Brutality Versus Terrorism

Time for the Occupy Movement to wake up to reality.

The question, until now remained unanswered: Why did city governments and their police officers respond so violently and with so much brutality against peaceful people threatening no one, simply asking for a little consideration?

Today, at least for Eureka, California, we got a partial answer – PARANOIA.

The Times-Standard reveals in their “County emails outragemembers of Occupy Eureka” the existence of “nefarious” “emails” “that led to police action against the Occupy Eureka encampment on the Humboldt County Courthouse lawn.” Why? Read the condemnatory words of the leading police official and law enforcement officer, District Attorney Paul Gallegos:

“While I do not suspect that any of those tents contain any explosives or otherwise dangerous materials, I cannot confirm that they do or do not and I do not believe that we can allow the risk of such an occurrence to continue.” [Emphasis added] 

No fact-based reality contained in anything Gallegos says, only his paranoid, fantasy-based vilifying accusations of “terrorism” that demonstrates his true attitude regarding the people of the Occupy Movement – inept, incompetent, gullible, and stupid terrorist.

Grant Scott-Goforth of the Times-Standard puts it this way: “Gallegos said he worried it was possible for people not directly associated with Occupy Eureka to guise the group as cover for illegal activity.”
The hypocrisy of Gallegos is mind-blowing, if nothing else. He says: “Candidly I support the movement. Unfortunately here it has been somewhat co-opted locally by our local protesters.”

In what way? What could these local protesters possibly want the the movement doesn't want when dealing with the dregs of society; homeless people and a “leaderless nature” that obviously couldn't know what it wants other than issue “hyperbole.” Notice how unreasonable these “Occupy People” are according to Gallegos and why he refuses to recognize and engage them: “If people want to sit down reasonably, they're going to find complete cooperation.” Then immediately contradicts that propagandist assertion by saying: “Occupy Eureka doesn't have a monopoly on concerns about the county and the community.” Why? Because in his mind they do not represent the 99% of Americans. He and his supporters do. That's why he and his police deal with them for the “terrorists” that they really are.

A good lesson on what “terrorism” and what makes “terrorist” – how the wanton accusatory use of the word automatically vilifies, condemns and justifies the extreme forms of sanctioned brutality and criminal conduct – is explained and defined by Glenn Greenwald in his Salon.com article, “Iranand the Terrorism game” - to quote from his:

UPDATE: There’s one point that should be added about why this matters so much: the fact that Terrorism has no fixed meaning does not mean it is inconsequential. The opposite is true. Terrorism is one of the most consequential words in our political lexicon. The term designates Supreme, Unmitigated Evil. Once someone is successfully branded a Terrorist, it means that anything and everything can and should be done to them without constraints.

And concludes with:

As I’ve said before, Terrorism is simultaneously the term that means nothing and justifies everything. That’s why such strong emotions are evoked when it is used in a way that deviates from mandated orthodoxies. It’s a meaningless term, but incredibly (perhaps incomparably) significant in governing how power and violence can be wielded and against whom.

So now you know why Gallegos painted the local Occupy People and their “peaceful protests” as “terrorist” - stupid people that believe they have some God-given or Constitutional right to be recognized for who and what they “think” or “believe” they are. He wants to be, as he claims here, to be the man of the people, but he's co-opted by his own attitude, actions and hypocrisy as defined and established by the Occupy Eureka people.

Whether or not it was the newspaper Editor or their writer's intention or not, they did expose the truth about Paul Gallegos' hypocrisy. The issue, as applied to these people peacefully protesting, went far beyond simply “taking down a few tents” to branding the local people as potential terrorists and their protest actions as terrorism. It went to the very heart of why the local so-called representative government went so far to renounce and denounce the legitimacy of a courageous people willing to Occupy their rightful space on this Earth equal to all others.

The citizens of Humboldt County and particularly Eureka are quite capable of deciding for themselves what is and what is not “public safety.” Despite the arrogance of the one percent, we're not a bunch of dogs that need to be told when to “sit” and when and how to “speak.”
(Credit Times-Standard and AP-Salon.com)

--Joe

Conspiracy of Silence

On Sunday, May 31, 2009 Dave Stancliff wrote in the Times-Standard newspaper in his column called “As It Stands” the article titled: “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” Like everything in life, not everything is as it seems. Dave Stancliff has a presence on Internet Blogs and over time we've observed his commentary. Did he have an ulterior motive in writing that article? Who knew. How about the Times-Standard staff, did they agree with his premise? Who knew?

Well, we wrote about our observations here on this Blog. The tendency to vilify the writer, attack the messenger, when the subject being discussed touches a little too close to the truth, has led to some serious conditions, not only in America, and subject right here in Humboldt County, but around the World. We pointed out that Stancliff's approach to this subject was rather simplistic and in its totality largely responsible for causing the loss of media credibility and factual reporting. In that, we alluded, one person's efforts to illicit thought or thoughtful consideration was another person's “troll.”

Dave Stancliff's assault in his column was upon the person he tagged or simply claimed was a “troll.” In that, he assaulted their personal credibility, and suggested that they be starved to death -- ignored. In that he assaulted their legitimate right to exist in whatever manner they chose to present themselves. We witnessed a good example of this form of discrimination and bigotry with the active assault some months back by a gang of local blogger thugs on Steve Lewis. This is same tactic the United States in league and complicit with the United Nations has done to North Korea for more than 50 years simply because they refuse to recognize the North Korean people's right to sustain a totalitarian government. What's our point? Dave Stancliff didn't assault “trolls” he assaulted people, people he merely accused of being “trolls.” His definition of "trolls" detailed nearly everyone that posts and comments online and allowed him and his kind the freedom to accuse just about anyone at any time. What made this matter doubly serious is that he is published by the newspaper and writes under the same title: “AS IT STANDS.” As It Stands could just as easily be written, “As It IS.” Why is that important? The name itself speaks to a permanent, factual and truthful reality based upon his personal credibility and legitimacy to do so propagated by the Times-Standard newspaper. He's somebody in this community! And the Times-Standard backs that up by publishing him under his brand, “As It Stands.”

If there ever was some question about the Report's integrity regarding our observations, Dave Stancliff by his unsolicited demagogic tirade on our blog and his slanderous hate speech posting on his blog, “As It Stands” removed all doubt. As bad as that is, that fact that the Times-Standard continues to run his columns makes this issue far more serious. Whatever he writes under the name “As It Stands” is sanctioned and approved by the Staff and Management of the Times-Standard newspaper. Therefore the bigotry, prejudice and hate speech written by Dave Stancliff is legitimized by the Times-Standard. Consequently, we sent, in behalf of the Joe Blow Report, the following email to three people at the Times-Standard, Dave Kuta Publisher, Kimberly Wear Managing Editor and James Faulk City Editor:

Dear Mr. Kuta,

I would like to bring to your attention the latest blog commentary about me and my online blog, the Joe Blow Report, by Dave Stancliff. As far the the Report is concerned normal blog commentary and article postings are laissez-faire. They bring with them limited legitimacy and credibility as compared to published media. Whatever Mr. Stancliff writes for your newspaper, you approve. You can relegate what he says to "opinion," yet I contend ultimately you or someone representing your newspaper approves, therefore you stand behind what he says as if you said it yourself.

The Joe Blow Reports were designed to avoid the kind of personal diatribe and hate mongering that comes from assaulting the writer. Unfortunately, Mr. Stancliff was personally affronted by my observations regarding his Sunday, May 31, 2009 "As It Stands" article and the part that he played in writing it. He came into by blog and expressed that effrontery in graphic terms by formulating a false accusation to revile the integrity of me, backed up by days of ever more egregious personal accusations. The ensuing conversation, if that's what you want to call it, over the next days speaks for itself. What he wrote is easily erased and bears no ultimate threat as a consequence of some of the accusations he makes. That all changed, however, when he posted on his blog, As It Stands, accusations against me of operating a "hate-filled blog" and of being "paranoid," among other things, but more importantly of personally "threatening him." This goes way beyond the pale.

What was their response? They ran Dave Stancliff's column in the Sunday, June 14, 2009, issue of the Times-Standard. Anyone familiar with what's been going on here knows exactly what the staff and management of the Times-Standard thinks of the Joe Blow Report and everyone associated with it. Well, read what Dave Stancliff accuses us of being here. In that same Sunday newspaper on page A4 is the article, "'Lone Wolf' terrorists are harder to defeat." Who are these "terrorists"? They define three people as "an elderly man" in a museum, "a young man in Arkansas" and "another man opens fire in a Kansas church." -- All Americans! The article goes on to say:

"Each apparently was driven to act by beliefs considered by some as extreme." "It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door, living in the basement of his mother's place, on the Internet just building himself up with hate, building himself up to a boiling point and finally using what he's learned."

Now tell me that this is exactly what Dave Stancliff with all his published authority is saying about anyone associated with the Joe Blow Report?

--Joe

Psycho Terrorists

(UPDATE BELOW - Update II)

The World and its people are facing an ever expanding and never ending War on Terrorism. That War is fought, according to some, against ideological, religious extremists, sometimes these are governments or regimes, but mostly against people. All it takes to be guilty of being a terrorist is for someone to make the accusation. These people are held in a cage indefinitely, some for nearly a decade, psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured. Even when ordered by the Courts they continue to hold them. Most astounding in all of this is that these lawless criminals do all of this with impunity.

There are many forms of terrorism. To name a few, there are Civil Disorders, Political Terrorism, Non-Political Terrorism, Quasi-Terrorism, Limited Political Terrorism, Official or State Terrorism, and Structural Terrorism. There is Democratic and domestic terrorism, Islamic Terrorism. Add to this: Christian Terrorism, Communist Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Domestic terrorist (United States), Eco-terrorism, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism Jewish Terrorism, Narcoterrorism, the Patriot Act and that's just from Wikipedia.

Add to this list the latest from the Huffington Post: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism -- Shanny Moore concludes her article by saying:

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.

You can add to that list Socio and Psycho Terrorism.

It's time for people to recognized terrorism for what it is in all of its insidious forms. Terrorists, by their very nature, exist in the dark. They hide behind good and decent people and appear normal, average and common. They talk the good talk, they put on a good facade. In truth, however, they are the worst of the worst; they are traitors in the fullest meaning of the word. They are deviant, lying, murderous cowards. They butcher innocent women and children to get at the men. They attack people where they live without remorse or conscience.

A good definition of Social Terrorism by Louis Komzsik in his book of the same name is:

Social terrorism is a subversive activity in which a small segment of the society, in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society, while completely disregarding the good of the society as a whole.

Socio Terrorists are a new breed. They attack society at its most fundamental framework and legitimate reasons for existence. They preach freedom, but practice discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and terrorize by lies, false accusations, slander and all kinds of innuendo. They demand the right to protection of law, but at heart they are lawless anarchists that assault the law in every way possible.

In many ways Socio Terrorism is like Psycho Terrorism and Psycho Terrorism is like Psychological Warfare.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as: "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

During World War II the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare more broadly stating "Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves." (Emphasis added) [Wikipedia]

Frankly, this article on Psycho Terrorists is mandated by what resulted from the Report article titled, “Trolls and the Thought Police” based upon the Time-Standard newspaper article written by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, May 31, 2009, “As It Stands” column. When he was unsuccessful bullying us into doing what he wanted, he personally attacked and vilified us on his Blog. You can read what he accused us of being and of doing here. It seems there is a certain class of people in this country that have the right to say these kinds of things and worse in public, on the TV, in Internet Blogs, Newspapers and magazines whereas if this was someone from the Ku Klux Klan, some Nazi militia talking about the Jews or one of any other radical extremist Believer they'd be arrested and thrown in jail in a heartbeat for hate crimes under old laws and terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Yet, they are not. The question is, why not?

That very question was asked by Dr. Warren Hern in his Democracy Now interview today. In fact, he makes the very point of our observations discussed in the Report about “Trolls and the Thought Police.” This is just one of his comments:

But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards. [Emphasis added]

Louis Komzsik says these terrorists, "in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society." Arrogate is an interesting word. It means, "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right" the authority to make one's worthless opinions fact. This is done by repeating the same lies over and over until everyone accepts it as truth. In other words just "BS" propaganda. While Blog articles and commentary are a dime-a-dozen, the problem is when posted, they become or have the potential to become volatile.

Real terrorism is a lot closer to home in America than most of us would want to believe. Our article on the Thought Police touched a real nerve. As, perhaps, it should.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 11, 2009
A good article by Joan Walsh, "Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?"
Some think it already has.

UPDATE: Monday, June 22, 2009
Racism, Hate Speech, Extremism, bigotry, worthless opinions and lies are self-defining. Whether or not the person or persons making these statements are racist, hate mongers, bigots, or worthless liars is probably a personal judgment. Or is it? When you see a duck do you say, "there goes a turkey"?

Dave Stancliff has posted two "As It Stands" blogs accusing me of "spewing hate" in my May 31, 2009, "Troll's versus Thought Police" article about one of his Time-Standard, "As It Stands" columns. You can read that article and make up your own mind. When you find that "hate" I'd like someone to point it out. Or you can read what he said and tell me if it's a turkey?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a 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 group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they 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 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 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

Posted by Dave Stancliff at 3:37 PM

--Joe