the "N" word], we know we are not in an environment that will be conducive to our participation. In the last month, the "N" word has been used 112 times in comments at DailyKos, while the "jigaboo" word has been used forty-three times in comments over the last quarter. Francis L. Holland

One AfroSpear blogger compares DailyKos and Yearly Kos to the Klu Klux Klan-connected White Citizens Kouncils that engaged in the lynching of Blacks in the Deep South. The African American Political Pundit (AAPP) calls DailyKos "lilly white" and "a 21st century White Citizens YearlyKouncil."

Although an obscure reference for many white people, the name "White Citizen's Council" is used among Blacks as a warning that the whites at DailyKos may be akin to supporters of the Klu Klux Klan and other white supremacists groups:

The roots of the CCC rest in white opposition to integration during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The group is a successor to the Citizens' Councils of America (originally configured as the White Citizens' Councils), an overtly racist organization formed in the 1950s in reaction to the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation. Trumpeting the "Southern way of life," the CCA used a traditionalist rhetoric that appealed to better-mannered, more discreet racists; while the Klan burned crosses, the CCA relied on political and economic pressure.

The first Citizens Council was founded on July 11, 1954, in Indianola, Mississippi, by Robert B. Patterson (a current member of the CCC and former editor of its publication, The Citizens Informer). It formed committees that screened local political candidates to ensure they viewed "the negro vote" with appropriate disapproval, promoted "the advantages of segregation and the dangers of integration" and coordinated the application of economic pressure.

The organization grew quickly, attracting members from across the South and beyond; by August 1955, Patterson's membership list exceeded 60,000 people and included 253 Councils. In August 1956, Citizens' Councils in 30 states came together to form the Citizens' Councils of America. Its goals were to preserve the "natural rights" of racial separation and "the maintenance of our States' Rights to regulate public health, morals, marriage, education, peace and good order in the States, under the Constitution of the United States."

The CCA tried to recruit public and civic leaders for membership. Organizers wanted to demonstrate that their views represented those of the modern and mainstream white South, not those of a rural, uneducated fringe. For the most part, its publicists avoided the coarser formulations of race-hatred associated with such groups as the Klan, but the white supremacy of the Council movement was nonetheless unmistakable and unapologetic. ADL

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League calls the White Citizens Council "considerably more polished than traditional extremist groups," and therefore able to integrate more easily than the Klu Klux Klan could into the nation's political life. Likewise, many DailyKos participants might be surprised to learn that they belong to a white supremacist group, because they don't wear white sheets or ride horses. There are even a handful of Black participants. But, just as the White Citizens Council was a modern iteration of the Klu Klux Klan, sharing the same purposes, the DailyKos may be a modern iteration of the White Citizens Council, online instead of on lawns burning crosses, but still acting on segregation impulses and relying on the "states rights" rhetoric of their political forbears in their public relations pitches.

African American Political Pundit sees some parallels in the modus operandi of DailyKos:

The reality is, The DailyKos, YearlyKos, WhiteKos, really didn’t outreach to the African American blogger community to get Black Bloggers to participate. The AfroSphere/AfroSpear group to my knowledge was not outreached to or contacted, Black bloggers were not really encouraged to attend, so therefore it is what it is. AAPP

Another Black blogger, Field Negro, whose AfroSpear blog is among the Black blogs most popular with Blacks and whites based on number of visitors, said of DailyKos,

For the record, I am of the opinion that white so called progressives in the "blogosphere" are no different than their "wingnut" counterparts on the right. I was reading Daily Kos, but I could have just as easily been reading Ace Of Spades, Wizbang, or any number of the other wingnut [cons]-servative sites. Field Negro

Defenders of DailyKos insist that Markos Moulitsas himself is part Latino, but MAMZ's writings reveal that MAMZ has never considered himself to be a non-white minority. In 1993, after writing a four-part series of articles on "racism" for his campus newspaper, the Northern Illinois University "Northern Star, MAMZ wrote:

[A]s 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 (sic) made them the target of bigotry and discrimination. THEY would never be able to escape who THEY were.

Today the Star ran the last of my four-part series on racism at NIU. Having been a project that dominated my life for the last couple of weeks, I was more than glad to have it finished and over with ( . . . ) Northern Star, September 2, 1993. (Emphasis added.)[Emphasis added.]

Clearly, for Markos Moulitsas, minorities are a "they" and not an "us." This truth is born out by the fact that fewer than 1.5% of DailyKos members are Latino, and those visible within the organization seem all to be white-skinned, including MAMZ and his Cuban-descendant wife, Elise. They seem to consider themselves to be white and they behave accordingly, with no overt appeals to other Latinos to join DailyKos and no Spanish-language context or focus on issues of interest to Latinos.

When challenged about this, the DailyKos groups responds defensively, but denies any need for change. Before Francis L. Holland was banned from participation at DailyKos, he wrote published an essay there in which he observed that:

Very, very few Blacks are members of the Republican PARTY, but even fewer are participants at DailyKos. Ironically, if Black people want to be in the company of other Blacks, regardless of ideology, we are more likely to find other Blacks in the Republican Party than among the authors of DailyKos stories, diaries and comments." Black Republicans (9.5%) ; Black at DailyKos (2%)

Admitting that he lacked conclusive proof that DailyKos is a white supremacist group, African American Political Pundit said, "It may not be a White Citizens Council, but it sure looks like one - In fact, it mirrored, guess what - The Republican Party. Think About It!"

In fact, MAMZ began his political career as a right-wing Republican, expressing support for Ronald Reagan, voting for George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton, and opposing all service by gays in the military. Francis L. Holland, a Black lawyer, says he is so sure that MAMZ is a right-wing white male supremacist that he researched and wrote a dossier on MAMZ, exploring every aspect of MAMZ's family history. But, he says he was frustrated when his researched proved instead that MAMZ's clearest connections were to the Central Intelligence Agency and the right-wing oligarchy in El Salvador, and homophobia, connections that Holland summarized in a dossier: "The Indictment of Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History." AAPP

Like the Klu Klux Klan, DailyKos and its brother blogs use code words that identify them as a splinter culture. They call themselves "Kossacks," which is a reference to the name "Kos," but also to the historical Cossacks who, like the Klu Klux Klan, were horseback riding lawless vigilantes.

The Indictment of
Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA
by Justice and History

And then there's the issue of "states rights." MAMZ says he was drawn to the Republican Party because of its support for "states rights." Meanwhile, AfroNetizen, another member of the AfroSpear blogger group, says that support for states' rights has historically been a code-word for support for segregation and opposition to integration. "States rights" is also a rallying cry of David Duke, who founded the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan in 1974 and has been the "highest profile white supremacist of the last two decades."

Francis L. Holland says that use of such code words as "states rights" has enabled DailyKos to achieve its goal of remaining virtually all white without explicitly stating that it is a white supremacist group.

In August 1956, Citizens' Councils in 30 states came together to form the Citizens' Councils of America. Its goals were to preserve the "natural rights" of racial separation and "the maintenance of our States' Rights to regulate public health, morals, marriage, education, peace and good order in the States, under the Constitution of the United States." Anti-Defamation League on the "Council of Conservative Citizens."

Nevertheless, DailyKos and its affiliates have punished Blacks and others who point out that the group is segregated. After AAPP published the article references above at MyDD one of the Kos family of blogs, the author was labeled a "troll," which is the first step taken toward banning Black people from participation at these blogs. MYDD

If You Haven't Heard This Speech, You Don't Know MAMZ

If you haven't heard this speech by Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ), then you don't know enough about Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ).

What MAMZ said in this speech about his connections to the Central Intelligence says more about MAMZ than all of the mainstream media articles about him combined. So, what's the level of your blogosphere literacy? Do you know REALLY who MAMZ is?

Maryscott O'Connor "Sold Out to Markos," Says Blogging Curmudgeon

"What disappoints me bitterly about MSOC is that I thought that, at her core, she had principles and couldn't be bought off. It's not true that everyone has his/her price: some people are incorruptible. Sadly, Mary Scott is not one of those people. What is even more disappointing than the fact that she sold out to Moulitsas is how low she set the price on her integrity and her dignity." - - The Blogging Curmudgeon in comments at the "Where's My Left Wing?" Blog.

Blogging Curmudgeon Bet's That Kos Will Bring Maryscott in from the Cold

" The Blogging Curmudgeon has left a new comment on your post ""Maryscott Wants to be Accepted by Kos"":

I placed a $100 wager that MyRightWing will be back on the blogroll at DailyKos, and Mary Scott's posting privileges restored, before March 1, 2008.

Easiest $100 I ever made." - Blogging Curmudgeon, whose blog is HERE.

"Censorship In The Blogosphere," by the Liberal Journal Blog

"Censorship In The Blogosphere,"
by the Liberal Journal Blog

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

I am fucking disgusted at these scumbags calling themselves liberals who choose to limit speech on their sites. What is liberal about deciding what speech is right or wrong? What is liberal about saying that an idea or theory has already been “debunked”? What if new information comes out?

What’s worse is that I have yet to see hate speech be the subject of a banning or deletion. In other words, these are ideas. Ideas which may be repeated elsewhere. Ideas which you may not agree with (at the moment). But ideas. You bring shame to the word liberal.

I reached the tipping point today after Crooks & Liars posted a ridiculous post, which claimed that the NAFTA highway was a total myth, but acknowledged that a similar highway was in fact being built to help facilitate trade between the three countries.

Several comments pointed this out—and guess what—several comments were deleted.

If you quote Lou Dobbs, no ifs ands or buts, you are deleted. (See Comment 2) If you mention the North American Union, no ifs and or buts, you are deleted (See Comment 10) If you mention the Amero, you are deleted. (See Comment 36) They said it is debunked, no debate, of course. One comment was deleted for being “a conspiracy theory…lots of words” (See Comment 62) Etc., Etc.

My second comment noting their deletion was also deleted, except they completely deleted that one…no record of it still exists. My third one was also deleted as off topic.

My fourth…well, No New Comments were allowed.

Apparently, I have to be on topic, not quote Lou Dobbs or anyone to the right of him, and also agree with C & L’s position on the subject to be allowed to post.

You stupid, self-righteous pieces of shit. So sure of yourselves that even the “sitemonitor” tells a deleted commenter, if "you don’t like it, leave." Well, I have Mussolini.

In another corner of the blogosphere, Francis L. Holland was banned from My Left Wing. This is what the Decider there had to say:

I have banned Francis L. Holland. Despite his persistent attempts to paint this as my caving to pressure from various nefarious sources, I have banned him of my own accord because I am sick to fucking death of him and his bullshit -- period.

Anyone who has a problem with this, thinks my action hypocritical or contrary in any way to my previously stated principles, is free to say so, of course, and argue till the proverbial bovines return to their domicile -- but it will not change my mind.

In an earlier threat, she stated to Mr. Holland,

"If you continue to post lies...

I will ban you. Maryscott O'Connor, Owner, MyLeftWing.

And yes, this includes "ambiguous" statements that you know damned well will be interpreted one way when they are not accurate."

What could have possibly prompted this reaction? Mr. Holland’s final straw post can be found here.

I could not find a lie in it. No one in the comments that followed could find one, either. Although many came rushing to the defense of the site’s proprietor whom Mr. Holland only suggested was lying about her motives.

The wider topic Holland was writing about was Daily Kos, where he had been banned previously, for a posting which I thought was completely harmless. The rancor toward Holland appears to be some kind of rampant Groupthink mentality which has taken over the supposed “liberal blogosphere,” where supporters rally around the Blog Administrator (i.e. the Decider), and run the odd voice out out.

The Daily Kos has banned many diarists for a variety of reasons including questioning the official account of 9/11. Ironically, MLW even posted about DKos’ banning of two pro-Palestinian rights advocates.

This is madness. If you have a community blog and reserve the right to delete posts, please state clearly near the top of your page and in large font, that you believe that unfettered free speech doesn’t apply on your site; that you will arbitrarily decide the worth and value of a comment or posting; and that you will call yourself the Deciders. Give full disclosure of your aims, but don’t be a hypocrite.

There are few rights as essential and defining of the rights of man as the right to speak freely. Corporations are limiting our rights. Government is limiting our rights. Now some of the most well-known “liberal” blogs are limiting our rights.

I vow to never use Kos ever again or My Left Wing ever. Crooks and Liars, I am declaring ideological war on you, too. And I will never, ever delete a post or comment on my blog.

At worst, this makes me an radical first amendment defender who will defend even offensive speech. At best, this means that I believe in the principles that this nation was founded upon, and even more fundamentally, that I accept that I don’t know everything. I will wear that badge proudly.

I will leave with a quote from Noam Chomsky: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

* * * * * *

Editor's Note: Regular viewers of my blogs know that I don't like curse words, but they also know that comments are open to the public and I do not censor what commentors say. In such a fundamental post on the right to free speech, I am not about to make an exception now to this longstanding rule.

I deeply appreciate the sentiment that Liberal Journal has expressed and the solidarity shown in the face of rampant attempts to curtail the rights that are guaranteed to us by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I am cross-posting this at "Where's My Left Wing?" and at The Truth About Kos.

Automatic Preference Slams MyLeftWing Banning of Francis L. Holland

MyLeftWing Bans Francis L. Holland
Report the Automatic Preference Blog

Here’s Francis Holland’s post on the subject, What I Learned at My Left Wing. He links the announcement by the blog’s owner, Maryscott O’Connor.

Francis Holland’s conclusion is chilling and irrefutable:

No one promised us that Black revolutionary thinkers and political activists would we welcomed by whites with open arms. History tells us that the opposite is true, that they only deify Black change advocates when we are dead and no longer present the risk of change.

Banned.

Often, banning is imposed on people who disrupt a blog. Francis disrupted things all right. He disrupted the unimpeded flow of ingrained white-centric thought patterns. He disrupted the view that Daily Kos proprietor Markos Moulitsas is above serious criticism.

Censorship is more effective when the rules aren’t clear. We’re allowed to say that we hate reading DKos. We may not be allowed to say – as even the Washington Post did — that the Yearly Kos convention was a “sea of middle-aged white males,” or to cite reports that Markos Moulitsas admits working for the CIA for six months in 2001, or to cite this op-ed piece written by Markos Moulitsas in 1993 recommending the exclusion of gays from the military.

Perhaps anyone who makes these criticisms is considered to be disrupting the mission of certain large mainstream blogs. Maybe so. What’s their mission?

These blogs appear to have a more restrictive editorial policy than the mainstream media; they claim to support certain values; the largest of them are accumulating profitability and political power as well. I’m no expert, but one or another of those things may be a clue to their mission.

I’m reproducing the My Left Wing masthead. You can see for yourself that the site has liberal values:

~~~~~~~

The MANIFESTO

~~~~~~~


LIBERAL VALUES…

Yes.

We have them.

(Re the “liberal values” link … Who could be more liberal than JFK? I mean, now that his blowing-up-the-world thing worked out ok due to a Russian sub commander disobeying his orders, and his bombing of South Vietnam has sort of receded from view, and his invasion of Cuba has been recategorized as “an error.” Even high priest of quantitative slaughter Robert S. McNamara, who has made these points, I wonder whether he would be allowed to post diaries? Perhaps one might eventually become “sick to death” of his “bullshit” too. I can picture the indignant comments already: “This unhealthy obsession with Jack has got to stop!”)

This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 10:50 am and is filed under institutional racism, injustice, censorship, blogging.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Strange Death of Liberal America Predicts Blog Scandal in 2007

Is this the most "progressive"
leader the blogosphere Left has to offer?

The Indictment of Markos Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA
by Justice and History

The Strange Death of Liberal America blog says, in a list of predictions to come true in 2007:

Prediction Eleven: Blog Scandal

My fellow blogger Francis Holland believes this prediction has already come true. See “The Indictment of Markos Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History” As Field Negro says, “Markos, if this is true you’re going to have a lot of explaining to do!” The bigger question is why is it blogs in the AfroSpear who are posting this information while so-called Whitosphere progressive blogs have said little? The Strange Death of Liberal America

There was a large omission in the Indictment of Markos Moulitsas by Justice and History: When I first wrote the Indictment, I was not aware that MAMZ had strongly opposed all service by gays in the military, and MAMZ had ridiculed president Clinton for his efforts to treat military gays equally.

Some people believe that MAMZ has changed and no longer opposes progressive values. I believe that MAMZ has changed his packaging and is effectively opposing progressive values by subverting them from within the Left.

There are two groups of people who disagree with me:

(1) Those who are actively part of MAMZ's scheme and will do anything to protect their nefarious endeavor, and

(2)Those who are simply too addle-minded to perceive that someone who tries to join the CIA and lies about his family history doesn't suddenly metamorphose into the best progressive leader that America has to offer.

It's not impossible that someone can change 180 degrees. But if those who believe this are wrong, then our "plane" has been hijacked and there's a "political terrorist" in the cockpit.

If MAMZ had disavowed his CIA and military and oligarchy history, then the matter would be on a different footing. But, MAMZ has said publicly that he credits his military history for his political success, and he may well credit his connections with the CIA as well.

If I interviewed Markos, I would ask him, "In what ways did your experience at the CIA encourage and help you to become a leader in the American progressive movement?"

People who look at life philosophically believe that none of our efforts are entirely wasted and that we always learn something from our experiences. I believe that is particularly true with Markos Moulitsas' six months at the CIA. It certainly doesn't seem to have hurt him any in his drive to take over the American Left and the Democratic Party.

But, normally CIA involvement, past or present, must remain a secret, lest the person who has engaged with the CIA lose all credibility among intelligent people. So, this really is also a test of whether the American Left is intelligent or not. Some of us have already failed that test.

MyLeftWing Bans Francis L. Holland Over MAMZ Articles

Well, Maryscott O'Connor has banned me from MyLeftWing. One need only read the last diaries I published there to discern the reason why. She was feeling heat from the partisans of Markos Moulitsas. How can it be otherwise, when she specifically states that the motive for her banning me is my series of exposes about Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga, in which I relentlessly criticized DailyKos for its overwhelming whiteness in the context of a diverse Democratic Party?

Maryscott O'Connor accuses me of "lying" about MAMZ. This is a pretext. In her statement banning me, she cannot and does not cite a single assertion of fact that has proved to be false. She cannot do so. What I Learned at MyLeftWing

The simple fact is that every assertion I have made in "The Indictment of Markos Moulitsas by Justice and History," and elsewhere, has been supported by public documents, commercial websites reporting on their own activities, and MAMZ's own statements against interest (confessions).

If anyone wants to publish a critical biography of MAMZ - the first one - then I am the writer who has developed the information that makes this a realistic possibility.

What I have really done at MyLeftWing is that I have repeatedly whacked the DailyKos hive, stirring the droves of subservient worker bees into a fury. Things will never be the same because, in the process, I have redefined Markos Moulitsas. He is not an immigrant. He is not poor. He is not a progressive. He hated gays in the military. He supported Reagan, Bush and Henry Hyde and ridiculed Bill Clinton for not having served in the military. Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga has steadfastly refused to name a single member of his biological family, even unto the present. That fact along is a source of enduring curiosity.

What strikes me about the whitosphere in general is perhaps that it is all too human. They hate to engage in self-criticism and to be challenged in their comfort. In the progressive whitosphere, one is permitted to criticize Republicans, but not white progressives. Unfortunately, most of what ails Black America ails us as much because of the behavior of white progressives as because of the behavior of white Republicans.

If I wanted to join the Republican Party today, I would be welcomed on the same terms as were offered to me by the progressives: "Only criticize the other side." But, when it comes to the problems affecting Blacks, both sides of the white Republican/progressive dichotomy often share similar characteristics. They are utterly unwilling and unable to look inward and acknowledge their own role in the current state of affairs.

Unlike DailyKos, there are some Blacks who blog in relative contentment at MyLeftWing. However, they must follow an unwritten rule: "The locus of the problem lies elsewhere."

I'm going to quote now from one of comments posted vaguely in my defense and in the defense of free speech, responding to the act of banning:

I should be the last person in the world to stand up for Mr. Holland (6.50 / 8)
But once again, I have to disagree with you on a meta issue. To me, this is a pretty awful place to decide to draw the line on free speech. You've regularly defended those here who make a career of attacking other posters personally and viscerally, who say things no civilized person should say to anyone but Bush or his enablers, or maybe Nazis. But you ban FLH for exaggeration and for attacking the biggest bully on the blog block.

FLH didn't lie; he exaggerated. He was a sophist, not a fabricator. I never once heard him criticize a fellow poster here in a mean or offensive way. While he wasn't good at learning from criticism, he was very good at taking it with grace; he understood he was being an asshole, and didn't begrudge anyone calling him one. If you were respectful to him, he was respectful to you, no matter how your political views differed from his own. The only people he ever attacked were the powerful -- Markos, and then you. That's not so different in my book from attacking Bush or our Congresscritters. Again, one heck of a place to draw the line on free speech.

He WAS abusive to you, but only after you threatened to ban him, something IMO you should never have done -- such threats have a chilling effect on free speech that is in many ways worse than actual banning. Besides, as a blog proprietor you should be able to take those kinds of attacks; in fact, IMO, it's your job to do so. I don't buy your logic that a blog proprietor should be able to chase someone from his/her site simply because he/she is annoyed by that person. You're maintaining a private site as a public space; therefore, you shouldn't kick the homeless people out of the bus station unless they're actually violating some tangible rule.

I understand I have no chance of changing your mind, but I'm saying my piece anyway. Would I have banned him if it were my blog? Certainly -- but only after I had banned a whole bunch of other people who continue to pollute this site to this day with their vicious personal attacks. To do otherwise, in my view, stinks of rank hypocrisy.

ProgressiveHistorians: History and Politics Of, By, and For the People
by: Nonpartisan @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 16:55:04 PM CDT Banning Discussion

Free Speech, MAMZ, Skin-Color and Francis L. Holland

SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CRITICIZE
MARKOS ALBERTO C. MOULITSAS ZÚÑIGA
IN THE WHITOSPHERE?

I posted the article below at MyLeftWing and look what happened to it!!!!!!

Maryscott O'Connor, owner of MyLeftWing, said, [Editor's Note: I have turned off the comments on Mr. Holland's post ( . . . )

[Comments are back on at this hour, 02:34, 08/13/2007]

Free Speech, MAMZ, Skin-Color
and Francis L. Holland

First-posted at MyLeftWing and cross-posted

at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

I've just read a very interesting diary by Karmafish, both in terms of the essay itself and the many, many comments to the essay, discussing my recent essays about Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ). As I read the essay, I wished that I had been able to take part in the vibrant discussion that followed in real time, but I just wasn't online at the time.

What stood out most about the essay was that Karmafish accused me of making well-sourced "lies" but did not offer a single source - not one - to prove that my MAMZ sources were incorrect, and also did not cite or discuss any of the over 200 government, university, commercial website, newspaper and blog sources upon which my previous articles were based. Unlike my essays, if we believe Karmafish it has to be because he says so, and not because he offers any sources to prove what he says.

There was considerable discussion of banning versus free speech in the comments. Some of the people urging the banning of diarists seem to be making two arguments hoping to appeal to others' fears:

(1) I happen to know, based on my perusal of the current comments at DailyKos, that some of the same people who are urging that I be banned here because my presence will drive down participation are also engaged over at DailyKos urging people not to visit MyLeftWing.

On June 9, 2007, Diane W. said at DailyKos,

But on behalf of myself and only myself, Diane W, I apologize that at MLW, ( . . . ) things have been said about Markos, ( . . . ) Please, dear readers, this is NOT an attempt to get you to go there ( . . .) Don't waste your time. Diane W. at DailyKos.

My articles arguably make people want to visit MyLeftWing to see what's going on. However, in her desperate efforts to protect Markos Moulitsas, Diane W. has urged DailyKos readers to stay away from MyLeftWing. [Editor strike-out]

(2) The argument has been made that, 'If Francis L. Holland stays then others will leave.' In fact, when I posted at DailyKos there were hundreds of comments on my diaries, which would seem to mean that people were looking forward to reading my essays and debating with me. And Karmafish's diary discussing me drew 180 comments. Far from signs of a moribund blog, these are signs of a vibrant and active blog, engaging in healthy debate.

By coincidence, I wrote and published yesterday a well-sourced article addressing one of the issues raised by Karmafish: the documented proof that people are explicitly banned at "progressive" blogs simply for criticizing and Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga as part of a program to limit and sculpt the information and opinions that may be presented in the blogosphere:

How to Distinguish MAMZ-Influenced Blogs from Independent Blogs

Maryscott O'Connor values the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, not only to prevent the Government from clamping down on expression ("state action") but also to prevent each of us from clamping down on one another. Back in the 1960's there was a lot of discussion about how much the government could do to further the cause of integration. It was agreed that while government could and would outlaw discrimination and segregation in its own behavior and in the behavior of corporations and other businesses, still the realm of private life had to be left to the conscience of each individual.

Our Government could not compel people to have friends of a different skin color or to otherwise integrate their private lives. Government set an example by eliminating lawful discrimination in government affairs, but private life was left to the private conscience of individuals, to hopefully be guided by government's example. (The question of whether a national blog that accepts the public participation and advertisements is "public" or "private" is a legal issue that still has yet to be resolved.)

Be that as it may, the free speech protections of the First Amendment compel the government to resist the temptation to clamp down on free speech, but the First Amendment acts only as an example to the populous in its private actions, without using the force of law to compel populous to follow this example:

Congress [and the states, it was later added] shall make no law ( . . .) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Findlaw.Com

The US Constitution is hardly perfect, but it did set out some national aspirations that government was compelled to respect and that individuals were strongly encouraged to respect, if only because the Constitution itself is only as strong as the will of the populace to defend and support it. When the people themselves no longer support free speech, the the Constitutional protections for free speech will soon rot and die and dry, like unpicked grapes abandoned on the vine.

In comments to Karmafish's essay, Diane W. said,

So defending (6.75 / 4)

anyone's good name is not liberal enough anymore?

Is it tribal think if I tried to stop a writer at our local paper from saying my neighbor raped my other neighbor, when both deny it happened, or should I just shrug and say, "Thats his responsibility, not mine..."

Should the paper say, "Well that doesn't reflect us, its just a letter to the editor?"

When did PCness supplant honor and truth? Maybe I am lazy. Maybe I am tired. Or maybe I just don;t fit here that well anymore. I have been thinking about that long and hard lately.

I am not advocating any particular solution, but it is something that needs to be addressed and I will support whatever decision Maryscott makes. Diane at Karmafish's diary.

Clearly, Diane W. is advocating a "particular solution." If we argue in our private behavior in favor of restrictions on free speech and restrictions on private individual's right to "press" the "redress of grievances," then are we not at once arguing against the best principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States? Is discrimination bad only in the hands of the government, but good when practiced by individuals? Is repression of free speech bad only when it comes at Government hands, but good when practiced when individuals endeavor to shut each other up?

How long can our own American freedoms if we strenuously argue in our private lives that those freedoms should be strictly limited? If we endeavor to convince others that color-aroused discrimination is good in our personal lives, doesn't that simultaneously undermine the Government's efforts to end discrimination?

And if we argue strenuously for limits on free speech in the areas where we, as private citizens, have control, do we not simultaneously undermine the arguments for free speech that are necessary to defend the best and most liberal provisions of our national Constitution?

If there is anything progressives are called to do at this time, it is to defend politically and rhetorically the underpinnings of our Constitutional government when it is most under attack. And yet some of us believe that defending individual leaders from criticism is more important than defending the Constitution itself. These are dangerous, perilous times for the freedoms that all of us hold dear.

Another great concern is the "block-busting" rationales that have been offered for ending free speech. In the 1960's, realty agents would go to white neighborhood that had ONE new Black family and urge whites to sell their houses and leave the neighborhood, because having even one Black family would drive down home values.

Unfortunately, a lot of whites did panic and sell their houses for a pittance, and then the realty agents made a killing selling the houses to others. They became wealthier by sewing [Editor: sic] fear of change, fear of diversity among white people. I perceive that supporters of Markos Alberto C. Moultisas Zúñiga are employing "block-busting" in an effort to scare and intimidate Maryscott O'Connor and I want to bring these tactics to everyone's attention.

I have lately heard the argument repeatedly that having "too much" free speech (not too much Blacks in particular) at MyLeftWing will drive down the marketability of the blog, and that commercial concerns are more important than free speech.

I am not saying ban across the board, but I do think she has the right to save her business. Diane at Karmafish's diary.

Ky. Acts ch. 282, sec. 42, 344.380 Block busting.

It is an unlawful practice for a real estate operator, a real estate broker, a real estater, salesman, a financial institution, an employee of any of these, or any other person, for the purpose of inducing a real estate transaction from which a person may benefit financially:

(1) To represent that a change has occurred or will or may occur in the composition with respect to race, [FREE SPEECH?] color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin of the owners or occupants in the block, neighborhood, or area in which the real property is located;

(2) To represent that this [FREE SPEECH?] change will or may result in the lowering of property values, an increase in criminal or antisocial behavior, or a decline in the quality of schools in the block, neighborhood, or area in which the real property is located; or

(3) To induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of [FREE SPEECH? or] a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Effective: July 14, 1992

History: Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 282, sec. 42, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 167, sec. 4.

I added the phrase "free speech" in the text above to show that Diane W. is blockbusting not on the basis of "race," explicitly, but on the basis that free speech will drive people away from the neighborhood and reduce "property values." [Editor strike-out]

Defending the Abolition of the Words "Race" and "Racism"
in the Revolutionary Fight Against Color-Aroused Disorder:
A Response to Field Negro

Another issue arose that has been on my mind, and that is the use of the screenname "Jigaboo" over at DailyKos. In comments, Diane W. said,

I would ask also if any of the black people here would be offended if someone signed on with that name on mlw. Then I'd take THEIR word for it, once they all weighed in.

I am one Black person and I would like to address that question, relying also on reference to federal law. All words that whites traditionally used and still use to demean Blacks have the effect of making Blacks want to go somewhere else as quickly as possible rather than stay and be verbally abused. In a nationally recognized Federal Court case decided by the Fourth Circuit, the Court held that the persistent use of words like "jigaboo" creates an unlawfully discriminatory "hostile environment:"

[A] reasonable jury could find both Gaskins and White suffered harassment that was "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere."

Spriggs, 242 F.3d at 183.

In particular, White testified in his deposition, which was included as part of the record in both cases below, that through con his employment at BFI, supervisors repeatedly called him and other black employees "boy, jigaboo, nigger, porch monkey, Mighty Joe Young," and "Zulu warrior."

White J.A. 125, 127, 129; Gaskins J.A. 132, 134, 136.

Nowhere in his deposition did White state that these terms were used on only a few occasions; rather, White testified that use of these terms was "just the way they speak to you at BFI, like you are less than nothing."

White J.A. 125; Gaskins J.A. 132.

Indeed, White specifically testified that supervisors used the term "boy" on a daily basis to refer only to black employees, and not to white ones. White J.A. 128, 131; Gaskins J.A. 135, 138. White v. BFI, 2004

If even conservative Federal courts have ruled that the word "jigaboo" is offensive and its use is part of creating a hostile environment, then why are we still arguing over this reality in the "progressive" whitosphere? In fact, Black people studiously avoid any environment where they believe such words may be used. And it doesn't take several instances to keep us to stay away. As soon as we learn that people present would EVER use these words, we know we are not in an environment that will be conducive to our participation. In the last month, the "N" word has been used forty-five times in comments at DailyKos, while the "jigaboo" word has been used forty-three times in comments over the last quarter. Enough said.

How I Became Aware that Kos Was at the CIA in 2001

On May 25, 2007 long before I became aware that Kos had spent six months at the CIA in 2001, Stu Piddy, who blogs at MyLeftWing, broke the story on his Bush Planet Blog on May 25, 2007 in a story entitled "KOS and the CIA," cross-posted at MyLeftWing. In that article Stu Piddy revealed that:

Markos Moulitsas spent 6 months in 2001 interviewing with the CIA. He was accepted by the CIA, went through the entire interview process (talking to dozens of people including “psychologists and people in the leadership” ) and given his first assignment to work in clandestine services. His assignment, he says was to act as a “spy” in Washington D.C. for the CIA. He was told by the CIA that this particular assignment in Washington D.C. would last for at least 6 years before he would be given the overseas assignment he preferred. Moulitsas spoke to the CIA about his “blog”.

Moulitsas had been an active blogger at the time of his 6 month CIA interview process with My DD. He discussed his blogging with the CIA and the viewpoints he expressed in posts in what he referred to as “his blog”. He said he found the CIA receptive, and in general, in agreement with his views.

Moulitsas started Daily Kos on May 26th, 2002.

Mouitsas believes that the CIA is a “liberal” organization. An organization made of up liberals who are opposed George W. Bush Stu Piddy, MyLeftWing

Stu Piddy based his reporting on a speech that MAMZ gave at the Commonweath Club in San Francisco, on June 2, 2006, in which MAMZ astoundingly confessed both that he had spent six (6) months in an application process at the CIA (implying that he went there for the money) and also stating that the CIA was a "liberal organization" whose "heart is in the right place."

When I listed to this speech, I saw the same red flags or red banners or red highway billboards warning and advising me that MAMZ is not what he has presented himself to be. After additional research, I published at MyLeft Wing an article entitled "Markos Moulitsas Admits Working for the CIA in 2001," revealing additional facts.

The word "working" has been a matter of intense debate between myself and the Markos minions since the publication of that article. Based on the transcript that I prepared of his comments at the Commonwealth Club, in which MAMZ said he went to the CIA at a time when he was "unemployed, underemployed," and because he needed money, I concluded that MAMZ was paid for his efforts during his six months at the CIA, because it doesn't make sense that a person who is in need of money "for next month's rent" goes to an employer, spends six months in training, and doesn't get paid for it.

If so, how did he pay "next month's rent"? MAMZ had never explained that, but one reasonable interpretation of what he DID say is that he, in fact, resolved his need for money by going to the CIA for that money. But, he doesn't explicitly say that. He only strongly implies that in his comments at the Commonwealth Club, without denying in then or later.

Did Markos Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA
"Work" at the CIA During His Six Months There?

We cannot give Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas the benefit of the doubt in matter so important as whether or not he received payments from the Central Intelligence Agency. Rather than give him the benefit of the doubt, we need to conclusively resolve the debate one way or the other. If we conclude that he did receive payments from the Central Intelligence Agency at a time that he was blogging about progressive politics, then MAMZ cannot be a leader of progressive forces now or at any time in the future.

If we conclude that he did not receive payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, then we have to ask ourselves how he supported himself during those months when he interviewed(?),trained(?),worked(?) at the CIA. We need to know how a person who claims that he came from a poor family nonetheless was able to spend six months in Washington at the CIA without compensation, if such is the case.

Today, I have invited Stu Piddy of Bush Planet Blog to be a co-editor of the Truth About Kos Blog, and Stu Piddy has graciously and enthusiastically accepted. At a critical time, on July 10, 2007 when I was under heavy criticism from Kos minions at MyLeftWing for discussing these facts at all, and they were demanding that I be banned for having done so, Stu Piddy intervened with a tongue in cheek article that republished the facts, accepting responsibility for being the first person to raise them at MyLeftWing, and also explaining in an ironic way why the facts are so important. See "Francis Holland Stole My Idea on Marcos and the CIA"

As of today, Stu Piddy is a co-editor of the Truth About Kos, because in first publishing and revealing the truth about Kos' CIA involvement back in May, Stu Piddy showed that he has the independence of thought, the courage and independence to perceive and report the truth, even in an atmosphere where some believe obeisance and blind loyalty are the epitome of the progressive personality.

The Blogosphere Reacts to the News of MAMZ's CIA-Training(?)/Application/Work(?)/"Contract Work" (?)

How to Distinguish MAMZ-Influenced Blogs
from Independent Blogs

Thank you, Jesse K. at EscapetoChangdu Blog.

How to Distinguish MAMZ-Influenced Blogs from Independent Blogs

One of the first blogs to become aware of the Truth About Kos Blog was Columbuser.Com. On July 5, 2007, Brian at Columbuser.Com reported that he had seen a link to the Truth About Kos blog at a blog called "As Ohio Goes," but the link then mysteriously disappeared.

Where’s that Kos post?

Hmm. Mark McNally at Paindealer links to an article about Kos at As Ohio Goes, but the post seems to have been disappeared. The link now dumps you to the blog’s front page. The original post is referenced at BlogNetNews, so I’m sure Paindealer didn’t image it.

Is there some infighting going on over at As Ohio Goes, or is it just a technical glitch?

Fortunately, the Kos post was cross-posted at The Truth About Kos (DailyKos).

Stunning new details about the life and family of Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (DailyKos) cast doubt on everything he has said about himself and on his motives for wanting to lead the Democratic Party. Those who have read the articles available in Google about Moulitsas may have noted that none of those articles mention even one member of Markos Moulitsas’ family by name, even as they proclaim him to be influential in the leadership of the Democratic Party, helping to choose our elected officials.

Last week we learned, thanks to a diary by Stu Piddy, that Markos spent six months in the employ of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Now, fresh research reveals that Markos Alberto Moulitsas is NOT an immigrant and his “humble” Salvadoran family is actually connected to filthy rich international hotel, casino and cruise ship conglomerate and international industrial polluter of grey whale spawning grounds in Baja Mexico.

Meh. I don’t think this will affect his cult much. They’re beyond this sort of thing.
Bookmark | Trackback URI
Posted by Brian | Jul 5, 2007 12:40 pm | Categories: Blogs, National, Ohio, Politics, News Columbuser.Com

What happened is that I posted at story at As Ohio Goes on July 5, 2007, and then the story was removed by someone with authority to do that at As Ohio Goes.

To understand why this might happen, you have to read the New Republic's story on the Townhouse Scandal, in which Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga requested that negative information about him and one of his friends not be reported at other blogs and websites and all of the blogsites and websites within MAMZ's sphere of influence agree. This is from The New Republic:

06.21.06

THE BLOGOSPHERE'S SMOKE-FILLED BACKROOM:

Are Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas (of the famous Daily Kos) engaged in a pay-for-play scheme in which politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant get the support of Kos? That's the question that's been bouncing around the blogosphere ever since The New York Times's Chris Suellentrop broke the news last Friday about a 2000 run-in Armstrong had with the Securities and Exchange Commission over alleged stock touting. But Armstrong, Kos, and other big-time liberal bloggers have almost entirely ignored the issue, which is a bit surprising considering their tendency to rapidly respond to even the smallest criticism.

Why the strange silence in the face of such damning allegations? Well, I think we now know the answer. It's a deliberate strategy orchestrated by Kos. TNR obtained a missive Kos sent earlier this week to "Townhouse," a private email list comprising elite liberal bloggers, including Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, and Christy Hardin Smith. And what was Kos's message to this group that secretly plots strategy in the digital equivalent of a smoke-filled backroom? Stay mum! He wrote (emphasis added below):

The YearlyKos media people have already forced corrections at Slate and NY Times (Suellentrop's blog). There has been some serious overreach by the few outlets that picked up this story (which as I mentioned before has been shopped around). It was interesting how this one piddly-ass story was used to try and smear Jerome, me, AND YearlyKos.

So the only paper to run this as a news story is the disgraceful NY Post. Others who picked up on it have had to backtrack from their original sensationalistic claims.

I am exploring legal options against some of the wingnut bloggers who are claiming I'm syphoning netroots money into consultants and my own pockets. Note how Glenn Reynolds is fueling it with his typical passive aggressive, "I don't think it's a big deal, but let me provide links to everyone who thinks this is THE BIGGEST STORY EVER!"

And Jerome's case, if it could be aired out, is a non-story (he was a poor grad student at the time so he settled because he had no money). Jerome can't talk about it now since the case is not fully closed. But once it is, he'll go on the offensive. That should be a couple of months off.

This story will percolate in wingnut circles until then, but I haven't gotten a single serious media call about it yet. Not one. So far, this story isn't making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn't do anything to help make that happen.

My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I'll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on. If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let's starve it of oxygen. And without the "he said, she said" element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction.

Thanks, markos

So far, Kos's friends in the fiercely independent liberal blogosphere seem to have displayed a sheep-like obedience to his dictat. And while it's true that Kos himself hinted at the controversy in this blog post yesterday, he didn't come anywhere close to addressing the questions that really matter. You might even call Kos and company's behavior in this whole affair just another case of politics as usual. So much for crashing the gates.

P.S. Was Armstrong really, as Kos claims, a "poor grad student" when he settled with the SEC? Armstrong agreed to the settlement in December 2003. That was eleven months after he and Kos started their political consulting business and six months after the two were hired by the Dean campaign at a rate of $3,000 a month.

--Jason Zengerle
posted 12:33 p.m.
Comments (45) New Republic

When negative news is reported about MAMZ, there is an standing agreement that these blogs will suppress it, not reporting it, by removing it if it is published by others, and finally by banning users who repeated "bash" (report negative news) about MAMZ.

Look what happened at MYDD after I reported that DailyKos is 69% atheist and agnostic and that one member of DailyKos helped fund a US Supreme Court case attempting to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. (Frankly, I hate the pledge of allegiance, but I love controversial news about DailyKos.)

Banned at MyDD for Citing DailyKos Internal Poll that 69% of DailyKos Does Not Believe in God!

When I posted this story at MyDD, then Chris Bowers, one of the authorities at MyDD, said,

that's it, you are banned (3.00 / 3)

How many times did I have to warn you about posting anti-Dailykos diaries here? This is MyDD, not Dailykos. If you have a problem with Dailykos, take it up somewhere else. MyDD is not second life for for anti-social types that get banned from Dailykos. MyDD

So, right there you have Chris Bowers, managing editor of MyDD, telling you that there is an enforced policy at MyDD that if you criticize Markos Moulitsas or DailyKos, even by making reference to their own internal polls, then you will eventually be banned from participation at MyDD. Doesn't this mean there is a collusive relationship whose purpose is, at least, to prevent the publication of negative news and opinion about Markos Moulitsas and perpetuate his position at the top of the blogosphere pecking order?

I have been banned or threatened with banning at countless blogs after criticizing MAMZ and DailyKos there, including BlueMassGroup and Blue Hampshire, after criticizing MAMZ and DailyKos there. At Blue New Hampshire, I was banned for posting this diary whose critical anti-Markos factual contents were confirmed last week in an article by the Washington Post.

Here's a TailRank compendium of articles reporting the lack of diversity at DailyKos, but you probably won't find many of these articles discussed at DailyKos or the blogs that cooperate with DailyKos to suppress critical news, information and opinion about with DailyKos.

The unmistakable conclusions are that:

(1)There is (at least)a virtual contract between DailyKos and its affiliated blogs to suppress negative coverage of DailyKos, no matter how factual it is, and

(2)Users at these affiliate blogs are explicitly warned not to criticize DailyKos or MAMZ, regardless of the factual basis of the criticism, and (3)You are more likely to read factual news about MAMZ and DailyKos in the Washington Post than you are to see the same information at MyDD, Blue Mass Group, My New Hampshire, and other blogs that may or may not be on the DailyKos blog list, but are, in any case, members of the virtual DO NOT CRITICIZE KOS cabal.

Even at Culture Kitchen, where I once criticized Markos Moulitsas, I find that I am no longer permitted to "create content."

Liza Sabater, owner of Culture Kitchen, explicitly told me not to criticize DailyKos or MAMZ at her blog. Ironically, she told me that the Reaganite, George H.W. Bush-supporting ex-CIA trainee Kos who opposed gays in the military had done too much for the progressive cause for her to allow his reputation to be defiled! Look at the last topic that I diaried about before my posting privileges were withdrawn.

So, what does all of this mean? I do not have sufficient facts to assert that there is an explicit oral or written agreement between all of these parties to ban users who report critical facts about MAMZ and DailyKos. I suspect that there is a combination of (1) pressure from people who desperately do not want to see Kos and DailyKos criticized ("Kos minions"), and (2) a misguided belief that MAMZ is the uber-leftist, the epitome of commitment to progressive causes, and therefor any criticism of MAMZ would hurt the left. (p)After all, (rather than demonstrations or sit-ins or other direct action) hasn't DailyKos computer babysitting become the face of the anti-war left. If DailyKos is discredited, we might all become frustrated with blog activism and go demonstrate in the streets instead!

If MAMZ has been influenced by his six months of "application processing" that he underwent at the CIA in Washington, then how can we distinguish those in the blogosphere who are, in turn, under the influence of MAMZ from those who aren't?

I suggest that we go about this empirically, because I do not like to rely on conjecture or supposition.

If you suspect that the blog in which you participate may be under the influence of MAMZ, then write a diary about MAMZ and post it there, leaving out my name and my blog and making no reference to "The Truth About Kos", but using the links that are offered here to primary source information, using these citations as proof of your assertions.

If you find that you are warned not to post anti-MAMZ material at that blog, or you are summarily banned from participation there, then you will know that the said blog is under the influence of the MAMZ delusion - the delusionary belief that a Reaganite Bush-voter, supporter of George H.W. Bush and CIA applicant can also be the fearless leader of the progressive left.

Movable Feast Blog Accuses MAMZ of Being CIA Agent Leading CIA Blog

The Indictment of
Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA
by Justice and History

The "Truth About Kos" blog has never accused Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) of presently being in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, because the Truth About Kos Blog has no clear evidence that such is the case. This blog publishes only confirmed facts that come from statements against interest (confessions), Salvadoran Government documents, US Government documents, commercial websites in English and Spanish reporting on their own activities, newspapers and other verifiable sources that our readers can consult for themselves. We NEVER ask you to "trust us" that something is true, and we avoid speculation.

But, MAMZ is a public figure and many people who never trusted him anyway are putting two and two together and engaging in speculation. For example, based on the fact that MAMZ acknowledges that he once spent six months at the CIA's Washington offices, and would have "no problem" working for them today, the Movable Feast blog says:

Finally, Moulitsas’ relationship with the CIA makes perfect sense, as Daily Kos appears to be yet another political front operation tasked with cracking the whip over “progressive” Democrats and marching them off to support the Bilderberger Queen Hillary Clinton and her probable running mate, Barack Obama, both on record as supporting the neocon plan to reduce the Muslim world to a smoldering wasteland, albeit with stylistic policy changes. It is no secret the CIA has long stage managed the controlled opposition and Moulitsas’ admitted relationship with the agency should be considered a coup de grâce, an effort designed to reduce the “progressive” Democrat opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the impending attack to be leveled against Iran as little more than an empty and absurd rhetorical slogan.

There are probably a number of other CIA blogs!

Now, I am not endorsing this speculation because, aside from the facts presented at this site, I have no direct proof that this is true. I only publish this quote because, in spite of the considerable speculation on the Left, MAMZ refuses to deny the allegations that he is presently working for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Meanwhile, the Simply Jews blog says:

Some news on daily cossacks:

It looks like the (in)famous Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of DailyKos, has a long history in support of the Republican Party and trained with the CIA in 2001.

Not that the above activities make him necessarily a villain, it is just strange that the man of his firm beliefs is ... well, look at this stuff here. Keep in mind that the people who compiled this are not attacking him from the right, far from it.

Hmm...

Kuro5Hin has a similar take on the MAMZ/CIA scandal, and quotes directly from MAMZ's speech to the Commonwealth Club:

Although "SeamsLikeADream" at the Democratic Underground says that MAMZ "worked" at the CIA, the truth is that we really don't know exactly what his activities there were because (1) CIA activities are inherently shrouded in secrecy and misinformation and (2) the information provided in MAMZ's confession is exceptionally vague and self-serving, offering "explanations" that make no rational sense.

For example, MAMZ tells us that he did not come from a wealthy family, but he held his honeymoon at the elite Jaltepeque Suites hotel, that he acknowledges is his "family hotel," just a year before he tells us that he was so poor he had to work (or train, or apply to train or was on "contract" for the CIA to pay his rent. So, MAMZ supporters don't know where to start in trying to defend him and his detractors are at a loss as well, unable to prove he is a CIA employee and unable to believe that he isn't.

Dodge Blogium simply quotes the information with a citation to the Truth About Kos article where the information was found.