Note - I am rescuing the disappeared section of the thread I started about infiltrators. - Mike


I dunno, Mike, maybe my coefficient of paranoia wants adjusting, but

So if Obama, Edwards, Clinton or Richardson are elected President are using disinformation to push America towards war with Iran, how are they better than George W. Bush?
doesn't seem like a bad or unfair question to me.

I dunno, Mike, maybe my coefficient of paranoia wants adjusting, but

So if Obama, Edwards, Clinton or Richardson are elected President are using disinformation to push America towards war with Iran, how are they better than George W. Bush?
doesn't seem like a bad or unfair question to me.

I guess that's the hip thing to say, to show one's progressive bona fides or whatever, but its not really true. Will they be different practically speaking? Well, let me put off my answer for one second on that. In the mind's of voters it seems to be a big difference - they didn't take a complete about face and vote for some of the lamest candidates on record (Democrats) for no reason. That's a rather large repudiation of the current Republican power bloc to write off and say "Sorry, no difference"

Practically speaking a Dem in office has the big drawback that all of the sudden everything will be so rosy, the economy will be just awesome, Spring the in the air, the world's in love with us, blah blah. And the enemy will be those dirty Republicans trying to smear their beautiful, wonderful President..ugh

People bought it with Clinton, and they'll probably buy it with Obama..

I guess that's the hip thing to say, to show one's progressive bona fides or whatever, but its not really true. Will they be different practically speaking? Well, let me put off my answer for one second on that. In the mind's of voters it seems to be a big difference - they didn't take a complete about face and vote for some of the lamest candidates on record (Democrats) for no reason. That's a rather large repudiation of the current Republican power bloc to write off and say "Sorry, no difference"

Practically speaking a Dem in office has the big drawback that all of the sudden everything will be so rosy, the economy will be just awesome, Spring the in the air, the world's in love with us, blah blah. And the enemy will be those dirty Republicans trying to smear their beautiful, wonderful President..ugh

People bought it with Clinton, and they'll probably buy it with Obama..
I'm not sure whether I'm just failing to grasp the point you're making, K, or we have orthogonal views on this.

The way I read the question, it's asking whether (e.g.) Obama is any different to BushCo as far as being willing to murder tens of thousands, maybe more, of innocent people goes. Not whether Obama would be an improvement in terms of (e.g.) the minimum wage, sacking people, or some other issue, but whether there's anything significant to choose between them with respect to their willingness to commit wholesale homicide of the innocent.

I suppose if Obama were committed to stop at only, say, 100,000 innocent victims he'd be a worthwhile improvement over BushCo...but I'm appalled at the idea that we'd ever even entertain the possibility of such a calculus!

The mentally healthy, adjusted, practical and realistic thing would be to take everything at face value and not get paranoid.



Right?

The mentally healthy, adjusted, practical and realistic thing would be to take everything at face value and not get paranoid.

Right?

Not necessarily.

I learned something from the Move On campaign, the original one that aimed at saving Clinton from impeachment. Namely that something can be the right thing to do even when the "wrong" people want it done. So now I try not to evaluate messages by looking at the messenger. I try to evaluate them on their own grounds. And I've not seen anything from Obama that impeaches my impression of him as just another opportunistic, conscienceless elite, like the Clintons, Dean, Gore, the Bushes, et tedious, endless cetera. So that's why that statement that got you upset looks okay to me.

The mentally healthy, adjusted, practical and realistic thing would be to take everything at face value and not get paranoid.

Right?

Not necessarily.

I learned something from the Move On campaign, the original one that aimed at saving Clinton from impeachment. Namely that something can be the right thing to do even when the "wrong" people want it done. So now I try not to evaluate messages by looking at the messenger. I try to evaluate them on their own grounds. And I've not seen anything from Obama that impeaches my impression of him as just another opportunistic, conscienceless elite, like the Clintons, Dean, Gore, the Bushes, et tedious, endless cetera. So that's why that statement that got you upset looks okay to me.
See? They have us looking at Obama, not at them. They have us analyzing messages, not the messengers.

I dunno, Mike, maybe my coefficient of paranoia wants adjusting, but

So if Obama, Edwards, Clinton or Richardson are elected President are using disinformation to push America towards war with Iran, how are they better than George W. Bush?
doesn't seem like a bad or unfair question to me.

There is no credible context, Mairead. It isn't about whether or not the sentiment is good, it is about distraction - we focus on the supposed value of the thought and whether or not we agree with it, and we ignore the possibility that it is bait and that we are the fish.

You couldn't get away with ruthlessly attacking every Democratic politician and creating havoc in communities without a cover. “I'm for Dennis and against the war” is perfect cover. All of the other members will fall for that uncritically, and no harm is done to the right wing program by promoting Kucinich. If you say that though, the response will be that we have to believe and not be negative, that we should support the candidate that best “reflects our personal values,” that anyone “for” Kucinich is an ally and above reproach.

Then get this – implications will start that the person questioning any of this is themselves a right wing plant. THAT is the most effective way to work the game. I have felt for a long time that the very ones accusing others of being plants are the most likely suspects.

Just look at that recent incident at the Kucinich board. If that person were the real thing, and it were pointed out to them that what they had just posted was generated by the RNC, they might have said “oops I didn't notice that” or offer some explanation or justification for why they were posting that. Also, there is no way that it could have been an accident or an oversight to post that RNC talking point tract and not notice that and then to claim that it was a liberal site that generated it. No way. No way that could have been a mistake, and the person is not saying that they made a mistake.

But instead of a logical response when I challenged them, they turned the focus onto me – and lectured me about my “unwillingness to accept the truth”and other such nonsense.

The Kucinich campaign - in total confusion and going nowhere - is the perfect platform for the opposition to use. They can "promote" Kucinich without any danger of him ever getting elected. From that platform they can trash out every other Democrat and not be suspected of being disinformation infiltrators. As accepted members of the community - because they mouth a few nice sounding liberal phrases and everyone is too naive to look any farther - they can really wreck communities, as they so obviously did at PI. A handful of them - and you can tell by their phrasing and vocabulary that we are seeing the same people under different usernames in different places - can do a lot of damage.

Being "youth activists" - or infiltrating and using a legitimate youth activist board - they have the "gee aren't they cute" thing going for them. I remember a couple of them complaining about being banned at DU - supposedly because they were too radical or something, which will always gain sympathy from the PI crowd - they kept repeating over and over again that "Skinner was abusing minors" by exposing their true identities. That seemed odd to me at the time. That has always been off - "we demand equal treatment with adults" but special consideration as children.

No one gets banned from boards for their ideology, nor for bad behavior. They get banned when they become suspicious of the infiltrators. That is what happened at PI. Newswolf and I were sniffing those infiltrators out. I have talked to others there who have caught the same whiff, but kept silent (they are smarter than I am.) You can promote Communism all day long at DU. No problem. According to PI doctrine, speaking against Israel. But not everyone who speaks against Israel gets banned. Everyone, however, who shows any sign that they are catching onto the game, even if they aren't yet sure what they are pursuing but just sense that something is wrong, does get banned.

It has always amazed me how naive people are about this. The right wingers inserted a plant at the New York Times, but it isn't possible at DU and anyone thinking there are any plants is paranoid? Then there is the "we are not important enough for them to bother with" argument. But in the 60's every little chapter of every little organization had plants, and the current regime has many more tools at its disposal, more money, and seems much more motivated and sophisticated to me. And who do you suppose would want to keep putting out the idea that "the Internet doesn't matter?"

I think we can all agree that there is a large and well-financed and coordinated right wing disinformation effort happening. I am convinced that most of that activity is not for the purpose of overtly promoting right wing views, but rather to screw up the Left. I think that all sorts of things – the 911 truth movement, the Kucinich campaign, the anti-war movement – are dead ends. The more zealous people are about these, the better for the right wingers, the easier people are to steer.

It would cost next to nothing to hire and manage Internet infiltrators – it probably represents the biggest bang for their buck with the least risk of any of their activities. Fooling the liberals and steering the groups would be child's play.

That didn't take long. I lurked in the Kucinich chat room last night after I exposed Alex and Anne1, and there they were working on Kucinich supporters.

Today, just as I predicted, I am being accused of being a troll.

Flamebait thread (http://kucinich.us/node/3785#comment-7345)

I will be banned soon, no doubt.

See? They have us looking at Obama, not at them. They have us analyzing messages, not the messengers.
er, yeah. So why should I care about the messengers? Since when does the nature of the messenger change the nature of the message?

There is no credible context, Mairead. It isn't about whether or not the sentiment is good, it is about distraction - we focus on the supposed value of the thought and whether or not we agree with it, and we ignore the possibility that it is bait and that we are the fish.
But Mike, Who CARES??? If you're worried about distraction, why are you over there letting yourself be distracted?

You've been spending too much time trying to engage with that tape recorder over there, CFP. That's the problem.

See? They have us looking at Obama, not at them. They have us analyzing messages, not the messengers.
er, yeah. So why should I care about the messengers? Since when does the nature of the messenger change the nature of the message?

Great! I have a bridge I want to sell you. :)

See? They have us looking at Obama, not at them. They have us analyzing messages, not the messengers.
er, yeah. So why should I care about the messengers? Since when does the nature of the messenger change the nature of the message?

Great! I have a bridge I want to sell you. :)
Mike, you've just supported my contention: you are a high-quality person. But you just emitted a totally bogus message. QED.

Mike, you've just supported my contention: you are a high-quality person. But you just emitted a totally bogus message. QED.

It was an attempt at a joke. I guess I don't know what your contention is exactly.

If a person is saying one thing, and doing another, it is essential that you look beyond the message, seems to me.

Mike, you've just supported my contention: you are a high-quality person. But you just emitted a totally bogus message. QED.

It was an attempt at a joke. I guess I don't know what your contention is exactly.

If a person is saying one thing, and doing another, it is essential that you look beyond the message, seems to me.
Why? It's important if they're doing it TO YOU, but why is it important if they're doing it to someone you don't care about anyway? I don't give a damn about whether Obama or Clinton wins, do you? Either way, it's a disaster. Would it be a lesser disaster if one of them won rather than, oh, McCain? Damned if I know, and I'm not going to spend any time or energy agonising over it. Are you?

Hey Mairead -

This is the third time in recent memory that you and I have just hit a brick wall. I can't detect a theme or a pattern. Is there some larger complaint you have, or a common thread in the things you dig in your heels on?

It seems to me - and maybe I am missing something - that on this thread there is one relatively peripheral issue - whether or not that one post on that one blog is sincere or worthwhile or not - that is a problem and that has become the stumbling block.

I guess that's the hip thing to say, to show one's progressive bona fides or whatever, but its not really true. Will they be different practically speaking? Well, let me put off my answer for one second on that. In the mind's of voters it seems to be a big difference - they didn't take a complete about face and vote for some of the lamest candidates on record (Democrats) for no reason. That's a rather large repudiation of the current Republican power bloc to write off and say "Sorry, no difference"

Practically speaking a Dem in office has the big drawback that all of the sudden everything will be so rosy, the economy will be just awesome, Spring the in the air, the world's in love with us, blah blah. And the enemy will be those dirty Republicans trying to smear their beautiful, wonderful President..ugh

People bought it with Clinton, and they'll probably buy it with Obama..
I'm not sure whether I'm just failing to grasp the point you're making, K, or we have orthogonal views on this.

The way I read the question, it's asking whether (e.g.) Obama is any different to BushCo as far as being willing to murder tens of thousands, maybe more, of innocent people goes. Not whether Obama would be an improvement in terms of (e.g.) the minimum wage, sacking people, or some other issue, but whether there's anything significant to choose between them with respect to their willingness to commit wholesale homicide of the innocent.

I suppose if Obama were committed to stop at only, say, 100,000 innocent victims he'd be a worthwhile improvement over BushCo...but I'm appalled at the idea that we'd ever even entertain the possibility of such a calculus!

The point is people are clamoring for (real) change. The mid-term elections were a dramatic indicator of that and we may see it again in 2008 (or not)

Mike, don't try to derail the conversation. This is not about me. Answer my questions, please. Why are you over there? Why do you even CARE what anyone says about Obama or Clinton or whoeverthehell? What do you hope to get out of arguing with a tape recorder. What's the payoff for you? What makes you think that the outcomes there have anything to do with anything you care about?

The point is people are clamoring for (real) change. The mid-term elections were a dramatic indicator of that and we may see it again in 2008 (or not)
I'm none the wiser, I'm afraid. Are you saying that Obama represents real change, or that people are deluded, or what?

Why? It's important if they're doing it TO YOU, but why is it important if they're doing it to someone you don't care about anyway? I don't give a damn about whether Obama or Clinton wins, do you? Either way, it's a disaster. Would it be a lesser disaster if one of them won rather than, oh, McCain? Damned if I know, and I'm not going to spend any time or energy agonising over it. Are you?

I explained why in great detail, Mairead. How can you think that I care about Obama or Clinton from what I have said? I am not talking about the relative merits of any candidate at all. I can't imagine how I gave anyone that impression.

Mike, don't try to derail the conversation. This is not about me. Answer my questions, please. Why are you over there? Why do you even CARE what anyone says about Obama or Clinton or whoeverthehell? What do you hope to get out of arguing with a tape recorder. What's the payoff for you? What makes you think that the outcomes there have anything to do with anything you care about?
WTF?????

I started this thread. The topic is infiltrators. I think that is crystal clear reading back over my opening few posts.

Why? It's important if they're doing it TO YOU, but why is it important if they're doing it to someone you don't care about anyway? I don't give a damn about whether Obama or Clinton wins, do you? Either way, it's a disaster. Would it be a lesser disaster if one of them won rather than, oh, McCain? Damned if I know, and I'm not going to spend any time or energy agonising over it. Are you?

I explained why in great detail, Mairead. How can you think that I care about Obama or Clinton from what I have said? I am not talking about the relative merits of any candidate at all. I can't imagine how I gave anyone that impression.
No, Mike, you did not explain. Assertion is not explanation. Why do you care about something where the outcome doesn't matter to you? If you don't care whether Obama or Clinton wins, then how can you possibly care about the dezinformatsiya, dirty tricks, and general hoo-hah that goes into their dogfight? You don't care about some argument over the ownership of a goat over in Kwa-Zulu, do you?

No, Mike, you did not explain. Assertion is not explanation. Why do you care about something where the outcome doesn't matter to you? If you don't care whether Obama or Clinton wins, then how can you possibly care about the dezinformatsiya, dirty tricks, and general hoo-hah that goes into their dogfight? You don't care about some argument over the ownership of a goat over in Kwa-Zulu, do you?

?



I started this thread. I think I know what it is about. It is not about Obama or Clinton.

Of course I cannot answer your questions as to why I care about Obama and Clinton. I don't. I didn't say that I did. I didn't imply that I did.

I don't think, and did not say, and do not agree with your idea that this is about a dogfight between the supporters of different Democratic candidates.

Since I started the thread I think I know what I intended to talk about.

C'mon Mike. You're better than that. It's beneath you to try to play dumb.

C'mon Mike. You're better than that. It's beneath you to try to play dumb.

Play dumb? About what? How?

Yeah, Mike, you started this thread:
The Koochie Kiddies who disrupted PI have been busy around the Internet, and I caught them tag teaming to post some propaganda that I traced back to the Republican National Committee. There is a pattern here - posing as Kucinich supporters (easy to fool the Koochies I am afraid - very trusting and naive) posting RNC talking points with links to newly created blogs that echo the points and link back to that "youth activist" site.

I am on their trail, but they know I am onto them.
I repeat: so what? WHY are you "on their trail"? What's it to you what they do? What's your stake in it?

I repeat: so what? WHY are you "on their trail"? What's it to you what they do? What's your stake in it?

I think they are infiltrators, as I said. I explained that. What are you questioning?

I repeat: so what? WHY are you "on their trail"? What's it to you what they do? What's your stake in it?

I think they are infiltrators, as I said. I explained that. What are you questioning?
So what? What if they are? WHY DO YOU CARE? They're infiltrating Dem venues, right? So why do you care?

So what? What if they are? WHY DO YOU CARE? They're infiltrating Dem venues, right? So why do you care?

I explained why I cared about this. I believe that most people on these boards care about infiltrators.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you care? Let's say I am off base. Maybe I shouldn't care about this. But what difference does it make to you whether I do or not?

The point is people are clamoring for (real) change. The mid-term elections were a dramatic indicator of that and we may see it again in 2008 (or not)
I'm none the wiser, I'm afraid. Are you saying that Obama represents real change, or that people are deluded, or what?

Many Obama supporters and perhaps Edwards supporters as well honestly believe they can effect real change. Thats the difference that a vote for them signifies (to me) as opposed to voting in Guliani or whoever else. Because you know in a vacuum Guiliani would wipe the floor with any of the Democratic candidates..

There's always been something off about the Creative Youth 'kids' so Mike's findings don't surprise me at all. I am surprised that Mairead thinks we shouldn't care..this was - apparently - one of the groups responsible for co-opting PI..

Many Obama supporters and perhaps Edwards supporters as well honestly believe they can effect real change. Thats the difference that a vote for them signifies (to me) as opposed to voting in Guliani or whoever else. Because you know in a vacuum Guiliani would wipe the floor with any of the Democratic candidates..

Kid, I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with the Obama candidacy or any other candidacy.

So what? What if they are? WHY DO YOU CARE? They're infiltrating Dem venues, right? So why do you care?

I explained why I cared about this. I believe that most people on these boards care about infiltrators.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you care? Let's say I am off base. Maybe I shouldn't care about this. But what difference does it make to you whether I do or not?

Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product.

As to my interest, this is supposed to be a place dedicated to independent populism. Or has that changed and I've been too busy to notice? If it hasn't changed, then I have a stake in seeing it stay independent. Your one-sided concern about anti-Dem infiltrators is inappropriate and gives rise to thoughts I'd prefer not to entertain.

Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product.

As to my interest, this is supposed to be a place dedicated to independent populism. Or has that changed and I've been too busy to notice? If it hasn't changed, then I have a stake in seeing it stay independent. Your one-sided concern about anti-Dem infiltrators is inappropriate and gives rise to thoughts I'd prefer not to entertain.

There is no just cause for bringing my motives, integrity or character into question.

There is no justification for acusing me of acting like a spammer. I think that the other members can decide for themselves whether or not they are interested in what I have to say - are interested in my "product" as you call it.

Nothing I have posted suggests that I am have an agenda of promoting Democrats or the Democratic party.

Nothing I have said threatens the independence of this board - far from it.

What is a "one sided" concern about infiltrators? I am against them. I guess that is one-sided. What is the other side?

I am not talking about "anti-Dem infiltrators" I am talking about organized right wing infiltrators.

I am confident that I made all of this crystal clear in my initial posts on this, a thread that I started.

So what? What if they are? WHY DO YOU CARE? They're infiltrating Dem venues, right? So why do you care?

I explained why I cared about this. I believe that most people on these boards care about infiltrators.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you care? Let's say I am off base. Maybe I shouldn't care about this. But what difference does it make to you whether I do or not?

Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product.

As to my interest, this is supposed to be a place dedicated to independent populism. Or has that changed and I've been too busy to notice? If it hasn't changed, then I have a stake in seeing it stay independent. Your one-sided concern about anti-Dem infiltrators is inappropriate and gives rise to thoughts I'd prefer not to entertain.

Mairead I don't get it - PI is (at least nominally) bit a Dem venue and they certainly infiltrated there, right? I would think Mike would have a vested interest in that..most of us do given our history at PI. I'm not sure I see the reason for so much hysterics against Mike here.

Now he's a spammer and a Democrat? Huh?

So what? What if they are? WHY DO YOU CARE? They're infiltrating Dem venues, right? So why do you care?

I explained why I cared about this. I believe that most people on these boards care about infiltrators.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you care? Let's say I am off base. Maybe I shouldn't care about this. But what difference does it make to you whether I do or not?

Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product.

As to my interest, this is supposed to be a place dedicated to independent populism. Or has that changed and I've been too busy to notice? If it hasn't changed, then I have a stake in seeing it stay independent. Your one-sided concern about anti-Dem infiltrators is inappropriate and gives rise to thoughts I'd prefer not to entertain.

Mairead I don't get it - PI is (at least nominally) bit a Dem venue and they certainly infiltrated there, right? I would think Mike would have a vested interest in that..most of us do given our history at PI.
Why? It's not at all self-evident. So if you think you understand it, then how about laying it out for me in very simple, easy-to-understand language? What would anyone here get out of doing that? What's the payoff?



I'm not sure I see the reason for so much hysterics against Mike here.
What you see as "hysterics" was my attempt to get Mike to quit playing dumb. It's a very frustrating exercise. You'll notice that he still hasn't answered my "why" question. He just plays dumb, claims he's already done it, etc. That takes real hostility, that does.



Now he's a spammer and a Democrat? Huh?
Trying to put words in my mouth should be beneath you. Shouldn't it?

What you see as "hysterics" was my attempt to get Mike to quit playing dumb. It's a very frustrating exercise. You'll notice that he still hasn't answered my "why" question. He just plays dumb, claims he's already done it, etc. That takes real hostility, that does.

Obviously, I can't defend myself against the charges of "playing dumb" nor of being motivated by "real hostility." No one could.

Your question has been answered. You asked why I was concerned about this. I said because I am concerned about infiltrators. I believe that I know better than anyone what I am and am not interested in, and I believe that I have the right to be interested in whatever I choose without having my motives and integrity thrown into question.

I also think that what I say should be taken at face value until and unless there is some cause for doubting me. Insinuating that I have hidden motives or that I am not being sincere and honest is not fair nor warranted and I strongly object to it.


Trying to put words in my mouth should be beneath you. Shouldn't it?

KOBH said "now he's a spammer and a Democrat?"

You had written "Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product."

If you didn't mean to insinuate that I was the equivalent of a spammer, and hint that I may secretly be promoting a Democratic party agenda, what did you mean?

Turning it around on KOBH - "(that) should be beneath you" - is not warranted. His interpretation of your remarks is reasonable. Saying that it should be beneath him is a slur - implying that he did something underhanded or was being dishonest, perhaps? Hinting that he has some hidden motivations? What is the "it" that should be beneath him exactly? "Putting words in your mouth?" How did he do that? When you hint, imply, and insinuate it is pretty difficult to avoid "putting words in your mouth."

[quote=Mairead]So what? What if they are? WHY DO YOU CARE? They're infiltrating Dem venues, right? So why do you care?

I explained why I cared about this. I believe that most people on these boards care about infiltrators.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you care? Let's say I am off base. Maybe I shouldn't care about this. But what difference does it make to you whether I do or not?

Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product.

As to my interest, this is supposed to be a place dedicated to independent populism. Or has that changed and I've been too busy to notice? If it hasn't changed, then I have a stake in seeing it stay independent. Your one-sided concern about anti-Dem infiltrators is inappropriate and gives rise to thoughts I'd prefer not to entertain.

Mairead I don't get it - PI is (at least nominally) bit a Dem venue and they certainly infiltrated there, right? I would think Mike would have a vested interest in that..most of us do given our history at PI.
Why? It's not at all self-evident. So if you think you understand it, then how about laying it out for me in very simple, easy-to-understand language? What would anyone here get out of doing that? What's the payoff?



I'm not sure I see the reason for so much hysterics against Mike here.
What you see as "hysterics" was my attempt to get Mike to quit playing dumb. It's a very frustrating exercise. You'll notice that he still hasn't answered my "why" question. He just plays dumb, claims he's already done it, etc. That takes real hostility, that does.



Now he's a spammer and a Democrat? Huh?
Trying to put words in my mouth should be beneath you. Shouldn't it?[/quote:1is3oofz]

Mairead

C'mon you are really wound up on this I guess..relax a little. I think Mike's discovery is pertinent, for roughly the same reasons he does. I guess I couldn't defend my interest in the topic in a court of law, so you win that point. I'm mystified why its a point you feel the need to make but..touche..I guess

What you see as "hysterics" was my attempt to get Mike to quit playing dumb. It's a very frustrating exercise. You'll notice that he still hasn't answered my "why" question. He just plays dumb, claims he's already done it, etc. That takes real hostility, that does.

Obviously, I can't defend myself against the charges of "playing dumb" nor of being motivated by "real hostility." No one could.

Your question has been answered. You asked why I was concerned about this. I said because I am concerned about infiltrators. I believe that I know better than anyone what I am and am not interested in, and I believe that I have the right to be interested in whatever I choose without having my motives and integrity thrown into question.

I also think that what I say should be taken at face value until and unless there is some cause for doubting me. Insinuating that I have hidden motives or that I am not being sincere and honest is not fair nor warranted and I strongly object to it.

Mike, if I hadn't, minutes before, been cleaning out 99 spams, all sent me by people who assured me that they weren't annoying me for their benefit, but "because we believe you will want to know about our product", then I might have likened your response to Microsoft, instead. There's a mordant joke-perhaps you've heard it?-in which the pilot of a helicopter gets lost in fog and, coming close to a large office building, asks the people working there "where am I". They respond "you're in a helicopter", whereupon he understands where he is and immediately knows how to find the airport. His co-pilot is mystified and, once they're down, says "how did you know how to find the airport, those people didn't tell you anything". And the pilot replies "no, but the moment they spoke, I understood that the building had to be Microsoft's tech support building because they're the only ones who respond to questions in a way that is both 100% accurate and totally useless."

The pilot in the joke didn't need to be told he was in a helicopter, I didn't need to be told that you're "concerned about infiltrators". For you to pretend that you thought I did shows a lot of hostility.


KOBH said "now he's a spammer and a Democrat?"

You had written "Why would anyone care about anti-Dem infiltrators, Mike...unless they're really Dems at heart, not independents? Your statement sounds like a spammer's justification for spamming--they just KNOW everyone's interested in their product."

If you didn't mean to insinuate that I was the equivalent of a spammer, and hint that I may secretly be promoting a Democratic party agenda, what did you mean?

Turning it around on KOBH - "(that) should be beneath you" - is not warranted. His interpretation of your remarks is reasonable. Saying that it should be beneath him is a slur - implying that he did something underhanded or was being dishonest, perhaps? Hinting that he has some hidden motivations? What is the "it" that should be beneath him exactly? "Putting words in your mouth?" How did he do that? When you hint, imply, and insinuate it is pretty difficult to avoid "putting words in your mouth."

KOBH understands as well as you or I do that there's a huge difference between a "why" question plus a "sounds like" analogy, and two "you are" assertions.

When you repeatedly play dumb with "helicopter" responses, it leads to speculation about your motives. People are usually happy to explain themselves, among friends, if they think they're onto something important for the group. When someone chooses to play dumb, instead, most people on the receiving end try to figure out what's really going on.

C'mon you are really wound up on this I guess..relax a little. I think Mike's discovery is pertinent, for roughly the same reasons he does. I guess I couldn't defend my interest in the topic in a court of law, so you win that point. I'm mystified why its a point you feel the need to make but..touche..I guess
You're mystified? Me too! I mean, the fact that there are people beavering away in various fora with hidden, destructive agendas is not exactly a news flash, is it? So why care, when it's not this forum? Speaking for myself, it takes all my time to care about what's going on here. I'm content to leave the defence of other fora to their denizens. And since I perceive Mike as someone highly intelligent, sensible, and with integrity, I'm baffled by this apparent interest in old news. As I earlier said, it activates speculations that I'd prefer not to entertain.

But you say that you understand Mike's reasons. I can't imagine how you can, but okay. Perhaps you can explain them to me, as to a child.

It is impossible for a person to prove that they do not have a hidden motive.

You are continually accusing me of having a hidden motive, and then demanding that I reveal it.

You say that I am obsessed with this and demand to know why and accuse me of dodging the question - yet we have hardly discussed my original posts at all. We have instead been diverted off into discussing my supposed hidden motives, my character and my integrity.

Clearly we are not talking about garden variety criticisms of Democrats when a group of people are copying and pasting slanderous accusations from right wing sources, disrupting several boards, and working tag team fashion to isolate and discredit solid members and attempt to assassinate their character with insinuations and implications, and successful get people banned from boards by these devious means. Just as clearly I am not an apologist for the Democratic party, nor is there any basis for the insinuations that I have a covert agenda here.

You say that I am obsessed with this and demand to know why and accuse me of dodging the question - yet we have hardly discussed my original posts at all. We have instead been diverted off into discussing my supposed hidden motives, my character and my integrity.

Clearly we are not talking about garden variety criticisms of Democrats when a group of people are copying and pasting slanderous accusations from right wing sources, disrupting several boards, and working tag team fashion to isolate and discredit solid members and attempt to assassinate their character with insinuations and implications, and successful get people banned from boards by these devious means. Just as clearly I am not an apologist for the Democratic party, nor is there any basis for the insinuations that I have a covert agenda here.
I repeat: why do you care what happens to Democrats? That's why we "have hardly discussed [your] original posts at all"---I've been trying, so far in vain, to discover why you even wrote them. (And spare me another repeat of your "helicopter" response, okay?)

I repeat: why do you care what happens to Democrats?

I don't.

I am objecting to what looks to be a pattern of dishonest and disruptive activity. The targets of that campaign are not relevant to that. Where it is currently happening is not relevant.

For example, one could object to a person being murdered, even though you didn't care about the victim, didn't know them, and were not "on their side" in any way. Why would you care if you didn't care about the vicitim? Because you care about anyone being murdered, regardless of whom, where, or by whom.

Let's recap, shall we?

1. Someone starts posting smear attacks from right wing sources at the Kucinich board.

2. That person lies about the sources and misleads people about them.

3. That person claims to be associated with the same group that disrupted PI.

4. I object to the smear tactics, and the dishonest methods, and track down the sources of the smears and post that.

5. A group of people then quickly show up and immediately start questioning my motives, my agenda - insinuating that I am working for the targets of the smear, or I am "for the war" or that I am "attacking good people" or, just as at other boards - "attacking teen agers." It is all by insinuation and implication, an obvious attempt to discredit me in an underhanded way. "What sort of person would do this? Why are you making an issue of this? Why are you defending (Obama, Edwards, Democrats)? Who are you working for? Why won't you answer questions about your agenda and motives here, hmmmm?"

That is a fucking problem. That is the problem that I started this thread to discuss.

I repeat: why do you care what happens to Democrats?

I don't.

I am objecting to what looks to be a pattern of dishonest and disruptive activity. The targets of that campaign are not relevant to that. Where it is currently happening is not relevant.

For example, one could object to a person being murdered, even though you didn't care about the victim, didn't know them, and were not "on their side" in any way. Why would you care if you didn't care about the vicitim? Because you care about anyone being murdered, regardless of whom, where, or by whom.
Actually, we don't usually care about people being murdered...or not enough to talk about them, anyway. Unless we have a connection. That, Mike, is my point. There are millions of topics that could be raised, but we don't raise them at random. We have to have a connection; the topic has to be figural (i.e., figure, not ground) for us. Suddenly you're hot to talk about a specific, narrow slice of old news, and I'm wondering what's behind that.

OK, now I'm totally confused. Mike shifted the focus specifically to Kucinich and still you are balking, Mairead. You've been one of Kucinich's most vocal advocates here..

OK, now I'm totally confused. Mike shifted the focus specifically to Kucinich and still you are balking, Mairead. You've been one of Kucinich's most vocal advocates here..
Oh good, at least I'm not the only one confused. What does Kucinich have to do with it? I think he's miles in front of the rest of that very bad lot, but that's as far as it goes for me. Are you implying that I should get all excited about the old news because some of the bad'uns are beavering away undermining him? They did last time, too. And he probably even hired some of them. He certainly hired some of the incompetents, of which his campaign had many.

Sadly, Mairead's question seems to accurately reflect the ultimate cynicism of the U.S. attitude toward politics -- not just the superficial alienation of the Hopeless Majority ("why would anyone care about politics? We can watch Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and medicate our frustrations by fantasizing about what they might do together“), but the underlying scorn of the Platonic intellectual elite for our (oft-betrayed) Constitutional processes and even democracy in general: "politics is nothing but an idiot's tale, full of sound and fury, so why trouble our beautiful minds?” At least that is the sense I get of what she is saying -- the expression of a profound alienation I myself too often share.

But beyond the fact it demonstrates the near-omnipotence of the ruling class, the significance of infiltration attempts (and in fact dezinformatsiya and all the other spookery as well) is that such efforts lay bare not just the reality but the methodology of our oppression -- and are therefore a vital study in both the development of tactical countermeasures and the shaping of an adequate strategic (hence ideological) response to the underlying crisis.

The mere fact the ruling class is ever more frequently resorting to infiltration and other such clandestine or semi-clandestine methods is proof of the degree to which it feels threatened -- particularly by the possibility the celebrity-sedated hopelessness of the American people might yet give way to politically focused anger -- however much that anger might then be co-opted by political treachery.

What is new here, by the way, is not the methodology itself: political dirty tricks are as old as the human penchant for political organization. What is new is the magnitude of the effort: so huge that even relatively insignificant groups like PI are targeted (never mind the fact I have long suspected PI itself is a false-flag operation, run for just the purpose of using democracy against itself -- that is, by encouraging the more thoughtful and articulate radicals to reveal ourselves and thus be identified for eventual internment).

And obviously the Democrats are rightfully our focus. The Republican Party with its exclusive and unapologetic representation of the ruling class has all but declared itself the modern-day U.S. equivalent of Mussolini’s fascists (if not Hitler’s Nazis), so it is patently absurd to scrutinize Republican affairs for evidence of infiltration: why would the ruling class infiltrate that which is already both its wholly owned subsidiary and its executive-action agency? Indeed the very fact the Democrats are so overwhelmingly targeted by infiltrators (and myriad other sorts of spookery) proves the proverbial fix is not yet totally in place -- that there is still some room for hope.

Meanwhile the sullen refusal of the U.S. citizenry to organize an effective alternate-party movement again makes it painfully clear the Democrats offer us our only possibility for significant reform or transformation. (The only exception to the alternate-party failure-syndrome was the Communist Party during the 1930s -- the third largest political group in U.S. history and by far the best organized -- which as part of the Popular Front put Franklin Delano Roosevelt into office and kept him there until 1945.) Meanwhile today’s Greens offer no alternative at all; dominated from top to bottom by the yuppie bourgeoisie, they are anti-labor to the core -- in their own way no less viciously elitist than the Republicans.

By way of full disclosure, I reluctantly endorse the Democrats as our only practical, possible hope for 2008. My reluctance expresses my full awareness of the Democratic Party’s outrageous penchant for betraying us all, as in Carter’s 1977 declaration of war against the poor -- especially our right to reproductive choice (see link below). The Clintons are even more treacherous: note their total repudiation of the New Deal and all its values, a repudiation demonstrated not only in the euthanasia-by-neglect of “welfare reform” but in their support for downsizing, outsourcing and the Global Sweatshop Economy. The Clintons’ treachery is even more apparent in the remarkably cunning scheme by which they forever discredited single-payer healthcare -- thus guaranteeing in perpetuity the obscene profits of the insurance barons, the hospital aristocracy and the prescription drug lords.

Though I remain troubled by John Edwards’ apparent involvement in the campaign by First National City Bank of New York (aka “Citibank”) to peddle high-interest credit cards to the poor, the fact remains he is the only candidate who has dared urge resurrection and fulfillment of the New Deal. The following is from his website: Edwards called for a massive public-works program to rebuild ravaged parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, modeled after President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal initiatives during the Depression.

Having grown up with the New Deal, I know just what the revisionist historians of both the Right and the pseudo-Left would suppress and therby have us forget: that the New Deal was in fact a non-violent revolution -- the grafting of the historical truth of class struggle onto singularly American principles of Constitutional governance -- with full recognition that though capitalism is bottomless greed elevated to ultimate virtue, it cannot be exterminated but instead must be caged and controlled like the viciously predatory monster it is.

It is the ruling class terror that Edwards or some other candidate will resurrect such values (and perhaps even bring them to full crimson flower) that motivates the infiltration efforts we are discussing here. Indeed -- to re-emphasize what I already said -- these efforts are not only worthy of tactical and strategic study; they also prove we yet have reason to hope.

The promised link to Time magazine’s report on Carter’s breathtaking fuck-you betrayal of the poor is here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 76,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915176,00.html)

(My apologies for my long absence from this site. My personal life has become truly overwhelming -- this time in an entirely positive way.)

Hey Wolf

thats great, from your April 6th entry on your blog I was worried that it might not be so positive

An excellent summary here too..

Welcome back. It's nice to know your absence was for a happy reason this time, though I hope your being back doesn't mean the happy part went away.


Sadly, Mairead's question seems to accurately reflect the ultimate cynicism of the U.S. attitude toward politics ... but the underlying scorn of the Platonic intellectual elite for our (oft-betrayed) Constitutional processes and even democracy in general: "politics is nothing but an idiot's tale, full of sound and fury, so why trouble our beautiful minds?” At least that is the sense I get of what she is saying -- the expression of a profound alienation I myself too often share.

In my case it's alienation only from corporate-owned politics, Wolf.



The mere fact the ruling class is ever more frequently resorting to infiltration and other such clandestine or semi-clandestine methods is proof of the degree to which it feels threatened -- particularly by the possibility the celebrity-sedated hopelessness of the American people might yet give way to politically focused anger -- however much that anger might then be co-opted by political treachery.

What is new here, by the way, is not the methodology itself: political dirty tricks are as old as the human penchant for political organization. What is new is the magnitude of the effort: so huge that even relatively insignificant groups like PI are targeted (never mind the fact I have long suspected PI itself is a false-flag operation, run for just the purpose of using democracy against itself -- that is, by encouraging the more thoughtful and articulate radicals to reveal ourselves and thus be identified for eventual internment).

As you say, it's as old as the hills. My sense about the magnitude is that funding a few -or even a few hundred- disruptors is pretty cheap, for a group of billionaires, and well worth the money since the ruling class hasn't been able to fully size the problem posed by high-bandwidth communication. We proles communicating makes them nervous. As Chomsky points out (and Alinsky before him) there's a network of law designed to make it look like we have rights, but the existence of the network means that we really do have rights...if we use them. So the elites are nervous, and are doing whatever they can without appearing to care.



And obviously the Democrats are rightfully our focus. The Republican Party with its exclusive and unapologetic representation of the ruling class has all but declared itself the modern-day U.S. equivalent of Mussolini’s fascists (if not Hitler’s Nazis), so it is patently absurd to scrutinize Republican affairs for evidence of infiltration: why would the ruling class infiltrate that which is already both its wholly owned subsidiary and its executive-action agency? Indeed the very fact the Democrats are so overwhelmingly targeted by infiltrators (and myriad other sorts of spookery) proves the proverbial fix is not yet totally in place -- that there is still some room for hope.

Not a very deep analysis, Wolf. Recall that, while the Dems and GOP are of the same class, they're not the same people. They have intra-class rivalries, equivalent in virulence to those that prompted the end of the Confederation and then the Civil War. Now it's purely business/greed rivalry rather than the deeper way-of-life rivalry of southern slave-based agriculture vs northern wage-slave manufactory, but the rivalry remains, and very real. They're all united in their desire to keep us quiet, but they use us against one another, too. I certainly have no reason to think things have changed much since the Kennedy camp infiltrated the Nixon camp and undermined them during the run-up to the 1960 expression of the racket. Have you?


Meanwhile the sullen refusal of the U.S. citizenry to organize an effective alternate-party movement again makes it painfully clear the Democrats offer us our only possibility for significant reform or transformation.

Again a surprisingly lightweight analysis coming from you, Wolf.



Though I remain troubled by John Edwards’ apparent involvement in the campaign by First National City Bank of New York (aka “Citibank”) to peddle high-interest credit cards to the poor, the fact remains he is the only candidate who has dared urge resurrection and fulfillment of the New Deal. The following is from his website: Edwards called for a massive public-works program to rebuild ravaged parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, modeled after President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal initiatives during the Depression.

You're joking, of course, right? Edwards is another Carter--fine words covering basic pro-corporate, pro-elite values. However, a nationwide reincarnation of the WPA was a major part of Kucinich's platform in 2003 (along with Medicare for all-his campaign coined the phrase-, universal edu, rebuilding the national infrastructure, and, of course, immediate cessation of the world-crime in Iraq) and I'd bet money a Lexis/Nexus search would pull up his public advocacy for it years earlier. Shouldn't we be giving credit where actually due?

Let's recap, shall we?

1. Someone starts posting smear attacks from right wing sources at the Kucinich board.

2. That person lies about the sources and misleads people about them.

3. That person claims to be associated with the same group that disrupted PI.

4. I object to the smear tactics, and the dishonest methods, and track down the sources of the smears and post that.

5. A group of people then quickly show up and immediately start questioning my motives, my agenda - insinuating that I am working for the targets of the smear, or I am "for the war" or that I am "attacking good people" or, just as at other boards - "attacking teen agers." It is all by insinuation and implication, an obvious attempt to discredit me in an underhanded way. "What sort of person would do this? Why are you making an issue of this? Why are you defending (Obama, Edwards, Democrats)? Who are you working for? Why won't you answer questions about your agenda and motives here, hmmmm?"

That is a fucking problem. That is the problem that I started this thread to discuss.
Well, now I know why KOBH got confused...I didn't see this post til just now, so in the Kid's place I'd have been confused too.

But I don't see where the context changes anything. You fell in among fools or scoundrels. THe same thing happened to me 4-5 years ago over at Smirking Chimp. The local "League of Decency" or whatever you want to call it started in on me, and nobody spoke up for me. The uninvolved were either too stupid to see what was being done, or too stupid to see that it was a bad idea to let them get away with it. Either way, there was too much stupidity for me to overcome. So I didn't try. I left, and have no intention of ever going back. They're the equivalent of a mentally-inbred peasant village in Ukraina, Poland, Alabama, or Montana, populated by people who rejoice in their impenetrable meta-ignorance.

You've been around the block a few times, Mike. This won't have been something new for you. So what did you hope to accomplish by bringing it up here? You can't defeat such people because they're not in any way open-minded. They have no doubts about their own righteousness, and they're not interested in truth or justice or anything but winning. So why not work on something real instead?

(My apologies for my long absence from this site. My personal life has become truly overwhelming -- this time in an entirely positive way.)

Lovely to hear.

Well, now I know why KOBH got confused...I didn't see this post til just now, so in the Kid's place I'd have been confused too.

You have repeated that a couple of times. KOBH was not confused by my remarks, he was confused by yours, I believe. He said "OK, now I'm totally confused. Mike shifted the focus specifically to Kucinich and still you are balking, Mairead."


You've been around the block a few times, Mike. This won't have been something new for you. So what did you hope to accomplish by bringing it up here? You can't defeat such people because they're not in any way open-minded. They have no doubts about their own righteousness, and they're not interested in truth or justice or anything but winning. So why not work on something real instead?

This is all a distraction. I am not talking about block-headed self-righteous zealots. I am talking about an organized disruption effort. You say "why bring it here" as though I am spreading trouble - and again you throw out innuendo about my motives - and "why not work on something real" as though it is to be assumed that what I am talking about is petty or unimportant.

Again, I think I have a right to post what I think is important, and the other members can decide for themselves whether it is of value or not. You continually attempt to mischaracterize what I posted, and my stated reasons for starting this thread. You have driven it off topic again and again and shifted the focus back to the messenger and away from the message.

You are trying to steer the group and telling them what they should or shouldn't pay attention to.

The issue of dragging shit from over there - feuds and whatever - from one board to another is something that people are resistant to, and you are playing on that in a very manipulative way. Trying to isolate a poster, by building a phony consensus against them, and discredit them by speculating as to what their problem may be - hinting around by saying there are things you don't wnat to think about them - are also highly manipulative.

Characterizing something as "old news" is a tactic for discrediting what someone else is saying, too. "ho hum, nothing new here, we have seen this many times, move along."

You keep suggesting that I am smart enough to know that there is nothing to see here - which discredits the message and creates suspicion about the messenger. Since you seem to be complimenting me, that softens the blow of what would otherwise be seen as an obvious effort at character assassination. "He is smart enough to know that I am right" is what you are saying in essence. That establishes that your characterization of my remarks is accurate, that your view that there is nothing worth talking about is obvious, and slyly suggests that there must be some hidden agenda on my part and that I am just "playing dumb."

About the message you say it is nothing new, nothing real, nothing important. But about the messenger you have a lot to say, mostly with hints and innuendo. What are his motives? Why is he posting this? Is he pushing an agenda? Why is he not answering my questions? Why is he defending Democrats? Why is he distracting us away from real things?

Every word you have written on this thread is forwarding two themes - "there is nothing to what Mike is talking about so move along" as though that were obvious and a foregone conclusion, and then speculation - "what could be Mike's devious angle or hidden agenda?"- advanced with veiled hints, suggestions, and innuendo.

Well, now I know why KOBH got confused...I didn't see this post til just now, so in the Kid's place I'd have been confused too.

You have repeated that a couple of times. KOBH was not confused by my remarks, he was confused by yours, I believe. He said "OK, now I'm totally confused. Mike shifted the focus specifically to Kucinich and still you are balking, Mairead."
You're being silly, Mike.


This is all a distraction. I am not talking about block-headed self-righteous zealots. I am talking about an organized disruption effort. You say "why bring it here" as though I am spreading trouble - and again you throw out innuendo about my motives - and "why not work on something real" as though it is to be assumed that what I am talking about is petty or unimportant.

Again, I think I have a right to post what I think is important, and the other members can decide for themselves whether it is of value or not. You contiunually attempt to mischaracterize what I posted, and my stated reasons for starting this thread. You have driven it off topic again and again and shifted the focus back to the messenger and away from the message.

The issue of "dragging shit from over there" - feuds and whatever - from one board to another is something that people are resistant to, and you are playing on that in a very manipulative way. Trying to isolate a poster, by building a phony consensus against them, and discredit them by speculating as to what their problem may be - hinting around by saying there are things you don't wnat to think about them - are also highly manipulative.

Characterizing something as "old news" is a transparent tactic for discrediting what someone else is saying, too.

About the message you say it is nothing new, nothing real, nothing important. But about the messenger you have a lot to say, mostly with hints and innuendo. What are his motives? Why is he posting this? Is he pushing an agenda? Why is he not answering my questions? Why is he defending Democrats? Why is he distracting us away from real things?
Fine, Mike. Whatever you say. I apologise for not understanding what you were talking about. Have fun.

This is absolute bullshit.

I STARTED that topic. What right do you have to arbitrarily decide that it is "off topic" and therefore trash?

This is absolute bullshit.

I STARTED that topic. What right do you have to arbitrarily decide that it is "off topic" and therefore trash?

Mike, instead of jerking your knee, look at what I removed and what I left, okay?

Is this new forum public? Who is it avaliable to? Who is making these decisions?

It's open to all real members, just like everything else.

It's open to all real members, just like everything else.

Not sure what that means. At one time some forums were restricted, some weren't. Did that change at some point? I may have missed that change. Then you made the Quiet forum. How did that forum differ from the other ones?

Not seeing why this is pruned off and what the purpose of a new forum is. I don't know who created this forum so I don't know who I am asking, but I think it is a legitimate question.

The (visually) upper group of fora, including Quiet and this, remain invisible to the public, while the (visually) lower group remains publicly readable, though not publicly writeable. Those two basic divisions remain unchanged.

To implement part of the anarchic goals Rusty has talked about, I created a group called simply 'insiders', and put every real (i.e., active) member into it, and gave the group, and thereby its members, mod powers over all the fora.

Not seeing why this is pruned off and what the purpose of a new forum is. I don't know who created this forum so I don't know who I am asking, but I think it is a legitimate question.
I created this forum, and I pruned off the part of your thread that amounted, with one exception (it's yours, so you can replace it in the original thread if you want), to nothing more than my comments and everyone's responses to my comments. I.e., everything that was off-topic to your thread. I would have done cleaner surgery except that the phpbb people neglected to provide more than the crudest tools.

The (visually) upper group of fora, including Quiet and this, remain invisible to the public, while the (visually) lower group remains publicly readable, though not publicly writeable. Those two basic divisions remain unchanged.

To implement part of the anarchic goals Rusty has talked about, I created a group called simply 'insiders', and put every real (i.e., active) member into it, and gave the group, and thereby its members, mod powers over all the fora.

OK. But why a need for Quiet, then? It would be the same as the other forums in the upper group, according to what you say here.

The (visually) upper group of fora, including Quiet and this, remain invisible to the public, while the (visually) lower group remains publicly readable, though not publicly writeable. Those two basic divisions remain unchanged.

To implement part of the anarchic goals Rusty has talked about, I created a group called simply 'insiders', and put every real (i.e., active) member into it, and gave the group, and thereby its members, mod powers over all the fora.

OK. But why a need for Quiet, then? It would be the same as the other forums in the upper group, according to what you say here.
Because none of the other remaining fora in the upper group is for political discussion. Rusty moved the one and only political-discussion forum out into public view.

Because none of the other remaining fora in the upper group is for political discussion. Rusty moved the one and only political-discussion forum out into public view.

That doesn't explain the Quiet forum. So Rusty is making these decisions?

Because none of the other remaining fora in the upper group is for political discussion. Rusty moved the one and only political-discussion forum out into public view.

That doesn't explain the Quiet forum. So Rusty is making these decisions?
In what way doesn't it explain it? After Rusty moved the political discussion forum into public view, there was no longer one that wasn't in public view. I felt the need for a non-public one, and so created Quiet. Rusty decided to move the first one, I decided to create a replacement for it. Now there are fora for both public and non-pubic political discussion, thus meeting all legitimate needs.

I found a couple of segments of a thread that Mairead broke apart and put in hidden forums.