Showing posts with label Warmonger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warmonger. Show all posts

Thursday, May 29, 2014

The Brownshirt Hypocrite Strikes Again

General Brownshirt Bigot Bans Another. Eric Kirk sets the precedent for raging bigotry, and justification for direct action discrimination against anyone that fails to toe his invisible line on blogs and in our community. Follow comments on local blogs and you find more and more intolerant, bigoted behavior hiding behind a pseudo-community oriented blog. What makes this serious for everyone is how this kind of conduct extrapolates into real life and dramatically affects our social community to its everlasting detriment.

Stumble into one of these blogs, make a comment of a differing point of view or even a factual observation and you find out in a hurry what it feels like to be a person of color or a woman in a backwater berg in the Jim Crow era. Make the mistake of trying to defend yourself or your point of view and you find out what mob rule is all about when you are summarily verbally beaten. If you didn't learn your lesson from these verbal bullies the first time or two and willingly shut up and mind your place like you were told, they permanently silence you.

Here is a verse from Maya Angelou's poem 'Still I Rise' that demonstrates the graphic reality of words followed by another example of such words from one of Eric Kirk's Brownshirts put into practice:
You can shoot me with your words,
You can cut me with your lies,
You can kill me with your hatefulness,
But just like life, I’ll rise.
[Emphasis mine.]

Mitch
Thank you, Nutcase Anonymous, for being accurate in your quote. [Emphasis mine.]


The following action of bigoted discrimination justified by words of hateful lies on Eric Kirk's blog motivated this posting.
May 26, 2014 at 7:43 am  Eric Kirk  
I’m sure the rabbis are all quaking in their boots Steve. That will be your last post as your irrational anger with Jews really has no place here, or anywhere really. You can do this on your own blog. I’m sure your immense following will enjoy your thoughts. [Emphasis mine.]
Notice Kirk's reason for banning Steve from posting on his blog: "irrational anger with Jews." The question I ask is, do any of Steve's comments in this thread demonstrate "evidence" (Kirk's always demanding 'evidence') of "anger" or even "irrational anger" suggesting that Steve in MENTALLY deprived or STUPID? Or, did he simply speak a "truth"? Here is the definition of irrational:
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.
I've included below what I consider the pertinent comments to this issue of bigoted discrimination. There are other comments in this thread. The first comment by Dave Kirby is included because it is a perfect example of Eric Kirks discrimination and identifies one of his Brownshirts. It also starts the bigoted statements justifying Kirk's banning Steve for trying to defend himself.
It is perfectly okay for this guy, Dave Kirby, a retired real estate salesman living in Garberville, to personally assault Steve. And then turn right around and use this guys lies to justify banning him.

Here are Steve's two comments preceding Kirk's kinetic judgment.
And with that, Kirk summarily censors Steve for speaking an obvious truth or so he says. So, there it is, Brownshirt bigots doing their best to tell everyone what is acceptable and what is not.
--Joe

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The Rise of the Blogging Brownshirts

[UPDATE Below] 

The deadly Brownshirt Trolls are hard at work spreading their lying filth and disease-ridden innuendo wherever someone will let them. Blogger Brownshirts are self-defined by their actions that equate to their predecessors' historical murderous conduct; THEY PERSONALLY ASSAULT PEOPLES' CREDIBILITY, INTEGRITY, HONESTY AND LEGITIMACY to shut them up permanently.  

On April  15, 2014, I included the following thoughts in another re-posted article. In view of the current situation manifesting in local blogs, it appears it needs to be reemphasized:

If you don't know, "Brownshirts are a collection of thugs who get quite annoyed at those who oppose" them, their judging, their propaganda, wanton personal hyperbolic attacks and their sick never-ending filthy lies they believe they have the god-given right to assault with anyone they want. In the real world of yesterday they were nothing more than a gang of bullying political murderers that paraded around in all their glorious self-righteous impunity. Today, none of them are of the 1% oligarchic plutocracy, but they serve them just the same as their modern-day "Brownshirts."

When you censor and block dissenting commenters you reveal yourself as a sponsor, enabler and protector of these vicious Brownshirt Trolls.

So far I've identified five of blogs providing a safe-haven for two chapters of Brownshirts.
One of these blogs I've already identified and written about. The others, not wanting at this time to provide easy access or advertise in their behalf, I won't post any links. Just know that when you see these pictures where you are.

If you read Eric Kirk and His Brownshirts - Called Out Again below, you can easily recognize the Brownshirt Trolls' method of operation as Eric Kirk provides a perfect demonstration. First, should you choose to make a dissenting comment about the blog article or any of it's affirming commentary, you will be challenged by the most personal and vilifying diatribe, hyperbole, innuendo, and out right lies such as: "Only an idiot or a crazy lunatic would say that or take that opinionated position." Those kinds of filthy personal accusations are directed at the credibility and integrity of the person making the comment and NOT at the substance of the comment. But not so in Eric Kirk's mind.

In his mind the opinion or idea - the position - is idiotic or crazy. But that is NOT what he said and wrote.

Should the hapless victim try to defend him or herself, they have just proved Kirk's assertion (accusation) that they are either an idiot, crazy or both. Who but such people would conflate themselves with their "position" or worthless opinions rattling around in their empty heads and be "personally" offended? Score another one for the Brownshirts.

The problem when entering one of the Brownshirt Havens is you are stepping into a maze of quicksand totally in the dark. Most of the blogs never post any kind of guidelines or rules for making comments on their blogs. Those that do post something use them to discriminate against anyone they don't like. Clearly, in the example above, Kirk's personal accusation deviates from the blog article or it's theme no matter what it might be. Yet, it is the defender that the rule, oftentime unspoken "rule," is used against should that person dare object to the personal off-theme attack.

In the world of blogging I would consider these thug, bullying Brownshirt's antics incidental and irrelevant. Between the gossip-mongering, hatemongering, ridiculing, and lying about what people say, most of these blogs are nothing more than Troll Dens serving as home-bases for a Brownshirt Chapter. They possess NO credibility whatsoever.  I've learned over a lifetime that when these kinds of people raised their viperous heads and began spewing their dishonest vitriol and it was generally passed off by the decent folk as a fad -- well lets just say, they lived to regret their amorphous judgments. Taken literally, the original Brownshirts, their political and general philosophy for existence; what guided and justified their actions as compared to these local Brownshirts, is a mere bullet.

Everything, all creation, starts with an idea. Once that idea becomes accepted commonplace it materializes into reality. These Blogger Brownshirts are only one bullet away from that reality.


[UPDATE :: Friday, May 23, 2014]

I've identified another Haven. This comment is another good example that the blog owner affirms and lets go unchallenged for blatant bald-faced lying. Brownshirts' purpose is to SILENCE all dissenters – people that don't bow down and worship the Plutocratic Oligarchy they support, empower and defend. I, frankly do NOT give a rat's ass who agrees or does NOT agree with me. 
MOLA42
May 22, 2014 at 12:13 
I wonder….

There’s some guy out there who lately has taken to calling everyone who disagrees with him “Brown Shirts.” It would be very disappointing to find out Mr. Berg and this other fellow were one and the same.

For the record, no one is “evil” (except puppy abusers) and no one is a saint. We are just a bunch of folks trying to figure out the best way through this mess called life.

(Who made this scummy bastard God? "For the record" that statement is just his worthless opinion, and I do mean worthless. The fact that he presumes to speak for everyone belies his wannabe truth - what makes him illegitimate.)
When someone disagrees with us (Progressive, Regressive, Conservative, Liberal) it does not mean someone wants to get the trains going so they can ship their opponents to the Death Camps. It’s supposed to be a civil discussion, where consensus is reached and we make policy for ourselves we can all live with.

(No, in his case, they just put a bullet in your head - they censor you, they block you the moment you reject their lying false accusations and disease-ridden innuendo - see above. In that he mirrors his true father, and He is truly the Evil Father of the Lie. "Civility" died with the first lie. The Browshirts turned it all into war.)
It starts with listening. [Emphasis Mine.]
--Joe

Saturday, July 10, 2010

"God-Speak" and The Dreamer

 
[COMMENT UPDATE Below - Look who monitor's this Report]
 
Dave Stancliff adds another sleazy contribution to his many indictments of self. The irony here is that he is unable to see, let alone understand, that what he says to me are really statements about himself. He can't live my life, even though he keeps trying. He can only live in his own little fantasy world - his world of dreams. His problem, demonstrated by his constant ad hominem litany, is that he keeps getting his fixated dreams mixed up with what he "thinks" is real. If not, he would not keep trying to convince himself that everyone else is as confused and as mixed up about reality and life as he is.

Relevance. The problem is not that I'm afraid or unable to protect and defend my family from predatory, racist lunatics that keep crawling out of the sewer assaulting anyone they think they can get at. The statement made is that the anonymity of the writer(s) of this Report should be considered a "gift." Problem is, the Dave Stancliff's of this world are too stupid to understand what that might mean. Then too, everything he's lyingly accused me of being and doing, really only defines him and since I never take (almost never, ever) anything personally (The Second Agreement) I do not need to be sorely tempted.

Irrelevance. Notice in his last comment his inability to distinguish between what is said directly "to" someone or observations "about" someone. (D. Stancliff below: "If I'm so irrevelant (sp)..why do you continue to write about me?") I used the word "think" above advisably, because even when I explain the difference and why he is so totally "irrelevant" regardless of his continuing attempts to force me (us) to acknowledge or recognize him in some way directly, he still is unable to comprehend. I (we) don't write about him. That is a total waste of time and energy. What he says and does, his conduct and behavior is another matter. Perhaps a quote from an esteemed Bible writer would help explain: "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." -Romans 12:9 NIV.

Objective Observation. I and Joe Blow write this blog Report anonymously in order to retain its primary purpose: impersonal objectivity. Objectivity means we focus on the "object," NOT the "subject." Dave Stancliff is unable to make the distinction. The distinction being, D. Stancliff is the "subject," what he thinks, believes, says, writes or does is the "object." When the Report makes observations about his newspaper column no one is writing about, commenting about or attacking Dave Stancliff the person. When he comes on my blog and tells me and the whole world that I am a "hatemonger" for writing about his conduct, he changes the rules. Our observations are now about "him," - the subject. So, we observe that such conduct generally is derived from the conduct of a racist-based personalities. Which is generally consistant with people that are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Remember, "hatemonger" is defined as: 1) A person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others - 2) One who incites others to hatred or prejudice. -- Even with capital letters, Stancliff never justifies his accusations. Not one example! But, then that would show some respect for the reader. That way you, the reader, could decide for yourself if what he says is the truth. That is not the way of little tin gods. -tin god:
"An often pompous or dictatorial person who demands or receives more respect than is merited."

Interesting observation, though, based upon feedback, people see right through Stancliff and his god-like dictates and demands in his vain attemps to get people to make him relevant by focusing on him. When the Dave Stancliff's of this world measure up to "this" standard, maybe then we can all accept these little would-be tin god's disrespect and think and believe exactly what they tells us is and is not. "This": Love for Enemies - Words of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. - Holy Bible, New International Version. [Emphasis added]
--Joe

Dave has left a new comment on your post "Warmonger Writes About Peace II":

Looks like the multiple personalities are back.

Back when I was talking to the personality that calls himself Joe, I thought there might be a chance of civil communication.

But your osession with me, coupled with anger, has brought back the "we" - or all those voices in your head.

Just want to let you "all" know that I'm not going to write about you, because that's what you really want; some form of
recognition.

Oh yeah, why would you have to move to Brazil if you let people know who you are(your words)?

Could it be you fear retaliation from all of your HATE MONGERING on your blog?

If I'm so irrevelant..why do you continue to write about me?

Like I said, I'm not going to write about you because this appears to be your goal. Sorry, all of you will just have to suck wind and move on.

Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at July 10, 2010 8:50 AM  -[Emphasis added] [Pic Source]

Friday, July 9, 2010

Warmonger Writes About Peace II

Hatemonger Writes About Love

For those of you that don't know, a “warmonger” is defined as, “a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.” A “hatemonger” is defined as, “a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others.” The following comment posted on this blog Report by Dave Stancliff, one of many examples as far back as June 1, 2009, of language and intent that meets the above definitions.

It was actually May 31, 2009, that I posted some non-personal observations, "Trolls Versus the Thought Police," about a newspaper column that Dave Stancliff wrote for the Time-Standard newspaper exposing his agenda to dictate and control what and how people think about certain subjects that leads directly to war and the lawless debased state of affairs we're all forced to endure today because of people that think they can do and say to others whatever they want with impunity.

My observations over a year ago are proven justified and legitimate when Dave Stancliff changed the issue with his first ad hominem personal accusation. Ever since he's tried to make the issue between him and me and NOT about what he says, does or believes that he writes in the newspaper. Herein lies the crux of that problem, he writes for the local newspaper. Apparently they believe this kind of trash-talking garbage, racist obscenity is acceptable. That, somehow, his public actions do not reflect in anyway upon them and their newspaper. So be it. As long as they publish his so-called "opinions" the Report will publish its observations as it deems appropriate. As far as the writer(s) of this Report are conserned, Dave Stancliff was and is, as a person, irrelevant. Stancliff would like to believe someone here at the Report is angry, hates his guts, or holds a grudge, even some sort of "fan from hell," etc. that way he could become relevant.

About “paranoia” - that is the state of being wherein you are unable to distinguish between what you think and believe from who and what you are. In Dave Stancliff's case, when I wrote about his newspaper article he accused me of writing and attacking him. Stancliff's documented statements, repeated statements, define him, NOT ME! To re-state an obvious fact, that the claimed purpose of the article was a simple-minded knee-jerk response, in fact at the root of a very serious problem for the world and American society, is NOT, in and of itself, a personal attack on him. Neither do such statements of fact make someone angry nor paranoid. Not one time has Stancliff produced the “lies” he claims I said. Nor does he demonstrate what it is that supposedly makes me “angry.” I guess he thinks he can get away with making such statements because if anyone has a right to be angry it would be me. His wild and psychotic statements take on a hint of personal danger to me when he makes his veiled threats, “some kind of crazed fan from hell.” Let me remind everyone that not one time have I personally addressed or recognized Dave Stancliff other than the impersonal commentary written on this blog Report. I never go to his blog, nor do I say anything about his filthy comments about me (us) he spreads around the blogosphere.

The paranoia is demonstrated in Stancliff's self-important, elitist, god-like assertion that I am somehow a “fan” of his. That my indirect attention somehow makes him a god! Would-be gods are defined by their right to tell everyone what is and is not, but NEVER furnish any proof, i.e., “paranoia” and “hate.” In Stancliff's case, the proof they try to use is always whatever response they can use after-the-fact. His “ends” always “justify his means.”

One final thought on “offers” on the record, conflicts with Stancliff's convenient recollections. He came on this blog and offered to meet with me so we could discuss our “differences.” Before I could even begin to contemplate meeting with him I needed him to assure me he would not use that meeting to continue assaulting me with more of his accusations. He, did not stop making personal accusations even then, but did make another offer for an “interview.” Again he asserts some measure of superiority by offering to do this so I can get a wider coverage of readers. Whatever made him think that might be important to me, I don't know. Regardless, his refusal to even consider what I might need to meet demonstrates that his offers were disingenuous – made for ulterior reasons.

Remember, “Everything Is About Something Different.” I've learned in this life that people like Dave Stancliff, people that persist in making false, lying accusations, do so because they know what they say and write ARE lies. They know that if what they said was true, these people would either be in a mental institution or jail. Only idiots keep provoking someone that's really angry, maybe even psychologically deranged, with a sharp stick. The following is Dave Stancliff's latest contribution posted on the Report article: Warmonger Writes About Peace.

Included below it is the unsolicited comment from a reader that offers some worthwhile perspective about Dave Stancliff's real intentions behind his Times-Standard newspaper “As It Stands” weekly column. [Picture source]



Dave said...

You amaze me Joe.

I write about a subject that has nothing to do with you, and you still attack me.

Remind me of the offer you made me to meet. I don't recall that one. I know I made you an offer, but you refused.

All I see is an angry man who accuses me of everything in the book while reviling me, saying lies about me,and who spends his time blogging about me like some kind of crazed fan from hell.

It's obvious you have some major anger issues in life Joe, and for whatever reason you've chosen to devote your days and nights to attacking me.

I really feel sorry for you. I personally couldn't carry around as much paranoia and hate as you do. It's going to catch up to you.

Have a great day Joe and don't forget to say something nasty about me.

July 3, 2010 8:40 AM

kenny's sideshow said...

Dave, I have no dog in this little fight between you and Joe but I was intrigued by your article title so I went and read it.

It was a convoluted mess, either by ignorance or design.

Taking the false flag of 9/11 and the subsequent manufactured Islamic enemies and mixing it with some history of the Crusades is BS.

Here's how not to coexist with others on the planet and create jihad in the locals as an excuse for never ending wars and profiteering:

Invade and occupy a country based on nothing but lies, genocide and displace the population, destroy the infrastructure and historical artifacts, steal the resources,use the controlled media to cheer lead the death and destruction,install puppet leaders 'friendly' to your agenda,maybe even stimulate the opium/heroin trade and make your bankers and buddies rich while the local population suffers, etc. etc.

Dave, you're a 'journalist.' You should know these simple things by now.

July 3, 2010 3:46 PM
[Emphasis added]
--Joe