Showing posts with label Elitist society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elitist society. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

A knee-jerk is ALWAYS a knee-JERK

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 - Non-Apology Apology - Silence]

Is it right to gloat? Bask in the light of total redemption, total justification and total exoneration? Tell me it is, because that's what this post is about – PERSONAL VINDICATION.

By God, when you are right, YOU ARE RIGHT! In my case, after enduring more than two years of incessant public personal slanderous and threatening attacks that were NEVER rectified, I have, if anyone does, every right to flaunt the gloating.

Almighty God DOES smile upon His little children. Vindication ALWAYS comes to he who waits and let me tell you, it is so, so sweet. OKAY, enough with the gloating. Here's what happened when I picked up the Sunday Times-Standard newspaper and worked my way to reading, Next stop, Africa: American imperialism on the march – and when I got to the third paragraph, I almost couldn't believe what I saw ... What I read made my heart skip a beat, but maybe I'd better explain.

That "happy faced" picture, that one you see there on the right, is the face of a guy that goes by the name of Dave Stancliff. That innocent looking “happy face” hides the soul of a man that publicly and shamelessly castigated, denigrated, blatantly lied and viciously accused me of all kinds of filthy, obscene and malicious actions and intentions directed against him and to him, not to mention to his pug-ugly dog. What did I do to so offend his infantile sensibilities? Nothing more than make the simple observation about his "knee-jerk" reaction that he published in the Times-Standard newspaper under his Opinion column: As It Stands. His personal attacks became so extreme that he even threatened to assault my family with some sort of lawsuit or criminal action. Mind you, that was on top of his threat against me of being some sort of Internet stalker and crazy, radical terrorist. Apparently, someone convinced him that his documented abusive conduct, over-the-top threats, and constant invective, were criminal in nature if not in intent. Eventually, he stopped his campaign, at least I think he did.

The irony of what he tried to do two and one half years ago, enforce his own brand of Imperialism is exactly what he is railing against today. He did everything he could think of, used every opportunity he could conjure up to try to force me, either by tacit inference or open admission that he had the right to judge me as some sort of sub-human meaningless person that dared question him or his opinions. His definition of "Imperialism" can be applied to himself because it is exactly what he tried, and to a certain extent within the Internet blogosphere, achieved a measure of success:
"Imperialism is defined as extending a nation's (or nationalistic [someone devoted to self] person's -) authority by territorial acquisition (taking a person's reputation and personal legitimacy through forced submission to to act and be as they are as a valued individual) or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations (through deprivation of one's credibility, acceptance and recognition as an independent individual through malicious lies and accusations designed to control the minds and beliefs of others).
For anyone interested, here is the link that started all of this that proofs the above definition. Note the date: Sunday, May 31, 2009. The title of my article was:  Trolls versus The Thought Police.

Two years later he's still going at me: Title of this article and updates: Goody Two-Shoes. Do a search on the Report's WordPress Blog under Dave Stancliff, start at the bottom and work back and you'll find it's all there, Dave Stancliff in all his glory – that is if you have the stomach to go through all that crap.

Stancliff even posted a couple of his own and offered a reward to anyone that could identify the author of the Joe Blow Report. He started out with this link on his blog. - June 3, 2009. Then there were the apologists' incessant blather - one in particular: Ernie Branscomb. He wrote and posted a blog article defending Dave Stancliff's conduct, joining and supporting him with his own unjustified public invective.

So you can see, this whole episode got right down dirty, vicious and nasty mean. Dave Stancliff would make up all kinds of filthy, lying accusations then turn right around and do exactly what he was accusing me of doing. And – There he goes again! Only this time, he's admitted to being and doing exactly as observed in that "Trolls" commentary.

Here is what he said in today's Times-Standard newspaper, Sunday Edition, October 30, 2011As It Stands. I quote his admission:
 “Of course, I really didn't understand its full meaning and admittedly didn't go out of my way to find it out. Instead, I went with a knee-jerk reaction and put the word in my Commie file.” [Emphasis added]
Is that bald-faced admission that totally justifies my very first observations of his opinion writings in the Times-Standard newspaper NOT a thing of beauty? What makes it a thing of beauty is where it puts him and those that supported him in his bullying, servile war against me and my credibility. They owe me a public apology.

What Dave Stancliff refused to accept as well as everyone that supported him, including the Editors at the Times-Standard is that it was Dave Stancliff that lost his credibility and legitimacy, neutralizing the value of everything he subsequently said that they published. That fact is established in the quality or lack thereof in the paper's reporting as defined by his exact statement quoted above. So...

Do you see it now, Dave Stancliff? How about you, Ernie Branscomb? And you, too, Eric Kirk? What about the Times-Standard Editorial Management, Kimberly Wear – is all the personal filthy diatribe and invective still justified? Who among you has the character, moral fortitude and common decency to do what is right, dignified and honorable?

Dave Stancliff's exposure that May day to the Joe Blow Report was, in fact, his first encounter with someone in the vanguard of the worldwide Occupy Movement. His knee-jerk reactions are completely consistent with how the Occupy Movement is held in total disgust, ridicule and disdain. Here's a good example by Rush Limbaugh:
"These protestors, who are actually few in number, have contributed nothing. They're parasites. They're pure, genuine parasites. Many of them are bored, trust-fund kids, obsessed with being something, being somebody. Meaningless lives, they want to matter." [Emphasis added]
More importantly, however, and in stark contrast to his historical attitude and actions, Dave Stancliff's As It Stands opinion article today is basically about making peace in this world by ending the American Elite's domination through brutal military or police suppression and looting everything of value. I've attached it to the end of this post and included links to the Times-Standard because it is well worth reading. Of late, Dave Stancliff has upped his game and began writing about matters of common interest, that are pertinent and timely to the local readers. Lets see if he can practice what he preaches, at least from a positive point of view. Real peace starts at home - it starts with oneself. He says he tracks my Internet activity. Let's see if he has the moral character and personal integrity to be the person he claims to possess such standing in this community, to step up to being the kind of real man he thinks he is.

Jerk: Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.

--Joe

Saturday, July 30, 2011

A Voice From the Wilderness


A voice from the wilderness is what I thought when I read Linda Atkin's My Word in today's Saturday, July 30, 2011, Times-Standard: Democracy and dissent go together. Once again the newspaper adds another page to the ongoing saga initiated by the firing of police Chief Garr Nielsen for no cause. In a way Linda Atkins had no choice but to confront the personal diatribe and invective assaulting her from those wanton wannabe Eureka Elites, our Gang of Eight.

The contrast between what that self-righteous Gang of Eight hypocritically (Progress or protest? We need to work together to move forward) wrote and Linda Atkins said is stark indeed – an open hand versus a clenched fist. What struck me was her reasonable, if not a bit naive, response of a sensitive representative. The voters are ultimately responsible for the government they choose, whether they stand accountable or not. You want corrupt whores telling you what to do, how to live, what to think and how to believe – pay the price. A “though cop” mentality makes you accountable whether you like it or not.

A majority of Americans voted for a Democratic President that said one thing and has an inviolate record of doing the very opposite. Based upon what Linda Atkins says it appears her approach to Democracy is to enforce the people's right to hold such people, their representatives, accountable. What the Gang of Eight and those that support them fail to realize or, perhaps never understood, is that once elected they represent ALL people as their constituents. Not just their monied, philosophical and ideological backers and supporters.

It is curious, however, to see where the newspaper editors placed her My Word article. Week after week Steve and Cokie Roberts' article appeared below the fold. Today their faces appear prominently right under the cartoon. We certainly don't need to guess how or what the newspaper editors think about Councilwoman Linda Atkins. Which would explain why they published the personal, racist, invective, attacking a class of people represented by Councilwoman Linda Atkins in the first place.
Come join the club, because we're just like you - The "club" being our little Nanny Club or Gang of Eight. Conrad Gregory's attempt at satire is worth a read. It's encouraging to see the push-back against the matter-of-fact attitude castigating everyone's rights of citizenship.
[Source]
--Joe

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Who, me? Yeah! You.

Identifying the secret elite that lurk amongst us.

Some years ago I was reading about China and the comment was made about the 800,000 elitist Chinese that run that country of a billion people. So, I began asking the question, “Who are the elitists running America and how do you identify them”?

First, most American elitists believe they are the “Exceptional People” specially blessed of God. They originate across all spectrum's of society, political, racial, religious, ethnic, class, culture and gender. So, one of the defining characteristics of an elite individual is they think and believe that they are better than everyone else. They only recognize, accept or see someone of their own kind. Everyone else and whatever they may possess is only there to serve them and their perceived needs. In many ways they are no different than the vampires of lore. Like all parasites, they make everyone believe that they (you) cannot survive without them.

Is that not what all the “professional people” tell everyone? We can't survive without them? That's why we have doctors, lawyers, preachers, priests, teachers, judges, bankers, accountants, reporters and policemen to tell us how to think, believe, live, and die. That is the second characteristic that identifies an elitist. They are the only one that knows anything and are always telling all other people what is and what is not right, good, bad, decent, moral and ethical; what is acceptable and unacceptable. The presume the right to tell you who you are and who you are not and to treat you accordingly.

In a nutshell, elitists are egotistical, self-centered, self-righteous, arrogant, self-important, and the only thing they care about is themselves and what they want. The only time anyone exists to them is when they supply sustenance to their voracious appetite. Their next identifying characteristic is their constant effort to get you to go along with what they want. It doesn't matter what idiotic scheme they dream up or what stupid and moronic issue they espouse, just as long as they can get you to agree. The more of your soul they can get you to compromise, the better.

So, who tells you how to think? Well, the “Thought Police” do, that's who. You can get a pretty good idea who they might be when you consider what's going on in the “inner” inner sanctums at County Supervisor's Chambers or at the Eureka City Hall and, lest we not forget, all the Judge's Chambers. Anyone that follows this blog Report knows I have a problem with how the Times-Standard allows their local Opinionators to try to lord it over everyone. A good example of this is by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, March 7, 2010 mandate: “In a better world we wouldn't keep animals in captivity.” However, when I picked up my Sunday paper this weekend and began looking through the first couple of sections, I began to wonder why I continue to support the newspaper. It sure wasn't for want of something worthwhile and relevant to read, that's for sure. I guess maybe it's because the gal that delivers my paper does such a good job. It certainly isn't because I want to read this: “Hi. My name is Dave and I have a reputation for getting lost.” At first glance, you have to ask yourself, who gives a hoot? Take a second look and if a character flaw, exemplified by this statement, “normally developed adults and children,” is caused by genetic loss, it isn't much of a stretch to advocate, “bad people are born bad because of missing or flawed genes.” “Good people (elitists and their dogs) are born good because they possess “all” their genes. And that, my friend, justifies throwing a 10 year old little boy or girl, for the proper crime of course, in jail for life.

According to Dave Stancliff, a columnist for The Times-Standard and a former newspaper editor and publisher, keeping animals captive is criminal. Well, with the small exception of dogs and cats and a bird or two, maybe. We come now to James Faulk and his Tuesday, March 16, 2010: “Dog-hunting for a perfect pet for mom.” As City Editor, I guess privilege has its perks. With so many important issues affecting our community we should expect community conscious newspaper people to use their space and words accordingly. Getting a dog for one's aging mother may seem real important to the Faulk's. Personally? I could really give rat's ass. That is until I read this:
“And for a man who has had many dogs over the course of his life so far, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Adding a canine to the family is much like adding another sibling, another child -- they have emotional and physical needs, and they demand your time and affection. If you can't offer those things, you've got no business getting a dog.”
Who is going to decide what kind of "emotional and physical needs" a certain dog requires? HIM? Your neighbor or some police officer? Who is going to tell you how much if any affection you are showing you dog? Or how much time you MUST spend with it to justify the right to own a dog? You'd better get with the program folks -- he's the expert! WHY, "He's a man who has had many dogs over the course of his life." 

My grandfather, a longtime cattle and sheep rancher, were he still alive, would laugh this would-be know-it-all all right out of town. Regardless, these are the words of a self-ordained elitist using his position in the community to tell everyone HOW to THINK!

More importantly, this is how the elitist segregate our society into two classes, the general population of worthless wannabees and that select group of high and mighty exceptional people. Finally, there's one simple way to identify an elitist that was exemplified in the movie, "Avatar." They absolutely refuse to recognize and accept you or talk to you; they absolutely refuse to "see you."

This, tragically, thrusts the two classes of people into a virtual state of war.

Picture 1 & 2 sources]

--Joe