My mind keeps boggling then boggling some more, seeing the threads posting what has become the normal state of DU.

It seems to me that the oppressive atmosphere started really hitting home very soon after the November elections, and got me wondering if the attitude is just the smug gloating of a winning political board or something more sinister.

The road-downhill started before this, but IMO it has intensified greatly in the past two months. Anyone have any thoughts on this? When DU changed?

While your at it, drag out some tinfoil and speculate of other possible reasons for the change.

With the number of posters here at IP posting links to DU threads, the admins must surely have noticed the increase in referrals from this site. I'm not sure what to make of this, but maybe Skinner et al are cleaning house, building a base for political ambition. Who knows what their aims are?

"Think for yourself, question authority."

was when I noticed that they really began censoring posts. A favorite poster of mine had made a huge compilation of links on Katrina atrocities and they deleted the thread for being conspiracy theory because of the comments I guess. To be fair, the mod went through and posted all the links again but the damage was done. The poster totally left DU because of it. I stopped donating to them after that, and the quality of DU keeps on going downhill.

http://antahkarana.wordpress.com/

the tomb stoning of someone who wrote a brilliant synopsis of the political malfeasance in the mismanagement of the victims of the storm. All he hid was to assemble the information that DUers had been posting and that I had been cataloging in a thread that eventually had over 500 posts about the tragedy.
I had been feeling the turn to the right before then, particularly in the dungeoning of 9-11 issues and articles about Palestine/Israel.
Now it has gotten ridiculous, with some DUers demanding that other DUers not criticize and Dem candidate. I fear that this is a trial balloon as to how far they can turn the screws on censorship.

Mother Earth is very, very sick. I must get very, very quiet and listen. ...

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking theydon't have any.—Alice Walker


TRUTH AND JUSTICE RADIO: http://www.truthandjusticeradio.org
<a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.h..."><img src="" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator"

and it started to change a few months before the 2004 presidential primaries began. Before that, I was already a bit suspicious because they frowned upon discussion of alternative theories on Sept. 11th, did not allow discussion of the I/P situation, and eventually, banned all news sources except the "mainstream media." But then things started getting weird when posters who I used to follow, as well as some online pen pals, were getting banned banned left and right. It was a shame too, because everytime I went to that site, I learned something new, and it helped to fill in the gaps when I really started becoming aware of what truly goes on in politics and policy making. Needless to say, the site became a shell of its former self and eventually, I stopped going there.

That's when I started going to that certain other site. To my surprise, I found there was a lot of intelligent discussion and thoughtful posts and commentary. But I also knew something was wrong because, despite the detailed rules, there were certain posters who seemed to be allowed free reign at harassing, berating, intimidating and shouting down others, while everyone else had to follow the rules to a 'T'. And I began noticing that certain posters were always chosen as moderators. As I don't have a lot of time to write or research, I stuck mainly to the topics I knew, like consumer finance issues, mortgage law, bankrutpcy, health and fitness, etc. -- so I never stepped into any public controversy. But slowly, I began to figure out that some posters there had to be paid because no one with a real life job, family, etc., could possibly spend all day there like they did.

It all began to come together, though, when I saw a certain poster from the previous site I used to go to posting there under the same name, usually supporting DLC talking points, and the "official" story of Sept. 11th. I also got a sense from his posts that he thought he was smarter than everyone else because he could be condescending, and he's good at sock puppetry -- well, good enough to fool some people. But he wasn't too smart, because he let too much personal information about himself slip, from which anyone could put together his real life identity and do like I did, which was track down his online activities. I found him posting Bible studies, essays on being gay and Christian, writing astroturf letters in support of the Democrats and Clark, as well as his posting activities at those 2 sites; all while supposedly working as a waiter. I then concluded he had to be some kind of shill, and probably a paid one, for the prolific amount of posting he had done.

There's another site I used to go to, but I found this same person was posting there under a different identity, because again, he related too much personal info about himself and from that, I was pretty much able to guess it was him. I already concluded this particular poster was some kind of shill, though, because he would spam threads with data dumps on the rise of neo-Naziism in the Left, and disrupt threads by diverting the discussion and leading people on wild goose chases. Rightly or wrongly, I concluded it had to be another front site, because he, and too many other posters, were allowed to divert and disrupt threads, as well as other weird things that would go on, so I decided I wasn't going to waste any more of my time going there.

My point in explicating all that was I figured out from that poster, that certain other posters were not who they seemed to be either, and were not there to discuss or debate anything, but rather to push propaganda, candidates and talking points, and herd the Democratic rank and file. Once I realized that, a lot of things that went on over there started making sense. And the fact that these posters were allowed free reign of the place, while other were stringently held to the rules, spoke to what the site was truly about. I also agree with some earlier discussions here that perhaps another reason sites like the one I don't want to name exist is to figure out who the dissenters are, where they come from and what they're discussing. Another minor detail which also aroused my suspicion is that I noticed the site in question, and the other I used to go to, were created and registered before Gore conceded in 2000, even though their stated purpose was opposition to the administration. That's either a huge coincedence, or they knew beforehand what was about to happen.

But overall, I think what's going on at that site is a reflection of what's happened to the leadership of the Democratic Party itself. It's made a hard right turn in terms of foreign policy, so that the only substantial difference between party leadership and the neocons is not whether the neocons' wars should be fought, but how they're fought. That applies to domestic policy as well, in terms of "national security" and the party's corporatism. I see a lot of parallels between what's happened to this country and the Democratic Party, and the goals expressed in A Clean Break -- which, of course, is what Rebuilding America's Defenses is based on. For example, Left Zionism was marginalized in Israel, just as traditional liberalism and Socialism is being, and has been, marginalized in the Democratic Party. Wars were to be waged on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Horn of Africa and Egypt, and well, we've already seen what's happened to Iraq, Lebanon and Somalia, and what's happening to Iran and Syria, and the support for this among the Democrats -- as well as all the blame Saudi Arabia gets for everything. The paper also called for a tax cut for the very wealthy, and that was one of the first things Bush did as president. The list goes on, but I don't want to bog this post down with details that aren't necessarily relavant to your question.

I also think the site is used to float talking points and policy. When I used to hear Clear Channel AM radio in the mornings, which is neocon central, I saw the same talking points from those programs showing up at DU without fail, and those people never had their posts deleted or were banned. In fact, just yesterday, I saw a thread which breathlessly claimed that Mexican nationals were committing genocide against Blacks in Califonia as part of a diabolical scheme to retake the Southwest for Mexico. I first saw that barnburner originate in FrontPage magazine -- talk about projection. And I think the fact that the moderators and admins allowed that thread to remain open and didn't delete the vile trash in some of the posts really speaks to the values of those running the site and their agenda. It would not surprise me, if, later this year, anti-Hillary people are banned left and right, as she seems to be the DLC and establishment's candidate.

Anyway, I've rambled on enough here, but that's some of my take on it.

himself through college while working retail. He was a consistent dropper of DLC talking points, too.

Yet, in 2002, when I went into the Lounge asking for advice on which airline to take to Japan (the one I was used to flying had dropped the route), he PM'd me with detailed evaluations of several Asian airlines--not the kind of information you expect an impoverished student to have.

He was eventually banned for blatant racism, but the more recently, I noticed the three-person tag teams who showed up as if summoned by a bell to blast "the far left."

When I remarked on the way that these same guys always showed up whenever anyone criticized the DLC, I got a thinly veiled warning from a certain wordy mod.

I sill like many of the people there, especially the Minnesotans and the people in some of the Groups, but despite Skinner's claims to the contrary, the place has gone downhill since 2001.

All I want in 2007 2008 2009 is 1) U.S. troops out of Iraq, 2) Single-payer health care, 3) Bush and his cohorts put on trial for war crimes in the Hague, and 4) A kindly, humorous, highly intelligent left-leaning, middle aged significant other. (I would have added "well-developed mass transit and inter-city rail," but I didn't want to seem too demanding.)

has tried on numerous occasions to goad me into writing something ban-worthy, unfortunately he is not nearly as clever as he believes himself to be.

He is a strong supporter of the corporate wing of the democratic party, and tries to get progressives TSed all the time.

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning" - Warren Buffet
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin 1759

DU handle was his last name, but who was usually addressed by his first name.

All I want in 2007 2008 2009 is 1) U.S. troops out of Iraq, 2) Single-payer health care, 3) Bush and his cohorts put on trial for war crimes in the Hague, and 4) A kindly, humorous, highly intelligent left-leaning, middle aged significant other. (I would have added "well-developed mass transit and inter-city rail," but I didn't want to seem too demanding.)

The rules used to say, I don't know if it still does,that the mods aren't supposed to post inflammatory or highly opinionated posts that would side with one side or the other in a thread. But they did this all the time in 9-11, blatantly favoring the abusive shills who post there, in fact, I suspect that the mods are the same as some of the shills. There was one old time OCT who always replied to me no matter what, when I posted to him, to "get the last word" (well they all did) but right before I was banned (still don't know why) he stopped responding to me. There hadn't be a fight between us or anything, but he knew I was going to get banned.
I looked at the rules after I was banned and I noticed it said that members are supposed to "generally" be progressive or democrats (paraphrased), I don't remember the "generally" it doesn't seem like it was in there before.

tag teams over there. There's the big one in the dungeon of course and there was another one when Jason Leopold made the claim that Rove had been indicted. That crew was relentless. Then once that blew over they disappeared and surprisingly have been nowhere to be found since the trial started.

DoYouEverWonder About 9/11?

I've noticed they pretty much mirror the groups that support and/or fund the DLC and PPI and their ideologies, as well as the ones supporting particular candidates, of course. I also noticed the phenomenon you mentioned after Hurricane Katrina. It seemed like dozens of posters came out of nowhere pushing stories which accused Black New Orleaneans of pretty much everything except jaywalking. And when those stories were debunked by several papers and government agencies, they disappeared as quickly as they came. Lately, too, I've noticed a rise in the number of posters claiming to be active duty or ex military, several who have very nasty attitudes, and others posting far right crap like the anti-Mexican immigrant conspiracies I mentioned, and North American Union stuff.

I've noticed the groups who manage to get away with breaking any and every rule, in fact the rules seem to be made for them. You aren't allowed to "call anyone out' on who you suspect they are, but there is nothing to stop them from saying you are a liar, stupid, crazy, a bad parent, all things that were said to me. One time I did a google for something and I cam up with a Democratic Undermine post that said "That's a lie, mirandapriestly and you know it" by one of them, lol. They definitely have free reign whoever they are. If they were paid by someone else then they would not be give favorable treatment so I have to think they are paid by DU. I found the site by following a link someone had posted on another board. They paid people to do that to get readers, so they probably pay people to post there too.
I suspect some kind of "behind the scenes" owner, a corporate sort who is interested in controlling opinion and perhaps even collecting information on people.

Thank you.

I have long thought "that site" was actually created to corral and stifle discussion of the very election theft they claimed motivated them to launch it.

You're the first person I've ever come across who frames it so well.

Yeah, Hillary Underground is already starting to purge.

If nothing else the Clintons are brilliant, if not ruthless, social climbers.

What a legacy.

How appropriate to find this topic for my very first post here.

In his classic, "Indispensable Enemies," the late Walter Karp explained that the job of the Republicans is to represent the right, and the job of the Democrats is to co-opt the left in order to prevent any real opposition to the right.

What I've observed is that new left gatekeeper sites start out by tolerating dissent. This makes them look progressive and open to free speech, and it enables them to attract members. Once they have a sufficient number of members, they then begin to stifle dissent more and more until so many people have been banned or grown disgusted with the site that it is nothing more than a running con game with resident shills to rope in new marks. At that point a new left gatekeeper site is set up and begins the cycle anew. They all seem to start out with more resources than most people could afford.

In stifling dissent, the double standard is crucial. The shills are permitted to make all the personal attacks they wish, but even the mildest criticism by someone on the left can be grounds for banning. Many sites don't even stop with banning dissenters, but will also delete anything they've ever posted. And the criticism doesn't have to be on the gatekeeper site itself, but can be on another site or even a private mailing list.

So even though the same things are true of all left gatekeeper sites, naming one of them could result in someone having everything they'd posted there over a period of years before they were banned, totally deleted. This does have a chilling effect. In fact what I'm writing now, although true of all left gatekeeper sites, could be taken as an attack on any one of them and result in having everything I'd ever posted there deleted, despite the fact that I dare not name any specific sites.

Before the internet, once something was published, it remained published. If it was successfully challenged it could result in a retraction or a lawsuit, but it was almost impossible to delete every copy of a newspaper, magazine or book. The very first interactive public website, according to a book written about it by a New York Times reporter (no, not Judith Miller), gave carte blanche to a stalker and sexual harasser who posted from work at a thinktank, but banned someone, and deleted everything they had ever posted, for "over the top" things like criticizing sexual harassers, stalkers, rapists, child molesters, exploitive bosses, etc. It rather makes one wonder if the site owners and administrators themselves might have fallen into one of those protected categories.

The use of trolls, banning, and wholesale censorship became the established methods of stifling dissent and progressive thought from the very first. And it continues to this day, twenty-five years later, on all left gatekeeper sites, particularly those we dare not name.

Since the words I've just written are likely to get me banned from any such sites that I haven't already been banned from, I'm very happy to be here, and to see so many familiar souls.



Oh yes, there's one more thing. How would left gatekeeper sites know if somebody said something they didn't like on another site or on a private mailing list? I've been pondering this, and I've come up with several conspiracy theories. Basically, since left gatekeeper sites are loosely associated with the political parties, which represent the corporations that run the government, it is possible that they have access to the results of total surveillance programs by government agencies. Or perhaps they have moles and spies everywhere. Peter Camejo, who ran for President as a socialist in 1976, says that a 1977 lawsuit uncovered the fact that there had been seventy-two paid FBI informers planted inside his campaign, including the co-chair of the campaign. If you pay a hundred people to pass themselves off as progressives, chances are that about three-quarters of them will succeed. Or perhaps, once they have your IP, they can simply track anything that you ever post anywhere at any time. Perhaps better minds than mine can come up with more plausible theories, but that's all I can think of offhand.

With tongue in cheek, I recently asserted posting in D U threads at this point suggests co-dependency issues. But the more I think about it, going there with the noble thought of enlightening others... I just don't see a big payoff of spending too much time there. It's like spy vs. spy.

quote is spot-on.

Even among people who are well-intentioned & think of themselves as progressive, it isn't nearly well-enough understood that the whole point of the Democratic Party is to weaken the Left. Most of these naifs imagine that by singing praises of the likes of Hillary, Obama, Edwards & so on, they're "opposing Bush."

This subject was also perfectly well-summarized by, for example, Phil Ochs, in "Love me, I'm a Liberal." That's the basic principle.

That OpEdNews site, BTW, is chock full of airhead Democrats who imagine that they "oppose Bush." Some idiot today was pushing "Al Gore for Nobel Peace Prize!"

Let them track things. They can't whack everyone.
A lot of great work is shitcanned.
We all hope and pray that this site is the promised land!

Peace is too important to leave out of the options.

Welcome, Mark! I knew you'd find a good home at PI.

Thank you for expressing quite well the reality of so called left leaning sites.

http://gorilla.wildlifedirect.org/
http://www.stopwhaling.org/site/c.foJNIZOyEnH/b.26...

http://www.stopaipac.org/
http://www.chris-floyd.com/war/
BOYCOTT ISRAEL HERE>>>>>>>>http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-israel.php#compan...


Skinner and EarlG's DU is a gatekeeper for the status quo banksters and corporatists in the so-called democratic party. I wonder how much they get paid?

Many long timers show just how right leaning they are
with the 'he can do whatever he wants with all of his
money' posts. Knowing that JE sponsored the IWR and is now
advocating war with Iran and now this, shows just how
sheepish some can be.

One nation, under surveilance

Far left, long-haired, liberal, pinko, radical, freak.

Expounding on Clinton's role in upholding the Iraqi sanctions--one of the most brutal in modern history--on any liberal message board separates the human beings from the party hacks, right quick.

I have done this, and it came to about 50/50 (not so discouraging, until one realizes that even with this knowledge, most are unwilling to divorce themselves from lesser-evilism).

although it has become obvious that they are barely different from the GOP and I suspect (my usual tinfoil) that Pres Clinton has a deeper than revealed relationship with Bush senior.

They do seem pretty close, don't they? Seems to me that Clinton is the "junior partner". Bill's role seems just a tad subserviant to George when I watch them together.

Strange, but both are NWO Globalists.

Peace.

where the cameras are running before the show starts and Larry King and Bill were sitting there waiting for the commercial break to end and King said to him very matter of fact: "After you win the election, you'll have to come back and..." It was before the election when Clinton was campaigning. Now, King would say he was just using a figure of speech to Clinton, that it looked like Clinton would be the likely winner, & that he didn't really know anything ahead of time. But the way he says it is very matter of fact and Clinton doesn't smile coyly or anything, just looks at him in a straightforward manner. I got the distinct feeling it was a done deal, the fix was in kind of thing.
It's rare for someone with Clinton's background to become president, although of course that is the way it should be, but it usually isn't. I can't help but think he made some kind of deal with the devil, no proof, of course, and there are all those rumors about drugs and all, some involving Bush Senior. I haven't really looked into them, though.
Yep, NAFTA is another giveaway. He also furthered the damage Reagan stated with the Fairness Doctrine, the media has become pure propaganda nothing but a tool for the elite.

NAFTA was the giveaway.

The TRUTH will set us free

I sure as hell do now, what a nightmare. Another gatekeeper-guarded secret is that there is no real difference between democrats and rethuglicans, it serves the elites by divide and conquer, and gives people the illusion that they have a choice.(I know the people here all know that but I just like that I have the freedom to SAY it here on PI.

was a lot of buzz in the media about how Bill Clinton, the governor of Arkansas, was the charismatic rising star of the Democratic Party. My reaction was, "Bill who?"

His actual speech at the convention was awkward and halting. It was hardly a sparkling debut.

Yet somehow he got elected in 1992. I wonder if the powers-that-be decided that perhaps it wouldn't look good to have 16 years of uninterrupted Republicanite rule and chose a pliable DINO to be elected in 1992.

In trying to recall the names of all the 1992 candidates, I found this fascinating link about media coronation of candidates:

http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9408d&L=aejmc...

All I want in 2007 2008 2009 is 1) U.S. troops out of Iraq, 2) Single-payer health care, 3) Bush and his cohorts put on trial for war crimes in the Hague, and 4) A kindly, humorous, highly intelligent left-leaning, middle aged significant other. (I would have added "well-developed mass transit and inter-city rail," but I didn't want to seem too demanding.)

fascinating link.

I've been saying for a long time now, maybe since '00 that Hillary will be the "chosen" one for 08.

Looks the Obama lovefest is upsetting this... Unless.. he's being set up to be her running mate.

What do you think? Too much tin foil in my diet?

Peace.

You get it.

Ms Billary will do whatever it takes to ascend to the throne. If that means choosing Obama as her VP, she'll settle. Probably wasn't her first choice, but she'll adapt to the mandates of the MSM.

GAWD, how I hate politics!

She'll have to to get that southern vote. Although I think the Rodhams are actually from Illinois if I'm not mistaken.

When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute.
-Walter Lippmann

that's a prerequisite for becoming pres. All the out of mainstream illuminati watching people that have been studying dynasties, bloodlines etc. have successfully predicted the "winners" from Poppy to Clinton to Jr have all said that Hillary is next in line. I don't doubt it for a minute. I did a tarot reading on some of the hopefuls, Hillary came up as Queen of Swords. Obama, Edwards were minor swords. I haven't finished it, but i'll put it into the Cultural Creatives section when I do.

Tin foil is my fashion statement these days.

http://antahkarana.wordpress.com/

What do you mean? They don't really look alike....

I like a bit of tin foil :-)

there has been a lot of "coziness" between 41 and Clinton.

Do you have a beef with Miranda?

The TRUTH will set us free

the cosiness is obvious but why are they so cosy ?? That is the question.

"I suspect (my usual tinfoil) that Pres Clinton has a deeper than revealed relationship with Bush senior."

I was simply referring to a quote from Miranda and hoping she would reveal more.

The TRUTH will set us free

I misinterpreted too, then realized that it was OK. Unfortunately, it's just something I've come across from time to time and wasn't sure if it was legitimate. It was on Democratic Undermine before it became the People Magazine of subversiveness. Connections between the drug trade with South/Central America and Poppy and Clinton, before Clinton was pres. Then Jeb was put into Florida to make sure drugs had an easy time getting in and out of Florida...why else would he be in Florida? well, except to make sure his retarded brother become President.
Drugs are way more profitable than oil.

or Mena Airbase. Rigorous Intuition has a good article on the connections between Clinton and Bush Sr. - look on the right hand side of the site.

don't remember where unfortunately... that Clinton and Poppy were buddy buddy even before Clinton's first selection. Whoever pulls the strings doesn't care which party is in, they still get what they want. Nafta, turmoil in the middle east etc.

edit for clarity.

http://antahkarana.wordpress.com/

toward what is happening now - first Reagan took care of the media with what he did to the Fairness Act, then Clinton and nafta, both paved the way for junior and..the absolute chaos that is happening.
There are differences, though, but not in the big picture. maybe I'm wrong, I hope so, but the new congress seems pretty timid and "let bygones be bygones"

Several days ago someone started a thread with an articulate comment about Edwards saying Iran was a threat etc. The rather lengthy post was civil and not in any way a put-down of Edwards. At the time I had just learned of Edwards' remarks. I was appalled, I don't mind saying, and I was eager for more info on the subject.

Well, almost immediately someone posted (paraphrasing) "I have asked Skinner to get rid of these hate threads about Edwards." Geez! Hate???

So, someone who wants to be President is promoting war with Iran and it's not an acceptable subject for discussion? Surreal is the only way to describe it.

I saw a thread someone started with a poll that asked if they should have kept the ignore option and over half of the respondents said they like it and that it should have been kept. Then a moderator came and locked it. That is so typical of that place, they try to hide what the majority wants and thinks there. Similarly with 9-11 a thread sneaked out of the Dungeon into GD and asked people what they thought about 9-11 from MIHOP to LIHOP to 19 hijackers and it was Clinton's fault, I think about 80 per cent said that they were either lihop or mihop, but look at the dungeon! all they have is a bunch of obvious shills who never post outside the dungeon so there is no way to know if they are even so called progressives, and only one of them was banned in two years and the dissenters get bumped off a couple times a week, at least. this is an obvious orchestration and make me wonder what is behind it. I used to always ask if 80% of DUers think 9-11 was an inside job why are 80% of the posters in the 9-11 forum official mythers? never got an answer, lol

9-11 forum official mythers? " is that its their job. The rest of just post because we're genuinely interested in the issues.

which cause me to wonder how do they get their special privileges? What kind of a "job" do the moderators really do?

I seldom post anything there because anyone who doesn't accept the OCT is automatically subjected to the most incredible ridicule.

Someone will go to the trouble of putting together a lengthy analysis of some issue surrounding 9/11 and one of the operatives (or mythers, as you describe them) will reply with something in the vein of "Seen any little green men lately?" Put-downs. And they add NOTHING to the discussion.

And it goes on and on. The OPer trying to clarify and re-state and the "operative" coming back with snotty remarks. And it's always the same people, like they sit at their computers day and night waiting to attack someone.

I wonder if these operatives know that when people like me read these exchanges, it makes us think that there really MUST be something that needs hidden about 9/11. Otherwise, why would these people be trying to shut down the discussion? They're shooting themselves in the foot, IMO.

unwitting participants in a live "lab" experiment ?...



in real time ?



a "petri-dish" for perception management ?



the corraling of net "leftists" and herding them to subservient, compromised "positions" favored by the ruling class ?



write free..impassioned..deep honest stuff...bring up taboo territory...challenge/sting one of the

sacred cows on the forum...you will be banned.



THERE IS RESEARCH IN THIS SUB-FORUM {complicity watch}...done by teenagers...that possibly

details, traces DUpu ownership, backers to- firms connected to the Tavistock Institute.



http://creativeyouth.net/dugate.html



here is my post in thread i found it at

Simply: WOW! captivating. must reads by "youth" on DU...





lOOks like they've added much more work/articles..

here is home page: http://creativeyouth.net/

describing the latin root
of the word `religion' -- religare -- as being re-, back + ligare, link;
meaning to link back to the universe,
to be reconnected to the source of one's own genesis
and of all creation.
Webster's defines ligare as bind, (to tie together) which is close
to the meaning of link (to connect or tie).
In either sense, seen in this way, living one's life with such a "religious attitude"
expresses the urge to manifest
more of the wholeness of one's totality.
Seeking such meaning in one's experience of being
does not necessarily
relate to any specific creed.
~The New Myth> For Our Species: The Creation of Consciousness



You Inspired
CHANGE Transpired...

JFK quotes you may have not heard






Erikson was describing that ineffable quality we call charisma,
and the way an individual life history sometimes converges with the historical moment:
"Now and again," Erikson wrote, "an individual is called upon," to lift his personal conflicts
to the level of cultural conflicts,
"and to try to solve for all
what he could not solve for himself alone."


A man lives not only his personal life,
as an individual,
but also, consciously or unconsciously,
the life of his epoch and his contemporaries.
~Thomas Mann

comments were most interesting. I missed the episode with the young activist, but they seem to go after anyone who truly threatens the status quo. I don't know if it exists to form people's opinions, or if it exists to make it appear as though people have certain opinions that they don't. I actually was brainwashed while posting there, without knowing it. There were certain verboten topics and websites and they were sites that had all the good stuff on them. There were people who would pop up and "correct" you if you said the wrong thing. Last time I looked over there someone was talking about how subversive John Mellencamp's new record is, lol!
It really controlled the way I thought, where to draw the line, and then I watched the footage from the day of 9-11 and I went WOAH! this footage was faked, the whole thing is a lie, it's not just a partial deception. I started to post my all-out views and bam! I got banned.
I would notice that people would disappear, then I would wonder why and all the shills/paid posters/military / stealth moderators whatever they are would start a whisper (shouting) campaign that the person had done something horrible and I would believe it. Then it happened to me and a couple posters I know that were good posters.
so Skinner is the name of a tavistock founder? hmmm

Dr Skinner worked on the same stuff as Dr Pavlov

And, Like DU, that went to the drooling dogs

" That weren't no coyote, Wiley. That was a Fox!"

There's an old Army Psychological Warfare Manual (I hope John McCarthy has it on his site, Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans, as it is being "rewritten," i.e., censored online) that lists most of the tried and true techniques used by resident trolls, political operatives, and disinformation specialists online, and is therefore also a handy guide for recognizing them.

But there are a couple of somewhat newer developments. Remember the guy who did those cruel "learned helplessness" experiments with dogs? I think his name was Erlinger (sp?) or something like that. Not only is learned helplessness an essential part of official U.S. torture techniques, used to break down a prisoner's resistance, but this dude is also credited as the father of positive psychology. Quite a co-inky-dink, huh?

Selling courses in positive psychology is part of what Rob Kall, who owns opednews, does for a living. One time he posted an article about reconciling positive psychology with political activism. Somebody had sent him a letter, which he reprinted in the article, explaining that they'd been a practitioner of positive psychology, creating a rose-colored-glasses world for themself and avoiding negative thoughts, but eventually decided that the world was so messed up that they had to become politically active, and asked how he reconciled the two. Rob gave a pretty good explanation and also mentioned that his wife works with survivors of torture and how positive psychology can be used in the healing process.

My comments in that thread were to the effect that it might be a good idea to stop the torture before you begin the healing process. It was only in a separate article that was posted later on by psychologist Stephen Soldz, that I learned about the Erlinger guy, and that the American Psychological Association, which officially opposes torture, condones members' participation in Guantanamo interrogations. So behavior modification is still a growing field, with lots of employment opportunities.

A friend pointed me to the Air Force homepage online a while ago, where they state that their mission includes control of cyberspace. Wasn't it Groucho who noted, "Everybody's trying to get into the act!"

It was discussed here at P I quite recently. A link to the specific reply is below, there are 3 or 4 responses to that post as well...

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.p...

DU = spy vs. spy

And thanks to Pat Vesely for posting it here on PI. It is handy to have around.

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance in seeing sites which regularly engage in banning and censorship, proclaim over and over how they're all about free speech.

Another handy way of recognizing left gatekeepers, for me at least, is to remember the greed slogan that he who dies with the most toys wins. They always seem to have lots of toys. They're very attractive, but of course it is cosmetic and superficial. I've been humming "Lemon Tree" a lot lately. "Lemon tree very pretty, and the lemon flower is sweet, but the fruit of the poor lemon, is impossible to eat."

I agree with RichM about the Democratic Party. I had a comment deleted on opednews not too long ago. Someone had written a puff piece about the Democrats and his bio said that he did PR. I asked whether his article was paid PR for the Democratic Party. Someone else flagged my comment, saying that it was an over-the-top personal attack, and an editor deleted it. But the guy who had posted the article said that it wasn't a personal attack, that it was a fair question, that he was associated with Democratic groups and was an advisor to top Democrats, but that he had written the piece as a volunteer, not for pay. No matter, my comment was gone and Rob just said that it was a decision made by one of the editors.

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only fool who has built up various sites by contributing huge amounts of free content, only to eventually be banned and see everything I'd written deleted. They allow progressive posts in order to attract progressives so that they can build up their readership. Once they've gotten what they want, they delete everything that isn't in line with their agenda and ban anyone who disgrees with them.

dKos was good for a few laughs over the way that they'd been demonizing election reformers and had made election integrity a taboo topic, but suddenly did an about face after RFK Jr's article came out in Rolling Stone. I only post there rarely so I still haven't been banned. But what really cracked me up recently was a thread on DU about election reform. People in the thread, which was, I think, posted by kpete about something Paul Lehto had written, were freely and happily saying things that would have gotten them banned a year ago. This seems to be due to valiant efforts over time by kpete, Paul, and Autorank, but I recall as well as Pat Vesely does, the vicious attacks that resulted in Bev Harris being banned from DU. Just mentioning Bev's name over there is like mentioning Ralph Nader -- you'll get totally trashed.

Bush was never the enemy on DU, in fact he's their biggest fundraiser -- every fundraising campaign I ever saw there featured his face. If they didn't have a greater evil to point to, being a lesser evil wouldn't be much of a selling point for the Democrats, particularly among those who oppose evil. But their biggest enemies are Ralph Nader, who has consistently opposed corporate rule, and Bev Harris, who crusades for honest elections. If you didn't have corporate rule and rigged elections, you wouldn't have the Democratic and Republican stranglehold on U.S. politics. The Democrats aren't the party of the people, they're the enemy of the people, and until people realize that, there's little hope for democracy.

when Bev first got her start. At first we all thought she was great. Her and Andy Stephenson 'met on the site' and we all encouraged their collaboration. Heck I even sent them money. However, over the course of time we got to see a side of Bev that was less then honest. We saw the way she treated Andy, especially after he got sick. That's why a lot of the old timers there don't have a positive POV about Bev any more.

DoYouEverWonder About 9/11?

One of the most frequent accusations leveled against Ralph Nader on LG sites is that he is arrogant. This is usually said by the most arrogant posters there.

DU itself is less than honest, DU has not treated people kindly, and DU is not in a position to be throwing stones.

Neither Ralph nor Bev considers themself an idol or wishes to be idolized. They are both mere mortals and fully aware of that fact. Setting them up as being perfect, and then knocking them down for not being perfect, is the fault of the idolators, not theirs.

If DU were held to the same standards that Bev and Ralph are held to, it would have been shut down long ago.

There's a new film about Nader and you can see the trailer for it at http://www.anunreasonableman.com In it you see a typical Democrat naming every crime the Bush administration has committed and blaming Nader for each one. Supposedly, had Ralph not run for office, Gore and Kerry would have been elected, and none of those things would ever have happened. I debunked that pretty thoroughly in a post on opednews entitled, "How Ralph Nader Forced the Democrats to Take Impeachment Off the Table," and even lauded him for accomplishing this feat in a year when he wasn't on the ballot. No matter that the Democrats voted for every one of those crimes, just blame Ralph.

What has DU done to fight corporate rule? What has DU done to fight for honest elections? When they've done more to fight for consumer protections, workplace safety, environmental protections, and corporate responsibility than Nader has, I'll be willing to let them criticize him. When they've done more to fight for honest elections than Bev has, they can criticize Bev too. Until then, they can STF up.

have to do with what Bev did to Andy?

And can you tell me Bev's recent accomplishments. Have local election laws gotten changed, has she documented and published solid proof of the fraud she's claimed to find?

I judge a person by their deeds not their words.

DoYouEverWonder About 9/11?

The topic asks when did DU go to the dogs.

One of the times it became apparent that they had gone to the dogs was when they started attacking Bev to avoid discussing election reform.

I don't think that Bev was unkind to Andy, but I wasn't there, were you?

However, if Bev had committed the most heinous crimes in the world, it would not justify DU's refusal to allow discussion of election reform.

Although Bev has organized citizen election oversight, obtained and analyzed data from all over the country to aid in election integrity work, and helped citizens pursue litigation where necessary, to my mind Bev's greatest ongoing accomplishment is raising public awareness of the dangers of electronic vote rigging and the need for transparency.

When it is so simple for someone to rig an election by inserting malicious code that can alter the results and then erase itself so that it cannot be detected even by experts, to insist on solid evidence is in and of itself, evidence that someone is totally unconcerned with election fraud and simply doesn't want to know the truth. If you left your money on the table, went out of the room, came back and it wasn't there, you might not be able to prove that anybody took it, but I think you'd know for sure that it had been taken. Even though you would not be able prove who took it, and would have no concrete evidence that anyone took it, I think that if anyone tried to tell you to stop thinking that your money was taken, you might be extremely annoyed with them.

It is difficult to get people who were dishonestly elected, to enact legislation that would make it impossible for them to be dishonestly elected again.

The question is not what has Bev done, it is what have you done? What has DU done? Bev has raised public awareness about a serious problem undermining our democracy, and those who attack Bev as a means of stifling discussion of the problem, are not doing their country a service.

Thanks to Bev, citizens all over the country downloaded a simple Citizen's Toolkit from blackboxvoting.org that enabled them to know what to look for and how to monitor elections. I was one of those citizens. There is ongoing litigation here based on evidence gathered and analyzed by local citizens following the simple instructions that Bev, Pat, and others posted on BBV. Bev has empowered people to attempt to take back the elections process from the voting machine corporations and the electoral bureaucracy. But Bev is not our Dear Leader. Bev is one of us. Bev has been doing the same work that we've been doing. The same work that any citizen who cares about democracy should be doing. The work that DU not only will not assist with, but won't even allow people to discuss. They have a big website with many users. Why didn't they use it organize pollwatchers, and election tally observers? Don't they care about electing Democrats? Is their sole concern raising money for Democrats and for themselves? Do they still think that if they can just raise enough money and get enough people to vote, machines that subtract, lose, or add 16,000 or 18,000 votes due to "glitches" in small districts where races are won by a few hundred votes, won't make a difference?

I don't care how you judge people, DoYouEverWonder. I don't care if you are judging people fairly or unfairly. While people like me, Bev, Pat, and thousands of others are having discussions about issues and working on solving problems, all you are doing is judging people. If you have no response to something or don't want to discuss it, it is easy to use ad hominem attacks on the people asking the questions or trying to discuss the issues.

If some filthy, smelly, crazy, drunken, homeless person barged into your nice clean office to tell you that your house was on fire, would you let your house burn down while you called security to get rid of them?

Judge not.

It wasn't over Andy. All these posters were really excited about Bev and her group and one of the posters thought they would help her out by setting up a group on DU to gather the same kind of information, I can't remember what the name was, but they took the name that she was using for her group of helpers, the intent was harmless in my view. Well, she came on guns blazing and started threatening to call a lawyer because they had usurped her name (something stupid like the Clean Up Crew) and just started ranting and raving all over the board. It was pretty shocking. She seemed very paranoid, like a drug user or something. That was the incident that turned everyone on her, I don't think it was for the purpose of "not discussing election fraud". DU tried to subvert that in other ways like banning people for talking about it. Andy, I don't know, I feel horrible about what happened to him, but I don't know why he was such a big hero on DU, but because of the circumstances I don't really think it appropriate to say anything
I was always suspicious of ida briggs because she is the one who got everyone suspicious about New Hampshire with her calculations then when the "recount" didn't show anything she was like "oh well, I guess it's ok, see democracy really DOES work" and stopped posting. That deal was suspicious.

before they started accusing Bev of having killed Andy?

I know that I'm not the only one who was there at the time who wasn't against Bev, so it couldn't have been "everyone." Isn't that one of the standard techniques, making people think that "everyone" thinks something, so that they will also? And psych studies have shown that most people, rather than be in a minority, will deny their own eyes to be part of the crowd.

I think a lot of us freaked out on DU, I know that I did several times, particularly when I found myself being attacked by a mob for no apparent reason, or when the rules were applied unfairly. At that point I didn't know DU was a LG, and I wasn't as familiar with psy-ops as I am now.

Some of the criticisms of Bev and Ralph are valid. Bev is a perfectionist and expects everybody else to be one also. Too bad. Most of us aren't. Ralph is dedicated and driven and expects everybody else to be so also. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.

But banning people for talking about election fraud?

Banning people for talking about 9/11?

That's paranoid. That's insanity. That's censorship. That's a violation of our right to freedom of speech. And it is a deliberate attack on the very foundation of democracy, which happens to be an informed electorate.

And then claiming to be a progressive board?

Nowadays I have a very simple rule of thumb for judging whether a board is progressive or not. I look for sexism. It's a dead giveaway. Half the world is female. So a board that isn't concerned about offending females has written off half the world as unimportant. But I didn't have that clear an understanding when I joined DU. I knew sexism was wrong, but I didn't realize it was a fatal flaw. There are other flaws, like not caring about the environment, not caring about torture (Do unto others...), etc., but sexism is usually the easiest one to spot and is also the most vital. A board that cares about the destruction of the only habitat we have, cares about human rights violations and war crimes, but doesn't care about abolishing patriarchal values, doesn't understand the root cause of the problems they're trying to solve, and therefore isn't likely to solve them.

Thanks Miranda for reminding me of the thrashing that Bev gave the community.
I never turned on her as bad as most, but the Andy Stephenson saga didn't help her image. My memory is slipping fast, but didn't those 2 have some blowout before the freepers tookover the trashing of Andy?

In the long story, that stuff will only be a blip and I would support anyone who tries to get to the bottom of stolen elections.
The Undermining of the party is nearly complete over there. I don't visit there very often so I don't know the general scheme, but I figure that the candidate that gives Israel the free reins will be the one supported there. I think the pro semites have a firm grasp on the discussions there, but have no sense for humanity. How far from PNAC and the right wing can they be? Not very far in my mind- I see the place as right wing now except of course our old friends still carrying the torch there.

Peace is too important to leave out of the options.

I just think in her case, I did see some some kind of psycho behavior, then the posters just would not let go of it, while I was thinking, isn't it more important to support the cause then get involved in these personality disputes? But I was really naive at DU then, and I watched all these "hints" and allegations of other wrongdoing by Bev, then she became a pariah there. I never really figured out if she was bad or good, it seemed to me she did bring election fraud to light.

right before Andy got diagnosed with cancer his sister passed away. Andy and Bev were on the road when it happened and Andy had to fly back for the funeral. Bev threatened him if he left and basically fired him for going. After that Bev withheld money that she owed him and did some other nasty things. Then he got sick and of course had no insurance or anything. So in the end Andy got screwed in more ways then one.

DoYouEverWonder About 9/11?

that somebody else was with them, somebody who had introduced Bev to election reform and had been working with Bev for a long time.

But Andy had apparently not been doing very much, rarely showed up for work on time, and, as I've mentioned, had only been on Bev's payroll for four months. So since he hadn't been doing very much, and had to fly back for the funeral, he was indeed fired. I'd have been fired from any job I ever held for much less than being consistently late and trying to take time off before my probationary year was up. In fact I once consoled a tearful Social Security caseworker who had been denied leave to attend the worker's own husband's funeral by the Social Security administration, and this after working there for twenty years. But I don't know for certain if Bev actually withheld any of his pay, or failed to pay his withholding for the four months that he worked for Bev. However, even if he'd had a full benefits package and been vested within four months, which has never been my experience even on jobs for the government and big corporations, no less non-profits, I doubt if his unemployment insurance and his tax refund for four month's work would have paid for his initial consultation, no less his hospitalization. If Bev offered a full medical plan, which most employers do not these days, I don't even know if Andy signed up for it, and if he had and he wanted such a plan, I don't know why he risked his job. That case worker kept working for Social Security, even after not being allowed to attend the husband's funeral, in order to retain the benefits, health insurance, and pension plan accrued from twenty years of work. And cried in my arms for hours. Twenty years. Never a day late. Never an unexcused absence. Have you never held a job? Don't you know what conditions are like for working people in this country? People are fired for being late. People are fired for taking unexcused absences. And many people work full time jobs and still cannot afford health insurance, even if their employer offers it. But you don't want to discuss that, you just want to discuss how "nasty" Bev is.

Many people lack insurance and die. Many people have their jobs outsourced and lose their benefits and their homes. This is not Bev's fault. Bev did not vote against the national health care plan that Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, (D-CA, retired) introduced in Congress every single year of the twenty-four years that he was in office, including during Democratic administrations and when Congress had a Democratic majority, the way many of the Democrats that DU supports, will not allow anyone to criticize, and raises money for, did consistently. Bev wasn't even a member of Congress.

I fail to understand why you only care about Andy, and not about all the other people who have died due to the lack of a health care plan, including those whose jobs were outsourced when Democratic President Bill Clinton pushed through GATT to facilitate such outsourcing. Why you demonise Bev, but not the Democratic President, Democratic Congresscritters, and corporate CEOs who have consistently blocked any discussion of a national health care plan (except for Hillary's absurd plan that would have toadied to the insurance corporations anyway).

Andy isn't the only one who got screwed. You can demonise Bev all you want, but DU still supports the Congresscritters and corporations screwing hundreds of thousands of Americans. Is it that you don't think that anyone except Andy deserved health care?

Come to think of it, perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't seem to recall much discussion on DU about us being the only country in the world without a national health care plan. Not even when Andy was dying. Nor do I recall much discussion about outsourcing, even when thousands of other Americans were losing their jobs and their health insurance. But then again, why would DU allow discussion of vital issues like that when they have such important ad hominem attacks to make on Bev?

Having been on DU, you may not be aware that it has been conclusively proven that both Gore and Kerry WON their elections. Nobody was allowed to discuss this on DU until recently because election fraud was a conspiracy theory floated by Bevbots. And you may not be aware that everything that the agenda of the guy that both Gore and Kerry conceded to (for the good of the country, of course, as they explained), and that the Democrats in Congress voted for, is not Ralph Nader's fault, because even if Gore and Kerry had won by larger margins, they'd still have conceded to their Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones colleague and brother Bush, because he supports the same globalist/corporatist policies that they support. You may not be aware that when the Democrats voted for everything Bush asked for, Ralph Nader was not on the floor of the House and Senate twisting every single arm and forcing them to vote for policies that they oppose and abhor.

Yes, the Democrats are the "party of the people," rather than of the issues that are matters of life and death to ordinary people. But they're the party of the DLC people, the elite people, the people who care only about themselves and their friends and not about anyone else. They are not a populist party, they are not (small "d") democratic in any sense of the word, they've never seen a war or a budget that they didn't like, and they've never seen a tax break for the rich or a cut in social programs that they didn't like.

Again, if Bev had taken a knife and stuck it directly into Andy's heart, it would not justify the fact that DU would not allow people to talk about the stolen elections or about issues that matter to working people, like health care and outsourcing.

And if I see one more post that is about Bev rather than about why DU went to the dogs, I'm going to resign from PI and let you recovering DUers spend another few years recovering before I try again. I believe that you may eventually learn how to discuss issues rather than making personal attacks, but it may take some time and I just don't have that much time to waste.

she was banned because she was not what she claimed to be. I had personal emails back and forth with her a few times way back in 2002 and 2003. I supported her enough to give her money sadly before I realized she was the fraud.


At any rate the topic of this thread is not bev harris.

http://gorilla.wildlifedirect.org/
http://www.stopwhaling.org/site/c.foJNIZOyEnH/b.26...

http://www.stopaipac.org/
http://www.chris-floyd.com/war/
BOYCOTT ISRAEL HERE>>>>>>>>http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-israel.php#compan...


Skinner and EarlG's DU is a gatekeeper for the status quo banksters and corporatists in the so-called democratic party. I wonder how much they get paid?

Nor did you post anything off topic, right?

And the reason I came PI is because I heard tell by some, that here, people can freely discuss serious issues and not have to wonder if next time they attempt to post, if they'll be banned.
So a big hello to everyone!
If we can get nothing accomplished?
At least we'll aquire a truthful history to hand off to our young.
Fine post mymark!

it took a while and then it really picked up speed.
After the stolen election of 2000 and through 911, I lurked there. I was sure that dissent would be punished by dubco and avoided it. When it appeared that many were speaking out and living, I joined over there. Many things were discussed freely and disruptors were banned quickly.
Once the 911 dungeon was started things started to change, conspiracy theories attacked, etc. The I/P thing always caused a stir, but was not a real problem until recently. There is all this anti-semite talk and holocaust denial stuff.
Discussions are easier here.

Peace is too important to leave out of the options.

I've been a lurker since 2000, and started positing in 2001, i think. Granted, I only put together 800 something posts in over 5 years, but since 2004, all of my posts have been highly critical. In the 2004 primaries, when I still had some idealism about The Party, I made many pro-dean and pro-kucinich posts. Since then, I have often gotten into arguments in which I defend the green party, Nader, and proclaim my anarchist/radically democratic beliefs.

So I honestly don't know why I haven't been banned.

But I've seen lots of other really good people go down. It's really sad for me, because in all honesty, I would have never become a radical if it wasn't for DU. People there opened my eyes to a lot of ideas and issues. So it'll always have a place in my heart. But I just want to cry when I go there now.

I think the biggest difference is when it comes to coverage of anti-war protests. Back in 2002/2003, the entire forum was a ghosttown on days that there were anti-war protests, and the only posts seemed to be from people who wanted to be at the protests, but couldn't be. Nowadays, the largest post I saw about the J27 protest was that anarchists spraypainted the capitol. Since I was at the protest and an anarchist, I added a few words. I tried to speak about the role of anarchism in the labor movement, and was told that "anarchist just came to disrupt the labor rallies too". I provided evidence of the IWW and other anarchist influences, and was told to "stop living in the past".

And, the greatest, a person said that anarchists and republicans are "basically the same". My main problem with DU, and why I rarely frequent anymore, is because it is no longer a tool useful for radicalizing the masses. I'm glad I came there and became radicalized when I did, or else I'd probably just be another brainless twit like the rest of them.

The biggest difference between today and back when I joined DU, is that ignorance is now celebrated. It's like one big mainstream middle class liberal capitalist cult over there. When trying to explain to somebody in the MN forum why poor people would want to vote for more funding for public transit, trying to break through his white male bourgeois skull, his response was "well, i have friends who ride the bus!" I think liberals get their jollies by pretending to have friends who are lower class. It actually lets them put a face on the people they think they are sticking up for.

Anyway, that was too long and rambling. Sorry.