A strange sense of responsibility, now and then
Friday, May 25, 2012 at 10:48pm 37 Comments
Brett Kimberlin responsible for nothing:
Sarah Palin responsible for everything (embedded link here):
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Is he still relevant any more? I thought he was about as popular as last weeks left over fish.
Ah well, more typos
In Markos’ mind, he is the most important political genius on the planet. Too bad he was dropped on his head as a child.
Here’s a site that dissects the “minds” of the Daily Kos posters. It’s pretty damn funny, and this guy has been mocking the Kos for years. Appropriate site name, don’t you think?
Markos skipped Obama’s TA (Total Absorption) techniques and went straight to TSA (Total Self-Absorption).
You mean he wasn’t referring to himself?
I am sure that to Carl DeLong’s family Kimberlin is not exactly a “nobody”.
At any rate, the more uncomfortable and nervous the Koskids get, the better off humanity is.
We all know that Markos Moulitsas is an unabashed Liberal-terrorist apologist, who wouldn’t know what to do with a balanced story if it bit him on the —. Michael Savage is right: Liberalism is a mental disorder, and Markos suffers from it worse than most.
It’s the rampant hypocrisy which is the largest why I stopped listening to what the talking heads in the Main Stream Morons (especially MSLSD), Liberal Kooks and Nutroot Nutcases were saying. They stopped having any relevance when they tried to paint life-long liberals as TEA Partiers and then wouldn’t acknowledge it once it was pointed out.
It’s time to call every one of these hypocrites what they are: hypocrites. Loudly, strongly and REPEATEDLY. Every time somebody like Markos posts some lunacy like this, we need to say “YOU HYPOCRITE” and point them to their own words and then force them to publicly eat them.
The reality-based community weighs in:
Kimberlin is a “pile-on target”. Stop it, you nasty wingnut bloggers!
Every time I think I’ve seen it all, a lefty blogger astonishes me.
The whole point was to make Kimberlin a public figure, which will blunt some of his LawFare tools.
Wow, Charles Johnson is whining about guilt by association.
That just takes the //ing cake.
That guy has done nothing *but* slime people through guilt by association ever since he went cuckoo.
Markos thinks that having a SWAT team break down your door, with guns out and safeties off, is good, clean fun.
Mr. Moulitsas matters less and less.
But Brett Kimberlin matters.
This is more than unhinged leftist terrorist wannabes coming after isolated bloggers. By now we’ve all seen that this is a very different matter: it is the age-old story of institutionalized terror-by-stealth.
Those on the fringe who wish to terrorize don’t quite have approval to do what they want to do. It’s all done with a nod and a wink from others with more power that signals that they can do this as long as they keep it underground. It is how those with power displace others, by finding and using as cats-paws people like Kimberlin.
That’s why Mr. Kimberlin and his pals have cut-outs, anonymous servers, disguised emails and muffled voice calls. It’s why they have funding from foundations that is covered by anonymous preferences made by donors who are then that one critical step removed.
It’s all about having a lack of fingerprints right now. If it works they can become more obvious. If it works they can become the heroes of the revolution they imagine themselves to be, until they are discarded (and perhaps killed) by those with the real power. But for now they have to work in stealth.
Moulitsas might imagine himself to be part of this in a way, and perhaps he is. He might imagine himself as providing the ‘moral direction’ or ‘intellectual cover’, though what the Kimberlins do is neither moral nor intellectual.
But Marcos can’t quite bring himself to indulge his inner thug. Not like Brett Kimberlin. He may imagine himself to be a modern ‘Cato the Younger’, the mastermind, the righteous manipulator with clean hands, though he certainly has not the courage to fall on his own sword.
Brett Kimberlin matters because he’s willing to commit violence to suppress speech. He’s willing to set bombs, SWAT people, harass people, and attack people who are the ‘enemy’. That’s why he has to be stopped.
The masterminds have to be stopped as well. But Moulitsas? I imagine it’s all in his mind.
Markos answers a very important scientific question that has puzzled mankind since 1974. I am sure there are at least a few on the left who secretly wish they could lock him away in the padded cell currently occupied by Markos’ infamous diarist. The two have long-since outlived the useful portion of their “useful idiots” role for the left.
Kimberlin, as you wisely note, is another matter entirely. Perhaps he made Markos squirm knowing the association with the left was exactly the sort of connection he and his ilk believed would permanently discredit the right. Markos repeats an all-too-familiar pattern, he is projecting his playbook and condemning the moves he would surely make if the situation were reversed.
Give that lady some popcorn and a smoke! Spot on!
Give that lady some popcorn and a smoke! Spot on!
Time to invoke the Bush Doctrine on this jerk: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
There you have it.
Someone who calls defense contractors in Iraq “mercenaries” and rejoices on their death and dismemberment by screaming “Screw them!” is no friend of ours… or of this country.
P.S. Sarah Palin NEVER PULLED THE TRIGGER against Ms. Giffords. But Kimbelein dismembered people – bombed them! And still terrorizes them and their kin with his mere presence on Earth.
As someone commented in a Metafilter post about this http://www.metafilter.com/116301/SWATting-your-enemies : ‘…this account just seems like a one-off conflict some nutty blogger had with another nutty blogger.’
The Metafilter post was deleted (removed from their main page) because “That’s a super shitty thing to do to someone, but this doesn’t seem like a great idea for a post.”
The last time I noticed Markos was when he rather injudiciously accused R2000 of faking the poll data they did for Daily Kos – which he had based his already forgotten book on. Granted their polls were obvious fantasy, but I think it’s unwise to comment on pending litigation like he did.
Markos wrote a book? Who knew!
If the government won’t prosecute Kimberlin, victims should band together and sue. It would make great press to subpoena his finanical records and ultimately drag George Soros to court, seeking billions in punitive damages.
What Markos is really saying – shrug – is Kimberlin is one of HIS guys. His tribe, his operative strike force, and all is well in Markos world.
Markos has the typical Marxist morality: any action which promotes his ideology is moral, while any which inhibits it is immoral. It doesn’t matter that Kimberlin chose random targets (leaving bombs to explode on whoever happened to be there) for his bombs, or specific targets for murder (a list of those to be killed, mainly of witnesses against him), as long as his targets now are mostly conservatives (although Seth Allen, the blogger Aaron Worthing helped for free to invite Kimberlin’s ire, is a liberal), whatever he and his consorts do is just fine by Kos.
Kos is a miserable excuse for a human being.
Some of us on the left have long suspected that Markos is a ratf**ker working for Karl Rove. He has done tremendous damage to the Democratic brand.
Nope, he’s all yours. Enjoy!
Ask your parents to have their basement/your bedroom checked for mold.
You couldn’t have a more appropriate avatar.
Simple: We good, you bad.
Markos is just another “nationalist” as in Orwell’s essay, Notes on Nationalism.
“By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.”
“It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right.”
Ignorant cuss, this Moulitsas guy. Hitler was a man of the Left, führer of the National Socialist Workers Party.
I remember this Kimberlin dude and his bombings. Has this Moulitsas ever done anything?
Yeah, he’s the head of “Rainbow Warriors for Obama”
I remember the days that Chucky Johnson typed the same drivel concerning kos and his kiddies. Now, they are bed mates, again so to speak.
Is Markos looking to make a donation to Kimberlin, or is he interested in learning about SWATting?
hitler was the biggest hitler on the left
Hey, Sony Pictures could make him a clue on Jeopardy like whats-her-name.
I’d like to think Kos is simply a clueless useful idiot, but after his rants about the “mercenaries”, and everything of his I’ve seen since, I’ve concluded rather that he is evil.
I responded to his tweet yesterday with “I wonder if you’d be as amused if someone called SWAT in on you, or got you fired?” which, needless to say, was ignored. But it made me feel better. And I get retweeted once, so someone else agreed with me. The really sad part for me is realizing that if someone did SWAT him, and he was injured or killed in the incident, I’d feel that he merely got what he deserved. It’s easier to forgive someone for doing something evil to you than it is to forgive them for turning you into someone who can think that way. And the left is doing a very good job doing that. I think, I hope, someday they come to regret it.