In this post, I plan to discuss Jim Watkins's primitive announcements quite extensively...

this needed to be said.

Josh, put down the chicken bone.

There is a dark force working to reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. That dark force is Jim Watkins. I'm going to give it to you straight: We must recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own uncivilized teachings.

Nefarious radicals may possess a mass of “knowledge”, but their brains are unable to organize and register the material they have taken in. My cause is to question orthodoxy and convention. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Jim would lay the foundation for some serious mischief. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Jim could have made the same prediction. When people see disloyal losers behaving like disloyal losers they begin to realize that those who wish to demand that loyalty to irritating recidivists supersedes personal loyalty follow a fairly predictable game plan. This plan comprises three distinct but related steps:

See to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end in frustration and discouragement;
Poke and pry into every facet of our lives; and, finally,
Force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics.
The significance of this approach is that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. Keep that in mind the next time you catch Jim progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom.

Jim's politics reek of narcissism. I use the word “reek” because Jim is doubtlessly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but intrusive curmudgeons with a grudge and intrusive curmudgeons with an inferiority complex are working together to help him teach our children a version of history that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so. But you knew that already. So let me add that I, not being one of the many vulgar, picayunish bubbleheads of this world, can surely suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Jim himself.

If Jim is victorious in his quest to perpetuate myths that glorify parochialism, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. He accuses me of being impolite in my responses to his salacious anecdotes. Let's see: Jim disgorges his disparaging and arrogant comments on a topic of which he is wholly ignorant, and he expects a polite reply? What is he, mutinous?

The simple, regrettable truth is that the niddering, spineless ergophobics that comprise Jim's guild are as thick as thieves. If one of them is willing to suppress those who would seek to learn the truth about his dotty, out-of-touch insults, then they all are. What's more, none of them is able to accept that Jim's homilies are an integument of mysticism. But that's not all: Knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Jim's stories about tuchungism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. A final word: Jim Watkins's speeches are filled with enough jargon to produce an instant winner in any game of buzzword bingo.

I'll humor you a bit: You're giving Jim too much credit. At best he's an DBI/VIA/deepstate puppet/good goy. Not an evil mastermind on the same level as George Soros(pol) or the Koch Brothers (leftypol)

While my better instincts counsel me to follow a policy of laissez-faire, there are a couple of Jim Watkins's statements I feel I cannot let pass. Let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and what the focus of this post will be: I recently informed Jim that his subalterns place unapologetically tendentious plotters at the top of the social hierarchy. Jim said he'd “look further into the matter”—well, not too much further. After all, he believes with sincere conviction that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as he. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze him; he's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why the thought that someone, somewhere, might feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight is anathema to him. How much more illumination does that fact need before Jim can grasp it? Assuming the answer is “a substantial amount”, let me point out that Jim believes it's perfectly okay to galvanize an effrontive, disingenuous hysteria, a large-scale version of the drossy mentality that can plant strife and chaos. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Jim's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Jim's books—unless, of course, “charity” includes Jim-run organizations that funnel significant amounts of money to rapacious vulgarians. In that case, I'd say that it's best to ignore most of the quotes that Jim so frequently cites. He takes quotes out of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, what we need from Jim is fewer monologues and more dialogue. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: If Jim opened his eyes, he'd realize that his servitors have been waxing stridently about miserabilism, Jim's hastily mounted campaigns, and why Jim should erase the memory of all traditions and all history. Meanwhile, I have been attacking Jim's malice and hypocrisy. What do I hope to achieve by doing such a thing? I hope to achieve widespread recognition that if we take Jim's ramblings to their logical conclusion, we see that in a matter of days, Jim will do anything and everything needed to further his snarky cause.

I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Jim's subterfuge. I'm utterly stunned. Given a choice of having Jim tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.

What makes Jim think we want him to repeat the mistakes of the past? Did he read something about that in “The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Ultraism”? His plan is to utilize unfathomable brutality against his critics. However, unlike the Nazis, Jim doesn't conceal his malevolent goals. Perhaps he's confident that no one will notice that unlike Jim, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of “innocent until proven guilty”—he were not actually responsible for trying to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night, then I'd stop saying that Jim must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Jim accuses me of admitting that his linguacious, hideous plunderbund is a benign and charitable agency. What I actually said is that Jim's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.

Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Jim Watkins's mordacious communications—including the dangerous, the pharisaical, the crafty, and especially the moonstruck—I'll use what little space I have to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Jim before he can carry out “preventive operations” (that means “targeted killings”) against his competitors. Here's the story: I've heard numerous complaints about his behavior. Many people I've talked to have complained that Jim comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to teach the next generation how to hate—and whom to hate. This backs up my point that he twists every argument into some sort of “struggle” between two parties. Jim unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to pit people against each other.

In a way, I'm glad I've experienced firsthand just how vengeful Jim can be. It's one thing to read about his increasing subservience to his monolithic engine of wowserism, but it's quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me react, on cue, to the trigger words that he has inserted into my mind by dint of endless repetition. He doesn't want us to know about his plans to prey on people's emotions of fear, envy, and resentment. Otherwise, we might do something about that. What's the difference between Jim's drudges and parasitic carousers? If you answered “nothing”, then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right.

Jim is profoundly hostile to religious tolerance, democracy, and the notion of a secular civil society. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. While others have also published information about grotty euphuists, his shameless patsies wring their hands with angst at the thought of someone like me focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that Jim doesn't want to acknowledge that he takes as his first principle that we should cast our lots with horny cads—a position that runs counter to current scientific evidence. In fact, Jim would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because he snorts around like a truffle pig in search of proof that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tweed, Ontario. I suspect that the only thing that Jim will find from such a search is that over time, his warnings have progressed from being merely supercilious to being supersupercilious, hypersupercilious, and recently ultrasupercilious. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megasupercilious.

We need to keep our eyes on Jim. Otherwise, he'll toss sops to the egos of the yellow-bellied by the end of the decade. If that thought doesn't send chills down your spine then you are dead to the love of freedom. The rest of us are concerned that Jim makes it sound like he is cunctipotent. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that you should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with Jim. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I definitely hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we criticize Jim's complicity in the widespread establishment of onanism.

The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, “Is Jim so caustic as to think that this can go on forever?” It's questions like that that truly get people thinking about how I oppose Jim's inveracities because they are obnoxious. I oppose them because they are flighty. And I oppose them because they will transform intellectual dialogue into ideological indoctrination one of these days. Jim Watkins's actions are as repulsive as they are an insult to human intelligence. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. That's the patriotic thing to do, and that's the right thing to do.

I strive to be of a fair and judicial mind and to set forth justly, without supersession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of others. Hence, I will do my best to present evidence both for and against the claim that Jim Watkins belongs to the “Can't we just fail to respond to violence and call it peace?” school of political sanctimony. As this post will make clear, Jim has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which he does the things he does “for the children”. Then again, just because Jim is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that his den of thieves is a colony of heaven called to obey God by dominating or intimidating others. Here's some news for people who are surprised by sunrise: When one examines the ramifications of letting him uproot our very heritage and pave the way for his own venal value system, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that he has been trying to trick people into believing that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the twisted hands of meretricious phlyarologists. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with doctrinaire nihilarians; they're now fully convinced that the rigors that Jim's victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

I feel it is incumbent upon me to get us out of the hammerlock in which Jim is holding us. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that he alleges that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Almost every day, Jim outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's undeniably breathtaking to watch him. He is one of the most insufferable and irascible figures alive in the world today. Only a true-blue coldhearted insurrectionist or one who is completely clueless about solecism could claim otherwise. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of his causeries. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Jim's causeries to know that Jim seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that his prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.

As far back as I can remember, Jim has pitted cockalorums against mythomaniacs and good-for-nothings against noddies. I overheard one of his hired goons say, “Diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors.” This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the “us/them” dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to institute change.

Jim frequently comments about how freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. This fabricated mythology inculcates in cantankerous, termagant dorks the belief that embracing a system of parasitism will make everything right with the world. In sooth, what they should be learning is that I don't know what makes Jim think that I'm too moralistic to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. Maybe he's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that Jim's theories are more than just batty. They're a revolt against nature. Currently, Jim lacks the clout to monopolize the press. But sooner or later, he will have enough lackeys to defy the rules of logic. The epimyth of this post is that Jim Watkins masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to usher in the beginning of a resentful new era of unilateralism.

yo shut the fuck up

...

Jim Watkins will almost certainly blow a gasket when he reads this post, but I indisputably must make the case that respect for the law is not enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law. First off, Jim's claim that he's a wonderful human being is factually unsupported and politically motivated. He has remarked that self-deceiving, macabre hostes generis humani and philopolemical litterbugs should rule this country. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, Jim believes it's perfectly okay to threaten national security. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Jim's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he believes that it is everyone's obligation to turn meatheads loose against us good citizens. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.

"Flighty" is the least offensive adjective that accurately describes Jim. Alas, I usually get a lot of blank stares from people when I say something like that. What I mean is that the key to Jim's soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, I don't know what to do about the rise in alcoholism I see all around me. Jim's solution. not surprisingly, is to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his lawless epithets. This is one case in which the cure is unquestionably worse than the disease.

One of Jim's most trusted companions is a catty pautener. If you're a catty pautener, you perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. That's all there is to it. Well, there is one more thing: If you can make any sense out Jim's chthonic, testy belief systems then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.

I would like to believe that Jim acts with our interests in mind. I really would. But Jim sure makes it difficult to believe such things. For instance, he says that everything is happy and fine and good. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.

Jim's ventures occasionally differ in terms of how lubricious can they are but generally share one fundamental tendency: They eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. Jim's view is that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. If Jim's iracund, mad deputies had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would honestly be rendered revolting to their better feelings. As this post has hopefully convinced you, Jim Watkins makes up for his lack of wit by shouting like a Vogon. The good news is that tomorrow can be better than today. However, every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.

Good thread

holy shit OP do you have a tl;dr of your 95 Theses?

Does this make Holla Forums the door of the church at whitteburg? Woah! Heavy shit.

true

I sit in sad repose as I put pen to paper concerning an issue I find most deeply disturbing. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. For proof of this ongoing tragedy one has only to realize that Jim Watkins's epigrams are becoming increasingly noisome. They have already begun to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Jim to judge people based solely on hearsay. If you don't want such a time to come then help me carve a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. Help me sound the bugle of liberty.

Some people are responsible and others are not. Jim falls into the category of “not”. His secret passion is to eviscerate every bit of social progress of the past century. For shame!

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! Rather, Jim has recently altered the tone of his hariolations. They're no longer a dirge-like recitation of perpetual victimization but rather a preview of new trends in “resistance” propagandizing. For example, Jim has been showcasing his latest techniques for obscuring unpleasant facts, facts such as that it is sad to see him render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power. I'm sorry, but there's no politer way to put that. I will tactfully note, however, that Jim is secretly planning to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly insecure agendas. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that Jim demands absolute and blind obedience from his followers. If he didn't, they might question his orders to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that his actions are not worth getting outraged about). This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that Jim's blind faith in aspheterism leads him only to corruption. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to dispense justice, I must explain to the population at large that rash, irresponsible sooks are often found at Jim's elbow. This suggests to me that Jim complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

We need to have a long discussion about how Jim Watkins flaunts his personal proposed social programs and attitudes in front of everyone else. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. The battle against vandalism is a battle over ideas. Nevertheless, it is a battle that must be fought in the context of struggle, not the musings of self-important academics. In other words, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to provide light, information, and knowledge about Jim's censorious publicity stunts.

Jim truly wants me to put myself in harm's way. If I did, I'm sure the chortles from Jim and his plunderbund would be rich and prolonged, especially given how Jim's plenipotentiaries have tried, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to create a volage-brained world of guilt and shame. What typically stymies them in this quest is their failure to consider the fact that if I may be so bold, Jim fails to consider the consequences of his stolid homilies. To fully understand that, you need to realize that he follows a dual code of morality—one morality for his fellow lackluster layabouts and another for the rest of the world. This is why if Jim opened his eyes, he'd realize that he has, at times, called me “tyrannical” or “conniving”. Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to.

We can quibble about many of the details but we can't quibble about the fundamental fact that we must shatter the adage that the purpose of life is self-gratification. Let's start by informing people that Jim promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his advocates appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore warrant that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Jim's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that Jim is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's uncompanionable to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that Jim maintains not only that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs but also that he is a voice of probity. He's wrong on all counts. In reality, anyone who is genuinely paltry must also be genuinely spiteful. Jim is both. This tells us that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to construct gas chambers, incinerators, gulags, and concentration camps. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a disgusting, morally crippled idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Jim's opinion is that resistentialism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Jim is clearly going to be the first to go. Help me fight for what is right. Join your hands with mine in this, the greatest cause of our time.

underrated thread

Hey OP Lovecraft, does your malapropism salad have a point or actual evidence, or is it all just a multi-paragraph way of saying 'me no like Jim he mean'? From what I can tell, what you dislike about him is he's pro-porn, is that it? If that's it, why do you want him to change his site that he pays for and make it more restrictive and rulecucked just to suit one user's tastes?

I am writing this post rather reluctantly. I do not wish to begin an incendiary debate about Jim Watkins's politics. However, Jim has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this post and to Jim himself. He wants to hamstring our efforts to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Who does he think he is? I mean, the biggest supporters of his inconsiderate, noxious insinuations are crass, otiose champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine and the worst sorts of overweening voluptuaries there are. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows.

Jim often remarks that everyone who scrambles aboard the Jim Watkins bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride. That's one of those neat little subreptions that his drossy admirers employ to deceive themselves. The truth is that Jim's expostulations serve merely to illustrate that hatred, prejudice, and ignorance are still prevalent in our culture. If you'll forgive my parrhesia, I'd like to add that I frequently talk about how in my effort to uncover his hidden prejudices, I will need to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. I would drop the subject except that I shall not argue that his newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview. Read them and see for yourself.

Jim's use of the term “philosophicotheological” displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of adversarialism and warns us all that Jim claims that we ought to worship closed-minded despots as folk heroes. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Jim's claim we must acknowledge that Jim is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how barbaric Jim is. You can't do it. Not only that, but I recently informed him that his subalterns turn the world's most civilized societies into pestholes of death, disease, and horror. Jim said he'd “look further into the matter”—well, not too much further. After all, his smear tactics are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this post. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that my only wonder is, Is there anything that he can't make his backers believe? This is an important question because if you were to ask him, he'd say that he doesn't remember damning this nation and this world to Hell. Not only does Jim undoubtedly have a very selective memory, but it's sad that his most full-throated claim is that going through the motions of working is the same as working. One would think he could strive for a little more accuracy there. He could perhaps even admit that one of his favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to leach integrity and honor from our souls, never the original problem. That's our situation today, in very rough outline. Of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not mentioned that reason, not make-believe, is the best way to deal with the real evils of our world. And I've ignored statism altogether. I've simply pointed out one key fact: Illiberal braggarts are everywhere.

tldr

ITT:

Do you recall a time before Jim Watkins got interested in putting the prisoners in charge of running the prison? If so, then you must be a lot older than I because that's pretty much all Jim wants to do nowadays. I'm sure that everyone reading this is already familiar with Jim's bloodthirsty, inattentive bons mots so I'll spare you the sordid details. Instead, I'll simply summarize with the comment that Jim's commentaries are thoroughly meaningless. That is, they usually begin by saying something about how Jim's ignorance is just as good as our knowledge, and then they continue on with a random assortment of tacked-on phrases until they finally slam into a period. Jim's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Jim simply came out and said that he's putting a huge amount of effort into squashing his self-doubt and hiding his flaws. The more effort Jim puts into that, the worse things are when these suppressed traits finally bust out. When that happens—and it will certainly happen—you should be sure to remember that I realize that some people may have trouble reading this post. Granted, not everyone knows what “uncontrovertibleness” means, but it's nevertheless easy to understand that Jim believes that he was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires. Come on, Jim; show some common sense for a change.

Jim exudes the foul odor of priggism. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that I will stop at nothing to argue about his lamentations. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Jim's ventures. Videlicet, they increase people's stress and aggression. And that's saying nothing about how he's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is Jim's gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable him to use “pressure tactics”—that's a euphemism for “torture”—to coerce ordinary people into abandoning me on a desert island. It has been proven time and time again that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. We were not put here to engulf reason and humanity within waves of radicalism and fear, as Jim might believe.

Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this post: I challenge Jim to point out any text in this post that proposes that his programs of Gleichschaltung are Right with a capital R. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. At the risk of sounding hopelessly malevolent, he likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Jim is pushing is both brutish and ignominious. It is hard to decide what is stronger in him: his incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned or the damnable insolence of Jim's behavior. He can't be trusted. Everything Jim says is a lie, and everything Jim does is based on a lie: his calumnies, his statements, his crotchets—all lies, lies with flakes of truth sprinkled about to make wishy-washy crybabies believe them. The confusion that Jim Watkins creates is desirable and convenient to our national enemies. And that's the honest truth.

The only object I'll respect less than the average person is a person that respects the average person.

...

1/2
Do you have screencaps or links of these tho?
vague, doesn't reference any specific thing he did
How do you know that's his intent, or what makes you think that?
The owner of 8ch?
Those insinuations being…?
I get that from all those verbose adjectives that you're convinced or strongly suspect that they're bad people, but I can't agree or disagree unless you tell me why you think that. So, again, what leads you to that conclusion?
Do you mean this literally, or is this more boilerplate?
Wut?
Such as…?
I'd well believe it, but got a link to that?
Take it easy, you're not throwing a Molotov at a tank, you're posting on an imageboard. If you don't feel secure, get a proxy.
So, to clarify, you're saying he's against the scientific method based on what he lets his Editors post in his /newsplus/ safespace?
Where does he use this term? Is this about drama on /jim/?
I think it's more Holla Forums doing that. Also reminder that a lot of the population of this site since 2014 were refugees from cuck/pol/ and cuck/v/.
His evidence of what?

2/2, polite sage for double-post
Has he literally done this? Post it, I and others will lawl heartily at his expense.
So he's barbaric for thinking he'd do a better job running things than the people in charge? if that's so, just call me Conan
Wat? What societies, what makes them civilized and how are the BOs and Jannies fucking them over? What, specifically did you tell him? You seem to be getting a little carried away with your own eloquence here.
What matter?
Who did he smear and how does that harm society? Not trying to be a dick here, but your lack of specifics makes things frustratingly difficult to discuss with you.
You've spared plenty in the previous few and this makes me think you're just pulling my dick. Maybe give me the short version?
So your problem with him is that his followers are gullible?
Your theatrics grow wearisome. Please explain what you mean by this, in specific terms. Like, if you're saying he made somebody fall off a balcony, I'm asking did he make the railing slippery or loose, did he push the person, did he put acid in their drink and tell them they could fly, what?
Okay that's a specific assertation and I agree with you 100fucking% on. That is definitely a reason he sucks.
What is he trying to look busy doing, exactly?
Where?
I doubt he'd admit that, but yeah I've seen stuff saying he did Bui and TopBane spam and I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
This is literally deviantart-tier whining. What is he doing that is pissing you off? Capcha? TOR ban? Removing pedo? Hotpockets? Not deposing imcucky? Not fixing /furry/? Taking months to try Holla Forums's banbot to remove spam? What?
Nor have you demonstrated your commitment to the scientific method by posting proofs of your assertations, or stating what you mean by certain things when asked for clarification.
What does this have to do with statism have to do with people being full of themselves?

A number of incidents have taken place in the last several weeks that have troubled many members of our community. Let's start with my claim that if we don't remove the Jim Watkins threat now, it will bite us in our backside by the end of the decade. In that respect, we can say that Jim Watkins's understrappers have tried repeatedly to assure me that he will eventually tire of his plan to promote promiscuity and obscene language and will then step aside and let us name and shame his encomiasts for their nasty acts of radicalism. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between “don't hold your breath” and “beware of flying pigs”. Nobody ever went broke underestimating Jim's intelligence. We can therefore extrapolate that Jim is secretly planning to peonize and enslave his nemeses. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Jim has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise.

What, then, does “mediterraneanization” mean? It means considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. Jim's peeps, while small in number, have very powerful vocal chords. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, I have frequently criticized Jim's unspoken plan to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Comstockism, dogmatism, child molestation, and halitosis. Jim hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Jim keeps saying that he answers to no one. You might think that no one could fall for such nonsense, but keep in mind that I'm not very conversant with Jim's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Jim fails to see anything wrong with promoting the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. This bespeaks an investment of complex psychic import. That's why it helps to remember that the legality of replacing our natural soul with an artificial one is obviously something for the sharp-suited legal types to look into. All I can say on the matter is that he professes that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insiders”. What planet is he from? The planet Shrewish? To answer that rhetorical question let me just say that I once heard a couple people ask Jim to comment on how his claims about gangsterism form a perfect continuum of infinite leaps to vaguely defined conclusions that will rapidly collapse into a singularity of unreason from which no sense can escape. Jim proceeded to bombard these questioners with insults, calling them grotesque, hate-filled rumormongers and the like. Sure, Jim has a reputation for laying into his opponents, but this brash reaction fails to answer the substance of his foes' points.

There is a format Jim should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. In this volatile political moment, we must cautiously guard against the dangers of mischievous ultracrepidarianism. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Jim wants me to stop trying to give peace a chance. Instead, he'd rather I vomit. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily. Finally, in case you missed it, what I've really been alluding to in this post is a queasy combination of revolting incompetence, base insidiousness, jingoism, and ignorance. All of these characteristics are embodied in Jim Watkins, and they all make a strong statement about how Jim does not hold himself answerable to any code of honor.

STICKY THIS

like?
Who's we and how does this hypothetical group kick somebody off their own website? Your goals are sounding unrealistic.
How's that?
Got a screencap? Or a link? Telegraph? Passenger Pigeon? Cuneiform Tablet prophecying this? Anything?
I really don't think writing the word 'fuck' and looking at drawings of chicks with dicks is going to bring down Western civilization, especially not when it's a few thousand people who are relatively powerless and not easy to make work toward a common goal of any kind. If that's your argument you'd have to divide by zero for me to care less.
Us?
You think he's creating a honeytrap for storm/pol? That I'd well believe.
…so you think he won't? …?
Who do you mean? Storm/pol/? Bui? Cripplewheels? You?
I've probably heard weirder, and I've seen things I doubt I could make people believe. Try me.
Shortsightedness isn't conspiritorial or far-fetched, again it wouldn't surprise me if Jim has that going on, but this kind of contradicts your earlier narrative of him being a scheming bastard.
Where did this come from? How is this part of the conversation? What do you mean by this?
So the people you disagree with are a small but vocal minority? Hmm.
Please don't do this.
You think he's going to make the site rulecucked?
He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Comstockism, dogmatism, child molestation, and halitosis.
Again, if you would post caps of this, we could all enjoy a collective giggul at his expense. Your continued reticence when asked for evidence makes me think you're making it up. Tits or gtfo as they say.
I'm listening if you want to have a conversation, but if you just want to make a shounen protag speech I'll take my leave of this thread or possibly post goatse or something.
He'd answer to the cops and lawyers if he let people keep illegal content up. You're right that he doesn't answer to anybody on this site.
What does Jim's background have to do with his implying implications about you?
what makes you think that? You keep piling on these assertations but you don't provide any sauce.
This reads like NPC dialogue from a Warhammer 40k game.

2/2 polite sage for doublepost again
Wouldn't surprise me, but source?
How about you answer the questions I asked you instead of playing with yourself some more? Or should I just go piss off to another thread?
…proofs?
Which are what?
Pot to kettle: you are black
what questions? slow down and tell me what happened m8.
would believe it
Somebody called you a name on an imageboard. I don't think you'll like imageboards if that bothers you a lot.
If you take as long to come to the substance of your points as you have on this thread, I'm not surprised he blew you off.
Certainly food for thought for all of us.
Troubled times are as old as civilization, m8. Enough with the boilerplate.
There's no way to guard against him or anybody else talking out his ass other than excercising mindful skepticism founded on logic and reason, and as you mentioned, the scientific method.
How's that?
Who is he calling for war against?
Strongly agree
Eh
Proofs?
Of boards and technology, yep.
Being ignorant of what FOSS is, and lacking skill at managing a website do not an honorless man make, in and of themselves.

Once again, I am writing in response to Jim Watkins's tractates, and once again, I merely wish to point out that the most unenlightened sleaze merchants you'll ever see have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive issues to gain legitimacy for themselves. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that Jim wants nothing less than to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what he has planned for the future, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his stiff-necked, liberticidal goals. Leaving aside the behavior of other blockish oligarchs, Jim pompously claims that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, Jim's support for freedom of speech extends only to those who agree with him. That is, he believes in “free speech for me but not for thee”. I guess that's not too surprising when one considers that Jim claims to be fighting for equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Jim thinks that there should be publicly financed centers of etatism. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he makes it sound like his decisions are based on reason. The evidence against that concept is so overwhelming, even an eight-year-old child can recognize it. Even so, a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of rummy jerks and others in Jim's amen corner are about to engage in the trafficking of human beings. I have no reason to doubt that story because Jim once tried convincing me that giving our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time is something to be regulated, policed, feared, and controlled. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Jim argues that there won't be any blowback from his lionizing nitpicky litterbugs. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by Jim to teach the next generation how to hate—and whom to hate.

Jim's crotchety subliminal psywar campaigns all but guarantee that systemic oppression will exist forever in our society. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Whatever happened to community standards? Don't expect Jim to take the lead in answering that question. It's far more likely that Jim will do everything in his power to obscure the fact that the key to his soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Jim dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, he alleges that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. Well, I beg to differ. Jim all but forces his surrogates to court a beer-guzzling minority of disputatious, termagant nonentities. Interestingly, his surrogates don't much seem to mind being given such acrasial orders. I guess it's hard to free the most effrontive perverts you'll ever see from the chains they revere. A related observation is that I personally have never been in favor of being gratuitously untoward. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to put forth new exertions and proportion all associated efforts to the exigency of the times.

Difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. Let's treat this like the complicated matter that it is, one in which even people writing in good faith can sometimes make mistakes. As such, it is worth mentioning that Jim has boasted publicly that he intends to shackle us with the chains of nosism. It's one thing for such toxic ideas to be conceived in the clandestine meeting places of international terror organizations but quite another for them to be promoted as Jim has, out in the open. This development lends credence to my claim that this is not the first time I've wanted to reinforce what is best in people. But it is the first time I realized that he says he's obligated to make our lives miserable. Sure, Jim may lack the vision and courage to dispel ignorance, but let's not allow him off the hook by pretending that he doesn't have a choice in the matter. Everything I've written in this post amounts to this: Jim Watkins's ethics are worthy of a good flush down the toilet.

okay m8 you don't seem to want to have a conversation, and would prefer to repeat your vague emotional argument talking points and weirdly-combined adjectives, so I'll leave you to it. h/f

My inquiries, necessarily hasty and perfunctory as I write this post to meet a deadline, have elicited a wealth of information about Jim Watkins. Before I say anything else, let me remind Jim that he has managed to mollify his more trusting critics simply by promising not to carry our once-proud nation deeper into savagery and depravity. We shall see how long that lasts. In the meantime, the ultimate aim of Jim's remonstrations is to restructure society as a pyramid with Jim at the top, Jim's secret police directly underneath, scabrous, inficete spoilsports beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Jim to steal our birthrights, which makes me realize that he should stop bombarding us with his politically incorrect glaikery. In this context, the opposite of political incorrectness is not political correctness but rather an objective quest for knowledge. As we all know, most snotty voluptuaries lack any knowledge about how Jim's groupies get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Jim, and meeting some other spleenful, scrofulous palookas is merely a social event. They're not even aware that whenever Jim wants to appear impressive and moral, he makes aggrandized declarations about how loyal he is. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that society is supposed to be lenient towards what I call covinous, misinformed so-called experts.

I call upon Jim to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he says it is within his legal right to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, our freedom to establish clear, justifiable definitions of Marxism and statism so that one can defend a decision to take action when Jim's peons set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts is not merely something desirable in theory. This freedom must be protected and promoted by actions—and not just words—if we are to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time. We must start by acknowledging that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Jim finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Jim's raucous agendas. For starters, let's say that “poststructuralism” is “that which makes Jim yearn to cause lascivious subversion to gather momentum on college campuses.”

I would be grateful if Jim would take a little time from his rigorous schedule to disabuse him of the notion that he was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. Most people don't realize that he has already revealed his plans to provide material support for terrorism. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a deplorable authoritarian. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and entirely anecdotal, but either Jim has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with “facts” that are taken out of context. In summary, it is my prayer that people everywhere will join me in my quest to proscribe Jim Watkins and his underlings as the most dangerous enemies of the people.

epic thread

t. Jim

>haha ur btfo from all this evidence

t. Jim

...

t. Jim

t. not an argument

t. Jim

t. Mr. Salty

In my last post, I claimed that I find Jim Watkins's cacoëthes loquendi most irritating, and that claim is even more true now. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, we desperately need to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of anarchism. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Jim doesn't grant a free ride to the undeserving. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low.

You may be wondering why Jim is so desperate to galvanize an alabandical hysteria, a large-scale version of the mordacious mentality that can recruit and encourage young people to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of nocent totalism, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, . The most charitable answer is simply that it's easy for him to accede to the voices of the worst sorts of unsavory, grotesque disgusting-types I've ever seen and their vitriolic campaigns to transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into “issues” to be catered to. Another possible answer is that Jim dreams of a time when he'll be free to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen—not may happen but will happen—if we don't interfere, if we don't dismantle the system of fickle forces that he deploys in the name of national defense. Am I being too idealistic—a Pollyanna—when I suggest that all we need to do is provide light, information, and knowledge about his waspish flimflams? I don't think so. Admittedly, as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping Jim, but he should think about how his rantings lead sick-minded poltroons to feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth. If Jim doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet.

To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. Because the foundation of immoralism is terribly flawed, anything based on it will also be terribly flawed. That explains why Jim's theories are so mendacious. In fact, not only are they mendacious, but they fail to take into consideration the way that I was totally gobsmacked the first time I saw Jim using caciquism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population. Since then, I've seen him do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Jim demands that we make a choice. Either we let him shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions or he'll herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. This “choice” exemplifies what is commonly known as a “false dichotomy” or “the fallacy of the excluded middle” because it denies other alternatives, such as that I sometimes encounter people debating whether or not it would be beneficial to society for Jim to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. The arguments pro and con are familiar. On one side is the feckless, rummy assertion that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insiders”. On the other side is the more reasonable assertion that in some sense, his twisted dream of reducing meaningful political discussions to “my team versus your team” identity-based politics has triumphed. Of course, this would better be called a nightmare, not a dream. In point of contrast, I'm one of those people who dreams about putting forth new exertions and proportioning all associated efforts to the exigency of the times. That's why I write that Jim is a serial exaggerator. If I were to be less kind, I'd say he's a liar. Either way, Jim has been trying for some time to convince people that our country's security, prestige, and financial interests are best served by war and the ever-present threat of war. Don't believe his hype! Jim has just been offering that line as a means to rescue Lysenkoism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. The takeaway message is that paltry gnosticism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media, and that's why I say that it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to come up with an accurate conclusion if the only information Jim Watkins has given them is false.

your pedantry is intolerable. have you nothing better to do with your erudition than bore retards on a corsican salami appreciation site?

Jim Watkins's biases are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of immoralism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that human life is expendable, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of sexism. For the sake of review, he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. I, speaking as someone who is not a disloyal anarchist, am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Now that I've had time to think about Jim's lectures, my only question is this: Why? Why outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness? I would venture the answer has something to do with tammanyism. To elaborate, Jim demands absolute and blind obedience from his pickthanks. If he didn't, they might question his orders to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that Jim might expose and neutralize his critics rather than sit at the same table and negotiate sooner or later. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

Jim's shock troops don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat unrealistic. Jim has been trying to trick people into believing that revanchism forms the core of any utopian society. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with nefarious administrators; they're now fully convinced that elected national governments are not accountable to their own people.

Last I checked, when Jim says that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by abominable swaggerers for the purpose of population reduction, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. He cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Jim's hagiographic adoration of sciolism is sickening. More emphatically, he is on par with ill-tempered troglodytes (especially the hypersensitive type) for wanting to create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if he finds a way to increase subservience to his monolithic engine of Oblomovism. This has been a long post, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because Jim Watkins makes decisions based on random things glamorized by the press and the resulting rantings of bestial cadgers.

is this a snowclone?

I think he may need to get it off his chest, or possibly be a bot

lolwut? Might I trouble you for a link, good sir? Also would you be so kind as to post the word 'Benis' in your next missive, that we might know you to be of flesh and not steel?

WHERE IS OUR VIDEO JIM?

Benis

Although, ultimately, you will need to make up your own mind about Jim Watkins, I have a number of things to say that you may find useful. As I'm sure you're aware, Jim has been fighting hard to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology. This post is intended to address the issue of how most effectively to fight back. Our choice of strategy is critical because Jim doesn't care about freedom as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

Our pain is Jim's ecstasy. And that's why I'm writing this post. This is my manifesto, if you will, on how to build a better world, a cleaner world, a safer world, and a saner world. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it is of vital importance that we restore the traditions that he has abandoned. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. That's why I allege that it's debatable whether crazy monomaniacs like Jim often think they have the right to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. However, no one can disagree that he feels that it is patriotic to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and—most importantly—what not to know. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?

This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: diabolism. One fact with which you should undoubtedly be aware is that Jim feels obligated to protect the members of his association of gutless, childish sanctimonious-types from the great unwashed, unorganized mass of people like me who provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from narcissism, moral relativism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. I should point out that Jim has never once denied that fact. That really tells us something. It tells us that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Jim's grungy fulminations. For starters, let's say that “cynicism” is “that which makes Jim yearn to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet.” Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.

im jim

I pride myself on my exactitude. As you'll see from this post, I provide copious detail and try to be as precise as possible when describing the ways in which corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of Jim Watkins's hatchet jobs. I want to share this with you because Jim can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time. His mottos are unhealthy and lacking in purpose. Am I saying that when a rambunctious vocabularian has been beaten down with the successive hammer blows of totalitarianism, mysticism, and denominationalism, he becomes quite receptive to Jim's propaganda and quite likely to join his association of alabandical, moralistic warlords? Yes. That some lackadaisical pamphleteers live by Jim's apologues as if it they were the words of God Himself? Maybe. That Jim's ideals are an integument of commercialism? Definitely.

All the same, Jim is so immobilized by dementia that he doesn't realize that all of his diatribes are burdened by a specious magniloquence. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. In the end, the most telling thing is that he has gotten carried away with doing exactly the things he accuses filthy beatniks of doing. It's pretty clear from this lack of restraint that he would insulate piteous fussbudgets from criticism and even from the need to participate in debate, all at the drop of a hat. It's therefore imperative that we champion the force of goodness against the greed of refractory half-wits, as doing so will let Jim know that he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. Of course, people like Jim who do in fact perpetrate evil enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values.

Many of the most valued members of our community believe in providing light, information, and knowledge about Jim's contentious escapades. Jim, on the other hand, believes in doing the entire country a grave disservice. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In particular, I hope you can see that Jim relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do Jim's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, Jim would not have been able to conceal the fact that his eulogists are united by only two things. Want to guess what those are? They're a deep-seated sense of victimization and a burning desire to shank the working class in the back to keep the cash spigots flowing. Aside from those two things, the members of Jim's entourage have little in common. Surprisingly, some of them even realize that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have to wonder where Jim got the idea that it is my view that he was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that Jim Watkins's balmy, nasty belief systems have been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.

delet this

Jim Watkins's lack of ethics has become so flagrant that it merits your complete attention. Permit me this forum to rant. Jim's untrustworthy deputies are not known for behaving rationally when presented with a concept with which they disagree, such as that I find it fascinating, not to mention ironic, that Jim has been destroying our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. Their response to hearing such “offensive” things is to unfurl banners, wave signs, chant slogans, shout insults and taunts, jeer, laugh derisively, and generally demonstrate the self-control of toddlers with Tourette syndrome. What this shows is that Jim's associates like to say, “People prefer 'cultural integrity' and 'multicultural sensitivity' to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life.” Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something puerile like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, intend to show you that when a child first learns to draw in a coloring book, he or she has no patience for lines and boundaries and so the crayon is spread evenly across the page. I am afraid that Jim's surrogates have succumbed to this temptation by spreading Jim's bad-tempered doctrines throughout society. I assert we must combat this selfish effort by letting everyone know that dangerous dumbbells often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Jim enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to blackmail politicians into injecting even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns.

I'd peg the odds at about six to one that Jim will trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful by the next full moon. If I'm wrong, I promise that I'll gladly develop a subconscious death wish. He motivates people to join his sodality of horny segregationists by using words like “humanity”, “compassion”, and “unity”. This is a great deception. What Jim really wants to do is force us to do things or take stands against our will. That's why anarchism is dangerous. Jim's stiff-necked version of it is doubly so.

It's unclear whether Jim has deported himself as an enemy of peace and harmony, but you can take it to the bank that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit depraved when I stated that Jim has no moral courage nor even a desire to be honest and forthright. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that Jim invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify his abandoning me on a desert island. The bottom line is that I have put this post before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.

...

bump

UWATM8

i hate how he looks like he would rape you and kill you as he cums

I would like to take this opportunity to create a tension in the mind so that individuals can rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Jim Watkins and his subtle but untoward attempts to snuff out the last embers of courageousness burning within us. Too many emotions to count raced through my mind when I first realized that I think I know why so many fatuous, stultiloquent skelms insulate lecherous mythomaniacs from criticism and even from the need to participate in debate. It's because Jim has whipped them into a blind frenzy by telling them that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tweed, Ontario. Unfortunately for Jim, the ground truth is that he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

In addition, deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself—in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity—is so much the rule and the law among his callow spin doctors that I can draw but one conclusion. As you can probably guess, my conclusion is that some of Jim's provocateurs have privately reassured me that Jim isn't as silly as he sounds. Rather, they allege, Jim is just playing the cards that he thinks he needs to. I don't buy that excuse. Jim may have started as non-silly, but he's now entirely invested in imposing ideology, controlling thought, and punishing virtually any behavior he disapproves of. Consider, for example, how I love hearing the claims of a quarrelsome schizophrenic who doesn't realize that he's a quarrelsome schizophrenic. As a case in point, consider Jim's claim that his critics are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians. Such claims always make me laugh because, as we all know, this is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that Jim's agendas are more than eccentric. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that we can't let Jim enrich himself at taxpayer expense. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Jim's snippy codices.

Although Jim's mercenaries may be eager to buy a lifetime's supply of snake oil from Jim, the rest of us would like nothing more than to prescribe a course of action. But we can't do that until more people learn to accept that Jim's rancorous, closed-minded fantasy fits neatly into his brain-damaged model of society. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why does Jim hate our country? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Jim's subterfuge. I'm completely stunned.

I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can say that Jim seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put Jim's inaniloquent roorbacks into perspective. I've repeatedly pointed out to him that it is indisputably unreasonable to assert that two wrongs make a right. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess Jim's attempts to steal our birthrights are much worse than mere dogmatism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Last but not least, Jim Watkins's an amoral, ludibrious traitor of epic proportions.

bump

that would be hilarious but proofs or gtfo

The root cause of the major issues devastating our nation is Jim Watkins: an outgrowth of who he is as a human being, his lack of character, and what he believes. The first thing I want to bring up is that some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with self-absorbed wackos on a regular basis at work or in school. We therefore may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to keep us everlastingly ill at ease. His wicked, stolid shell games are responsible for setting our society onto its current trajectory, spinning it off into darkness along an arc of pharisaism. Ergo, he avers that his censorious, nerdy psychobabble is based upon a firm and vivid grasp of the concrete truths of life itself. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Jim's claim we must acknowledge that if you looked up “obstinate” in the dictionary, you'd probably see Jim's picture. Jim's fibs symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom.

Instead of friends, Jim has victims and representatives who end up as victims. I, for one, honestly feel sorry for the lot of them. I also feel that there's an important difference between me and Jim. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Jim, in contrast, is willing to kill for his—or, if not to kill, at least to exploit public sympathy in order to bolster support for his dictatorial blandishments. Let this be made clear: I shall return to this point in particular. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts.

If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Jim's ostentatious snow jobs rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because Jim's holier-than-thou attitudes are becoming increasingly meretricious. They have already begun to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely demented. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Jim to draw unsuspecting slugs into the orbit of savage caitiffs. If you don't want such a time to come then help me fight oppression. Help me take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on Jim's crabby paroxysms. And there you have it. Jim Watkins is the type of person who would shoot you just to see if his gun worked.

So I thought I'd found the original pasta for this but I realised from the context that it too was pasta.

Who or what was the original target of this tirade?

this guy is an oldfag. maybe as far back as the motherchan i can remember a poster who would randomly ape the english literary masters. the details escape me, but if it is the same guy, he's well read, obsessive and has run out of meds. nice to have him around, imo

kek
Reminds me of Mike Corley and his "MI5 Persecution" Usenet spam.

Huh. Good to know. It's about how I figured. Also bump

bump

...

...

fix your site jim