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

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

As It Stands and the Times-Standard newspaper

Jesus said: "Beware of the false teachers--men who come to you in sheep's fleeces, but beneath that disguise they are ravenous wolves." So, how do you know a wolf in sheep's clothing when you see one? You look at their tracks and the crap they leave behind.

Jesus also said deceitful liars, people that make false lying accusations are murderers: "You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars." In other words, according to Jesus Christ, liars are the Devil's spawn.

Hate speech is defined in the Wikipedia as follows: "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to offend a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability." Of further interest is the purpose hate speech is used: "Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct." "As It Stands" defines the Joe Blow Report, in particular, the writer or writers, he's somewhat confused, as paranoid, hostile, hate-filled, extremist, cowards and blow-hards personally threatening him.

Notice the how Wikipedia describes paranoia:

Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state. (Emphasis added)

"Persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself" defines Dave Stancliff perfectly. To publicly denigrate someone the way Dave Stancliff has, accredited and substantiated by the Times-Standard is beyond "simpleminded." It's just plain STUPID. And that was my point. Why would anyone want to threaten this guy? He's made an absolute fool out of himself without any help from me.

Dave Stancliff, according to what's printed under his "As It Stands" column in the Times Standard is a "columnist" for that paper. They also say "he is a former newspaper editor and publisher." When you consider the staff and management's stand regarding Stancliff then it begins to make sense their love affair with him and why he can do no wrong. So, who are the REAL WOLVES in sheep's clothing?

After posting "Trolls versus The Thought Police" article Dave Stancliff came into our web and posted six comments. What he said speaks for itself -- everything is personal! Nothing about the central premise of our article. Only verbal abuse, foul lying accusations, insults, diatribe -- nothing worthy of someone writing weekly columns in the local newspaper. Everything that was exemplified in the article was born out by what Dave Stancliff wrote on our blog. All of that personal crap was easily erased, but why do that? It was the proof in the pudding; it proved and justified the original intent of the article.

That all changed when he went on his own blog and posted his accusations. There he accuses the writer of threatening him, commenting on our "little hate-filled blog," of being a "paranoid lot of losers," "thinly veiled threats warning him" are proof of "hate that is spewing out from The Joe Blow Report blog" -- NO examples of hate speech -- Only his accusations.

But, that wasn't good enough! On June 15, 2009, apparently in response to our article "Conspiricy of Silence" he posted another personal attack on his As It Stands web. To show the racism and hate-speech we added the word "kike" in bold text.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. "Kike" Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a "Kike" group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a "Kike" group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they (these Kikes) have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of "Kike" cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again "Kike" gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on!

What he wrote under his column "As It Stands" is as offensive as modified by us for clarity as noted above in bold and is exactly why he wrote it, to offend. The purpose of accusing someone of being a "troll" is to shut them up. That's what all racist, extremist hate-mongers do. Today, the law defines such as "Psycho Terrorists."

As noted in our article, "Conspiracy of Silence," we had notified the staff and management at the Times-Standard newspaper of Dave Stancliff's web posting about us. Because his web is titled "As It Stands" and his newspaper column has the same name, the Times-Standard has a vested interest in what he says and does. The newspaper management approve his columns and that gives him credibility and legitimacy. What he wrote on his web, attacks the Time-Standard's credibility and legitimacy equally. We waited to see if their relationship was a marriage made in heaven. When no one at the newspaper responded, we posted the article and sent another more extensive email. You can read that email and Ms. Wear's reply here. This time Ms. Wear answered and then ran the "As It Stands" column Sunday, June 21, 2009. We heard the both of them loud and clear. Lets see if the local businesses want to be associated with this kind of sick racist behavior. The Basij are alive a well in Eureka, California!

[Photo] [Some interesting background on the Basij on Democracy Now today]

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 23, 2009

When I wrote “Trolls versus The Thought Police” I had spent months observing commentary by Dave Stancliff on other local blogs I frequented. I had a fairly good idea his motivation for the article; I'd seen him in action. On the face of it, so-called “Online Trolls” are a good mark to disrespect and disrepute. Whenever someone says something of which others do not agree, the first thing they do is try to shut the person or persons up by changing the subject to the object. Frankly regarding Stancliff, as far as I was concerned he could yak away all he wanted. He had his blog and newspaper columns and even I would occasionally read what he had to say. It was his knee-jerk reaction to justifying accusations that I took exception to, specially to being published as if there was some legitimate reason. Not to say Online Trolls do not exist, they do. Dave Stancliff's posted comments on my blog are a good example; he is self-defining. That was not my issue in writing the article. My issue was how easy it is to make false accusations against someone, in this case an Online Troll, in other cases an Online Terrorist or just your neighbor. The consequences in our society are overwhelming.

It was my contention that he was arguing ostensibly for the same right President George Bush, his government administration and his supporters had made justifying the permanent detention of people based only upon, what turned out to be in many cases, coerced, false lying accusations. How this atrocity, designed to extract counterfeit witnesses and produce phony testimony to justify a “War On Terror,” is codified by Andy Worthington. He is a British journalist and historian and the author of “The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America”s Illegal Prison." In his interview this morning on Democracy Now he explains exactly how falsely accused, innocent men were held prisoner for nearly a decade when the Bush government and the military knew, all along, they were totally innocent. You can read or listen to his interview, Judge Orders Release of Guantanamo Prisoner After Seven Years, Saying Government Position “Defies Common Sense” here.

We all know that, to a large extent, the news media sold out the American people for the “government” line. Dave Stancliff's demagogic tirades and baseless accusations are racist, hate-speech for sure, but they pale in significance compared to the Times-Standards approval of his conduct. Without much help from the Joe Blow Report, well not much anyway, he did a real number on his own credibility – his big worry – his legitimacy as a newspaper columnist. In the end, however, he's doing a number on the newspaper's, at least the staff and management, objective credibility. It's what's called “biting the hand that feeds you.”

--Joe