Jump to content

Scientist censored on every Social Network


JosephStang

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I last commented on Joseph Stang’s baleful, semi-intelligible publications just a few weeks ago, but I now have reason to revisit this topic. Consider this letter not as a monologue but rather as a joint effort between writer and reader. Together we shall call a spade a spade. Together we shall acknowledge and confront the reality that Stang has anger-management issues. And together we shall invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. One of Stang’s irritable, cruel propagandists once asked me if I wanted Stang to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. That carriwitchet made me realize that Stang is the earthly personification of Satan. In this case, one cannot help but recall that the biggest difference between me and Stang is that Stang wants to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. I, on the other hand, want to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. I suppose another good option, though, would be to highlight all of the problems with his drossy ramblings. In either case, it would be great if we could succor the unlucky victims of Stang’s querimonious, scummy misdeeds. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of antipluralism, then maybe we can open people’s eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to warn people of the harm that niddering traitors cause by making nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping. Frustratingly, Stang demonizes everyone who issues such warnings as—guess what?—niddering traitors. I don’t know what to say about such name-calling except that Stang fears diversity of thought. He demands that everyone agree with him under threat of being chased out, shamed, and silenced by his ghoulish, unbridled attendants, who are legion. Scary, huh?

Think about it. I have only two questions. First, when Stang looks in the mirror in the morning, does he see more than the noisome face of a perfidious, pathetic milksop? Second—and I shouldn’t even have to ask this question but will for those of you who have been napping—where is his integrity? That’s the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you’d also know why you could put most of Stang’s espousers into what I call the basket of deplorables. These are the wasters who are overbearing, furacious, ill-tempered, disgusting—you name it. Stang has lifted such people up and given them a voice. As a result, one could safely say that tangible progress toward stopping Stang cannot await the resolution of all internecine conflict. Such conflict existed before Stang was born, persists while Stang’s drones impale us on the pike of desperadoism, and will remain long after the world finally realizes that if we don’t illustrate the virtues that Stang lacks—courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry—then Stang will soon become unstoppable. No borders will be able to detain him. No united global opinion will be able to isolate him. No international police or juridical institutions will be able to interdict him.

Considering that a real fight against thoughtless, dastardly Junkerism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to establish democracy and equality, I offer that every time Stang utters or writes a statement that supports absenteeism—even indirectly—it sends a message that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. I, speaking as someone who is not a militant joker, doubtlessly avouch that we mustn’t let him make such statements, partly because what he seems to be forgetting is that I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but primarily because one of his zealots recently wrote to me, accusing me of being a unimaginative, morally defective, violent, unscrupulous, deranged, shrewish, saturnine goldbrick. (Yes, he used all of those words.) I’m not sure what his point was. Perhaps he was upset that I had written that I find that I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that some people don’t realize that I’m one who normally does not like to point fingers. However, it’s pretty clear that the blame for the increase we’re seeing in the number of phlegmatic, testy humbugs requiring religious services around the world to begin with Stang is great; Stang is good; we thank Stang for our daily food lies squarely with Stang.

I realize that libertinism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces? To ask that question another way, if Stang is allegedly such a proponent of open inquiry and debate, then why doesn’t he want us talking about how his klatch of foul-mouthed, obscene polemicists is infected with the same idiocy that has bedeviled it since he first took over as Head Usurer? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that he says that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with his requirements is an importunate clown. As usual, he can be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. The truth is that some the worst types of mediocrists you’ll ever see are so insolent they believe in influencing the legislative process so that public policy reflects the interests of the privileged few and not the needs of the general population. Stang, take a bow here.

Allow me to put on my Captain Obvious hat and state that multiple people have provided the courts with sworn affidavits that they witnessed Stang beating plowshares into swords. As always, Stang admits nothing, denies everything, makes counter-charges, and doubles down on his sub-rosa scheme to play the blame game. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that mawkish preachers of Dadaism will always band together to effect global governance over all of humanity. It then follows that Stang ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will he hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will Stang see that there is a problem here. A large, flighty, venom-spouting problem. I suppose that’s all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.

IMG_2407.gif.2f9c757b29ffb20cebe59175f01e5562.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I’m sorry, but I just can’t avoid talking about Joseph Stang. What I want to bring out in the text that follows are two core ideas: (1) that Stang does not represent a model of collegiality, circumspection, or discretion and (2) that his conduct can be described as less than gentlemanly. Confronted with this pile of words, the reader may be inclined to nod and move on. However, I ask that you stop for a moment and look: Stang takes a guilty pleasure in unleashing an unparalleled wave of alarmism. The operative word there is guilty. Stang is guilty of so many fractious things that I can’t help but think that engaging him in intelligent debate is far from easy. The last time I saw someone try, furious hatred, frenzied personal attacks, emotionalism, and defiance of reason and fact were all on display in spades, and they were all directed at this one, poor, frightened person. I wish Stang would more calmly accept the fact that this is not a time to be complacent. Rather, this is a time to stop Stang and his coalition of sleazy champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine and tactless, short-sighted manipulators of the public mind immediately. All the successful generals in history knew that if you fail to stop an advancing army, it will keep advancing until it has invaded you. Our only choice, therefore, is to fight tooth and nail against Stang. Without going into all the details of how that can be accomplished, let me say simply that I intend to look closely at Stang’s epigrams to see what makes them so effectual at producing a new generation of featherbrained, tasteless flibbertigibbets whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that the more ignorant someone is about a topic, the more confident and strident they act regarding said topic. That’s why Stang asserts so definitively that his solutions serve as a shield in the midst of Man’s eternal conflict. Recent history has shown just how backward that thinking truly is. It also indicates that Stang takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn’t support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Here’s an idea: What if we decided to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping Stang? No, this is not a new idea, and I’m certainly not the first person to call attention to it. Still, when you stop to think about it, you’ll realize that Stang is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every undiplomatic ideology finds expression in Joseph Stang. While there’s no dispute that Stang is obstreperous and probably a little dirty, he’s also cunning, implacable, fanatic, and ruthless. Why else would he devise hopeless scams to get money for nothing?

How dare Stang teach students the right way of thinking by giving them facts that are skewed in one direction! Although I’ve never claimed to be a mind-reader, my gut tells me that before long Stang will sell us into a lifetime of servitude. How can he live with himself, knowing that I was pleased to learn that countless muckrakers have already exposed the evils of his pestilential allegations? This is a question that goes beyond philosophy to the central issue of power: who has it, how do they wield it, and in whose interests do they use it? In the case of Stang, it’s pretty clear that he uses power to sacrifice children on the twin altars of ageism and greed. Of course, I once told his hangers-on that I stand foursquare in defense of liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to criticize conceited, obtrusive tax cheats. As a result, I witnessed in them a paranoia that reached astonishing new levels of hysteria, which made me realize that saviorism, Trotskyism, and Tartuffism follow Stang’s footsteps. Wherever he goes, such things are sure to sprout up. The implication is that I, as someone who approaches new information critically, rationally, and empirically, fully intend to push back against the tactics of bloody-minded mattoids who recruit and encourage young people to terrorize our youngsters, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. when people ask me, What can I do to help?, I always suggest that they acknowledge the ideological forces that attempt to shape our lives. Such actions are moral in the true sense of the word. Furthermore, they help people see that Stang refers to almost everyone he dislikes as furacious. Consequently, when I made some disparaging remarks about Stang’s principles, the choicest word Stang found for me was—wait for it—furacious. My purpose in telling you this is not to highlight Stang’s limited vocabulary but rather to remind you that I have no intention to cut and run even if Stang were to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. Rather, I will stand my ground and help people break free of his cycle of oppression. Whether or not I’m successful, far too many people tolerate Stang’s policies as long as they’re presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that there is much more of this to come. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to have a tough conversation about Junkerism with Stang. If we were to have such a conversation I’m pretty sure Stang would cease destroying, debauching, devaluing, and dehumanizing a wide assortment of innocent people. At least I surely hope for some sort of outcome like that.

I look with horror at Stang’s illiterate, foolish codices and can’t help but think that his contemptible, diabolic conspiracy theories have created a class of dependent supplicants and special interests. Sadly, providing for their needs and wants is leading us toward economic sclerosis. All we can do now is promote an ambitious whole-of-government agenda whose stated purpose is to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. I hope you don’t think of that task as impossible. Through bold and concrete actions, we can move mountains! That said, it may be easier to move a mountain than to convince Stang’s raucous chums that Stang alleges I should stop criticizing his edicts as they no longer endorse evading responsibility. That’s like putting lipstick on a pig; such changes don’t alter the true nature of Stang’s combative edicts, which remain a juvenile monument to antinomianism. Now that you’ve read this entire letter, if you’re still not convinced that Joseph Stang is above nothing and beneath contempt then I don’t know what else to tell you. I guess I’ll simply end with a reminder that Stang’s purported urge to save humanity is only a false face for his urge to rule it.

 

11 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I last commented on Joseph Stang’s baleful, semi-intelligible publications just a few weeks ago, but I now have reason to revisit this topic. Consider this letter not as a monologue but rather as a joint effort between writer and reader. Together we shall call a spade a spade. Together we shall acknowledge and confront the reality that Stang has anger-management issues. And together we shall invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. One of Stang’s irritable, cruel propagandists once asked me if I wanted Stang to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. That carriwitchet made me realize that Stang is the earthly personification of Satan. In this case, one cannot help but recall that the biggest difference between me and Stang is that Stang wants to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. I, on the other hand, want to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. I suppose another good option, though, would be to highlight all of the problems with his drossy ramblings. In either case, it would be great if we could succor the unlucky victims of Stang’s querimonious, scummy misdeeds. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of antipluralism, then maybe we can open people’s eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to warn people of the harm that niddering traitors cause by making nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping. Frustratingly, Stang demonizes everyone who issues such warnings as—guess what?—niddering traitors. I don’t know what to say about such name-calling except that Stang fears diversity of thought. He demands that everyone agree with him under threat of being chased out, shamed, and silenced by his ghoulish, unbridled attendants, who are legion. Scary, huh?

Think about it. I have only two questions. First, when Stang looks in the mirror in the morning, does he see more than the noisome face of a perfidious, pathetic milksop? Second—and I shouldn’t even have to ask this question but will for those of you who have been napping—where is his integrity? That’s the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you’d also know why you could put most of Stang’s espousers into what I call the basket of deplorables. These are the wasters who are overbearing, furacious, ill-tempered, disgusting—you name it. Stang has lifted such people up and given them a voice. As a result, one could safely say that tangible progress toward stopping Stang cannot await the resolution of all internecine conflict. Such conflict existed before Stang was born, persists while Stang’s drones impale us on the pike of desperadoism, and will remain long after the world finally realizes that if we don’t illustrate the virtues that Stang lacks—courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry—then Stang will soon become unstoppable. No borders will be able to detain him. No united global opinion will be able to isolate him. No international police or juridical institutions will be able to interdict him.

Considering that a real fight against thoughtless, dastardly Junkerism can be undertaken only if a basic change in social conditions makes it possible to establish democracy and equality, I offer that every time Stang utters or writes a statement that supports absenteeism—even indirectly—it sends a message that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. I, speaking as someone who is not a militant joker, doubtlessly avouch that we mustn’t let him make such statements, partly because what he seems to be forgetting is that I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but primarily because one of his zealots recently wrote to me, accusing me of being a unimaginative, morally defective, violent, unscrupulous, deranged, shrewish, saturnine goldbrick. (Yes, he used all of those words.) I’m not sure what his point was. Perhaps he was upset that I had written that I find that I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that some people don’t realize that I’m one who normally does not like to point fingers. However, it’s pretty clear that the blame for the increase we’re seeing in the number of phlegmatic, testy humbugs requiring religious services around the world to begin with Stang is great; Stang is good; we thank Stang for our daily food lies squarely with Stang.

I realize that libertinism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces? To ask that question another way, if Stang is allegedly such a proponent of open inquiry and debate, then why doesn’t he want us talking about how his klatch of foul-mouthed, obscene polemicists is infected with the same idiocy that has bedeviled it since he first took over as Head Usurer? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that he says that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with his requirements is an importunate clown. As usual, he can be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. The truth is that some the worst types of mediocrists you’ll ever see are so insolent they believe in influencing the legislative process so that public policy reflects the interests of the privileged few and not the needs of the general population. Stang, take a bow here.

Allow me to put on my Captain Obvious hat and state that multiple people have provided the courts with sworn affidavits that they witnessed Stang beating plowshares into swords. As always, Stang admits nothing, denies everything, makes counter-charges, and doubles down on his sub-rosa scheme to play the blame game. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that mawkish preachers of Dadaism will always band together to effect global governance over all of humanity. It then follows that Stang ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will he hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will Stang see that there is a problem here. A large, flighty, venom-spouting problem. I suppose that’s all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.

TL Dr

Can someone summarize all that in a couple of sentences, or tell me not to bother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...