DU Boothill

A fellowship of unjustly "tombstoned" DemocraticUnderground members. We use this space to talk about our feelings in reaction to the experience of first joining in the wonderful DU community and then expelled with no warning, no reason given and no response to our pleas for reinstatement. We feel this constitutes Anti-Democracy by DU Admin.

JBIE &/or another TombStoned Friend on

Thursday, December 30, 2004

Is DU Sick of Cult-Probing Dems?

Recently posted on DU- 2004 Election Results and Discussion:

Im sick of fair weather Dems. Reasoned thoughts from a Moderate.

Do not blame Kerry anymore than you blame yourself for the election defeat.

Everyone on this board was very energetic about Kerry. No speculation after the convention about Skull and Bones. No talk of him possibly throwing the election. Once WE lose though, people are spouting conspiracy theories left and right.

Was there election fraud, voter suppression and fishy acts leading up to and on Nov 2? Yes, of course.
Was it mostly perpetrated by the GOP? Probably
Did Rove, GWB and the RNC have direct involvement? Possibly
Did the illuminati, Skull and Bones, or the New World Order have anything to do with it? No.
Does the illuminati exist? no.
Is S&B anymore than a bunch college boys playing fort? no.
Did Kerry throw the election? OF COURSE NOT


The Democratic party has a recent history of being splintered - the GOP has been able to stick together... that should be your BIGGEST conspiracy theory relating to why WE lost.

I dont want anyone of you to leave the Dem party. However, if youre just going to bitch and complain and blame the leaders of the party of criminal acts and conspiracy. Then leave. If you can channel your anger and your passion into doing good for the party, as we all saw before Nov 2nd then by all means stay. Your extremism only hurts the image of the DNC.

Yes, I like the DLC. Yes, I am a moderate. No, I do not hate Liberals, but I wish that contemporary mainstream liberalism didnt have to be so riddled with irrational thoughts and theories.


This recent post by Machiavelli05 on the DU Forum "2004 Election Results and Discussion" may shed some light related to the bias behind some of the tombstoning that has been going on recently at DU. Basically, Machiavelli05 is ranting about the continued spouting of conspiracy theories by liberal DUers regarding Kerry's loss of the election. What is particularly surprising is that he brings up various cult-related organizations such as Skull & Bones, and the Illuminati, and even includes the New World Order as the basis for a potential conspiracy theory that Kerry may have "thrown" the election due to his affiliation with one or more of these groups. I have to admit that I do not read everything posted on this forum, but I honestly don't recall a lot of DUers harping much on THIS particular type of theory as to why Kerry lost the election. Could machiavelli05 be particularly sensitive to this issue for some reason? Could this be a pre-emptive strike in order to disuade any further discussion of cult or non-government organizational reasons for the election being corrupted?

Now, you may ask, how does this relate to DUers being tombstoned? As we know, Jamboi was the only DUer (now tombstoned) relaying information from investigative reporter Wayne Madsen [see http://jamboi.dailykos.com for more info] who is starting to look at Dominionist and other far right religious connections to the Bush Administration, and tracing the flow of funds which were allegedly used in widely fixing the election across many states. The central point of this conspiracy theory is that these "Dominionists" represent a well-connected fringe or cult, if you will, of Christian right-wing Fundamentalists. Not only has Jamboi been mysteriously tombstoned for reasons not completely understood, but several relatively new DUers who seemingly did nothing more than stand up for his integrity [see the following posts on this blog] were also immediately banned from the website, with no explanations provided.

Ok, so maybe the Illuminati doesn't exist, but Sun Myung Moon certainly does [see http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com] who happens to be a billionaire that owns United Press International as well as the Washington Times, and he seems to be extending his realm of power to members of Congress as well as the Bush family.

I have seen a list of members of the Council for National Policy (the organization which plans the strategy for the Religious Right) being investigated by another working in parallel with Madsen. The backgrounds of each member list a plethora of various religious organizations and cults which ought to make any mainstream conservative Christian think twice about what Satanic strategizing is really going on behind the scenes in Washington. The organization Skull & Bones is mentioned several times, but there are many others, none the least of which is that of the "Moonies," which would appear to play a more dominant role. Whether or not Kerry has been effected by these groups is really beside the point, what is more to the point is how this web of conspiracies may be affecting our democracy.

Stay tuned.....


Anonymous said...

Hmmm... that's one possible explanation. I've heard a number of them. Many seem to be along the lines of DU's Skinner being closely aligned with the center-right DLC and not wanting DU to be seen as supporting out and out liberal causes. Maybe. If that is the case then maybe it would be better for DU to call itself the DLCUnderground. I'm fine with a board setting and maintaining a focus and a stance on whatever issues they care to. As long as its made publically clear what their stances and standards are.

What I'm totally not okay with is no-warning Tombstoning on the basis of unstated policies and no response to people who plea for reinstatement (as was my experience). I see that as cowardly. Discipline needs to be just and rational and then the whole community will appreciate it. When you have a large group that writes in favor of reinstatement as was in my case that tells you the Administration is not moving with the support of the community concensus.



12:07 PM  
Anonymous said...

Excellent post, AF!

You make some good points. I think DU is very much concerned about it's public image, and it wouldn't surprise me if theories they might label as more extreme (such as those you are describing) are discouraged.

I also think that a lot of alerting goes on by some of the older members who are also concerned about DU's image. Some of these members, I gather, have some clout.

Jamboi is right that it would be better if DU would openly state it's orientation. Of course, it doesn't want to be seen as a narrow-minded board (remember the "broad tent" statement?), so I think it purposely keeps it rules vague.

Certainly, banning should be done with warnings first. This would not only be helpful to those who are seen as violating the invisible "rules", it would also be helpful to those who wish to avoid breaking these same rules.

1:06 PM  
Anonymous said...

Speaking as an exiled DUer, who also has no clue as to why I was banned, I agree that DU (democraticunderground.com) censors. Further, and to the Left's detriment they do not publish their censorship guidelines. They also admit that with some 20K posts per day they do not enforce these unwritten guidelines equitably.

So, my comment is, yes DU censors, but on what basis they censor, to my mind, is just speculation.

However, I do have IMHO a pertinient comment about this 'speculation of the banned' (no not damned). DU could do the Left a very great favor and state clearly their censorship guidelines.

In my experience, after one is banned, they stay up nights trying to figure out the reason for the excommunication, rather than continuing the positive work on their cherished issue of interest. This is a large sink-hole of wasted Leftist energy. DU really should take this into consideration.

To be a competent capitalist takes a lot of time and energy. To be a participating member of this democracy requires even more energy. DU should take this into consideration prior to liberally banning people without explanation.

4:39 PM  
Anonymous said...

DU has this really nice feature: the ignore button. I don't understand why people can't use that instead of everybody getting their jumpers in a jumble when someone vociferously disagrees with another poster. If they disrupt, just ignore 'em, don't tombstone 'em!

I'd also like to know if there have been any academic studies about online subcultures. Does anyone know? Wouldn't it be nice to understand the causes and effects of a flame war, for instance? How much does what happens in an online forum affect a user's personal well-being? Why is it that so many more "fist fights" break out in public online than in real life? Is relative anonymity empowering or does it in fact reduce us to petty squabbles and outright smear campaigns? How we behave online is so different from "real" society...

Oh, except real society in high school. Online life often reminds me of a great big giant high school: we try to get in with "in" cliques, we spread juicy gossip and rumors, we snipe behind others' backs, we engage in "he said, she said" quarrels, and we're always "standing" around waiting for someone to notice us. We want to be different but not too different. We want people to like us. Pleeeeease like us!

And by "we", of course, I mean all those other people out there. Naturally, I would never go back to virtual high school! (insert goofy smilie here...)

Anyway, I guess my point is that the subject really does warrant further investigation, especially in light of how important discussions are so easily derailed. I'm glad you guys are continuing to hash it out here, as just in the last couple of days there was yet another really weird tombstoning event at DU (apparantly the poster has been reinstated). Even though I still go "over there," I always valued you guys' comments, so I hope you don't mind if I check in from time to time.

You all take care and have a happy, safe, and warm New Year!

--Fat Lady Singing

PS: Here, I'm "Fat Lady" (my blog, updated rather less frequently than I'd like--time for a new year's resolution!--is called Fat Lady Singing); on DU I'm "kk897," and you might also see me post from time to time as GloboChem on other boards. I guess anonymity is relative after all.

5:17 PM  
Anonymous said...

I read this on DU earlier and thought this person was way out in the margins. It's a right-wing/libertarian/2nd amendment thing to kvetch about the Illuminati. the Dominionists aren't the Illuminati.

"Dominionists" are people who have a certain set of beliefs. Anyone can be a Dominionist. I used to work with a bunch of them and if I asked 50 people walking down the street in Nashville, probably 15 of them would agree with Dominionist doctrine.

Illuminati and the rest describe people with a certain set of connections and power. *If* these groups exist, they are conprised of the most powerful people in the world.

apples and oranges.

am i going to have renounce my DU membership?

7:00 PM  
Anonymous said...

Interesting post by Brook.

The "Knights of Malta" does exist and promotes itself as a charitable organization (www.knightsofmalta.org). The interesting thing is, apparently they have attempted to become recognized as a sovereign entity, independent of the Vatican. I would also point out that it is not unheard of for charitable organizations to be investigated for not so charitable activities.

3:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home