Last night, Kos didn't call me to dictate today's posts
So, gosh, I'm w-a-a-a-y confused. I'm running round like a chickenhawk with its balls cut off!
But now I know why Kos didn't call. FUX says that Kos is imploding!
[Pause for hysterical laughter.]
But seriously, folks, the FUX article gives great insight into WPS (Winger Projection Syndrome)--They think we're just like them!
In fact, it's worse. They think that being like them is the only way to be. Read on:
Here are the assumptions that wingers make about all political movements, including our own.
1. Wingers believe that all political movement have a top-down structure like the military ("dissension in the ranks", "liberal bloggers and their loyal followers") But they're projecting!
The winger movement is top-down (RNC blastfax meet Mighty Wurlitzer meet Cheetoh-scarfing mother's basement dwelling freaks)
Our movement is bottom-up. (At Kos, anyone can post. Of course there's dissension, because opinions differ.
2. Wingers believe that politics is warfare ("a civil war within the liberal blogosphere") But they're projecting!
Winger politics is warfare. That's why they do anything to win, and that's why they demonize their enemy (that is, us).
Our politics is politics. We'd be stupid to fight the wingers on their terms--they control the terrain, they've got heavy weaponry, they wrote the tactical manual, etc. What we are doing is discrediting the war itself using Improvised Informational Devices like ridicule, disrespect... and reality-based information, all of which attack the authority of their command structure (And so what if this is like the Consies in The Space Merchants?)
3. Wingers believe that political movements are authoritarian cults ("the candidates they revere," "Kos and his devotees.") But they're projecting!
Wingers believe that the relation between leaders and the led is religious ("God is in the White House")
We are not authoritarians, or cultists. I don't "revere" Howard Dean; I respect Dean, because he told the truth at a difficult time.
4. Wingers believe the blogosphere is a giant echo chamber. So, when a liberal doesn't post on Kos, they think it's part of a plot and look for devious explanations ("Richard Silverstein wrote another blog â€” this one conspicuously not posted at DKos") But they're projecting!
The winger blogosphere, so-called, is a giant echo chamber. That's why they don't have comments--there's no need to comment, only to propagate.
Our blogosphere is a network, not an echo chamber. There are many, many blogs, with many many opinions.
(From a networking perpective, that means our network is superior to hierarchy, because we have no "root," no single point of failure.)
5. Wingers believe that opinions arehad, not developed. ("In the two weeks since David Brooks fittingly concluded that Markos 'has challenged his enemy and become it,' it seems that some of Zuniga's followers are beginning to agree.") But they're projecting!
Wingers do not, in fact, develop opinions. Rather, they endlessly repeat them and echo each other. That's a consequence of their command structure and their authoritarian cultist psychology.
We do develop opinions, and in public, through our network of blogs and the comment section.
So the whole scenario that we in the blogosphere would look to Brooks and Zengerle for opinions, and then, like O'Connor and Epstein, start repeating them, is ludicrous. Stupid. We don't work like that. (Although, to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, having an officer like Brooks point to Kos as a target of opportunity would be the only nod or wink that a winger troll would need to start posting diaries.)
So, this smear campaign against Kos is based on a series of ideas that we operate just like the wingers do. For that reason, it's going to fail badly, and in unexpected ways, as our network reacts and responds.
NOTE The lede is a classic of stupid wingerdom (sorry for the redundancy):
It appears that the post-Yearly Kos month from hell is continuing for Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the proprietor of the Internet's premier liberal blog Daily Kos. After receiving some extremely negative press from major publications such as The New York Times, The New Republic and Newsweek immediately following his seemingly successful bloggers' convention in Las Vegas ...
After my blood pressure went down, I took a look at the, erm, logic in this paragraph. Maybe this stupid RealClear [DCOW] guy could explain how dKos could be "seemingly" successful while simultaneously getting "negative press"? I mean, it's the press that takes care of appearances, right?