I'm not the only one to experience the
offending ridicule, mockery and derision pumped out by Eric Kirk and
his Brownshirt Trolls. What offends me the most about these people is
their rank, in-your-face hypocrisy. What's interested me lately is
how they've all brazenly crawled out from under their rocks and shown their
true colors. That demonstrates to me a real trend change in society.
There's a lot of pent-up anger and hatred just under the surface
waiting to manifest itself. Whether you call yourself Progressive, Democrat, Conservative, Tea Party or Republican or something else the pent-up emotions are all the same. The lines are being drawn and everyone,
mostly when they can hide behind their anonymity and are protected by
complicit blog owners, attack unrelentingly. Given the opportunity, I believe these modern-day Brownshirts would operate just the same as the originals did.
Anonymous
Yes, Unk John, you are combining the comments of 2 diff. Anons.I am the Anon that is perplexed by local, known individuals like Mitch and Eric, among many others here, struggling to sound intelligent while simultaneously joining in mob-mentality by ridiculing and mocking concern over chemtrails, comparing them to “crazies” (Mitch), “mind-control” (Mitch) and “conspiracy theorists” (Mitch).
Obviously, intelligent people that believe as Mitch and Eric purport to, would never respond at all to such “craziness”, let alone, week after week happily dismissing, exaggerating, mocking, and ridiculing others. For those that are clearly concerned by chemtrails, I would ask that you reevaluate your assertion that Mitch, or Eric’s comments are “more gentile than you perceive”.
Early in this string someone posted videos of geo-engineer seminars reflecting years of actual chemtrail research devoid of human-impact considerations. This should have eliminated any illusions of “conspiracies”. No one disputed this fact, however, instead of outrage over the proposed continuation of scientific models unchanged in U.S. history, (human experimentation on native people with untreated small pox, and uranium poisoning, exposing indigent Americans to untreated syphilis, plutonium, DDT, nuclear fallout, etc), they chose, instead, to engage in endless ridicule.
This is not the choice intelligent people would make.
Actual tests of existing chemtrail research is hardly in the same league as “crazies, mind-control, Big Foot, Ancient Aliens, crop circles, space elevators, etc”.
Again, ridicule is vile. It is a form of aggressive hostility. Attempts to conceal vileness behind a pathetic excuse of being “sad” is beyond belief.
It is conceivable that, by the 500th comment, the neurosis on tour here can be extinguished by asking how we allowed very mean, small minded people to indulge their psychosis and distract us from “changing our minds” about chemtrails as a frightening continuation of “science” fully prepared to being the next unaccountable mass-experiment. [Emphasis mine.]Eric Kirk's rather lengthy response follows. Some of what he says is frankly astounding. What he says lays bare a whole lot about his character and the value of his quality as a person. His ability to conflate the ridicule of the individual with his "position" or the subject under discussion is masterful. Then he accuses him of being "silly" for taking the ridicule personally. Typical lawyer "bait and switch" trap Kirk is so proficient at manipulating. This is what make Eric Kirk and his blog one of the more prominent local Troll blogs and a Brownshirt haven. Note the second paragraph, a perfect example of Troll talking ROT. All Trolls know how to read minds and can tell everyone how and what someone thinks and believes. All the while demeaning, ridiculing, and vilifying you with all the aplomb and self-righteous arrogance of a thug bully.
Regarding the posting: What Eric Kirk thinks, as he argues below, is basically unimportant and irrelevant, how he demonstrably thinks is not. And how he thinks is what makes this whole exercise so troubling and dangerous. The Brownshirt movement was born of a way of thinking that then transformed into a self-deceiving belief that justified their historical litany of atrocities.
Eric
Kirk
Anonymous 10:53 – If you’re that sensitive to ridicule over a particular issue, it suggests a bit of insecurity around your position, which is actually to your credit. Otherwise, the ridicule would be of minimal concern to you. If you’re truly in the right, it shouldn’t matter what the rest of us think or say about it. That you take it so personally suggests that maybe you recognize how silly the position appears to most people.
The problem here is that you’re going to see what you want to see based on your ideology of grand government conspiracies. Your view of the sky fits your view of everything else, but you have enough common sense to understand how it looks. So you get angry when it’s pointed out.
I’m ridiculed for all sorts of my positions from people who disagree with me, as you will find in abundance if you read many of the threads here. I don’t see their ridicule as “vile.” I see it as part of the discussion.
And I’m sorry, but when someone claims he’s seen something in the sky that is abnormal, and is presented with overwhelming evidence that it’s really nothing special, and that what he sees is easily explainable with a little bit of scientific knowledge, and he stubbornly refuses to even address the actual science, he opens himself up to ridicule. You can go to dozens of sources which with photographs of the cloud types complete with explanations found in textbooks dating back decades or even hundreds of years. But that’s no fun. It’s much more fun and satisfying to believe that your in some elite clique of people who “know” what’s really happening because nobody else notices what’s going on in the sky above him. It helps him to feel smug and superior, and more importantly special. He will see what he wants to see, because the pieces all fit together for him, and everything he sees will only reinforce that picture he desperately wants to maintain. He will believe that all of the clouds in the sky are man made, even if it contradicts not just basic rules of physics and chemistry, but common sense – a cloud cannot move against the wind, and the wind only blows in one direction at any given location. He will cite no peer-reviewed studies that these materials can even possibly create clouds, but that’s of no matter to him, because these scientists with their journals are all part of a cabal which seeks to control the truth. He doesn’t need actual empirical evidence. He just knows, because he “sees.”
That self-deception is at the core of risks of every pursuit of truth and that grand theories require grand evidence just doesn’t occur to him.
That’s extremely frustrated to those of us to do make some effort to recognize our ignorance, and when we make a simple request for such a thing of photographic evidence of an occurrence which supposedly takes place twice a month and the request is rejected as game playing, well, it fits into a pattern of the pseudo-scientist who doesn’t realize that you need an incredible amount of work to arrive at even the smallest of a truth. You need to eliminate all variables, or as many as possible. You need to look to the most simple of explanations before running wild with the most exotic.
The pursuit of understanding is not an easy path. i understand that. But if you’re going to persist in lazy approach and be righteous about it – I’m probably going to ridicule you, especially if I see enough people jumping on a bandwagon so that it’s an actual problem – a detriment to any real hope for positive solutions to realproblems. And if you can’t handle the rough and tumble of lively discussion, then this is probably not the forum for you. [Emphasis mine.]
Kirk's problem and his indictment is that he can't handle the "rough and tumble of lively discussions," that is why he uses his Brownshirt solution to intimidate, bully, and murder (silence) dissent.
Furthermore, Eric Kirk knows absolutely nothing about the "pursuit of understanding." He has only dabbled at the edges. A man that has pursued understanding, the fruitage of a pursuit of "knowledge" thinks, becomes and operates in a significantly more valued way than Eric Kirk has manifest on his blog and in life. On April the sixth I posted The Four Natural Enemies of a Man of Knowledge. Excerpts from "The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge" by Carlos Castaneda.
When it comes to knowing this pursuit, what it means to be and become a "man of knowledge," I can speak from experience as I have defeated all the "enemies" but the final one.
--Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment