Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content count

    27,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Articles
    Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues Thoughts on the 12 Steps and Self-Forgiveness Why the Tolerance and Support? Atlantis in the Wilderness A Hunting Story Moral Perfection Like a Lamb to the Slaughter Letter to Madalena ... An Homage to the Value of Valuing Going Home... A Few Thoughts on Family Values Where Principles and Rights Break Down The Stigma of Addiction Book Review on an Addiction Fraud - A Million Little Pieces Charmed on a Raw Night The Nature of Private Written Correspondence – The Sciabarra Smear Online Objectivist Mediocrity The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value The Virtue of Silliness (w/Kat)
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

60,475 profile views
  1. John Podesta is finally wading into the fake news fight. From the Washington Examiner: John Podesta slaps the Daily Caller with a cease-and-desist letter From the article: Here is what they were talking about: Now there's a splash of an entrance. Michael
  2. Well... That was quick. David kept saying he was out of covering Pizzagate, but he kept talking about it. I predict there will be more before too long... Michael
  3. Incidentally, Evelyn Farkas, one of Obama's peeps, stepped in deep doo doo on MSNBC. She admitted the Obama folks were practically spying on President Trump and spoke about her fears of not getting enough intel before Trump was sworn in. You have to go to about 4:50 for the start of her confession. Before that, it was all a big Trump bash about his taxes and so on. Here's a Fox News article from today about it: Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team The article gives part of the transcript: This happened on March 2 and is just now getting a lot more exposure. That's the effect of massive amounts of bullshit in the press. It takes time to get to the good stuff. Michael
  4. As long as we're talking about fake news, here is CNN keepin' it real. The other day, Sean Spicer quipped to the press (implicitly accusing them of going overboard): "If the president puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that's a connection." Well, CNN will have none of it. CNN fact-checkers to the rescue! From CNN Politics by Michelle Krupa: Russian dressing is actually from Nashua, New Hampshire I kid you not. From the article: That ought to clear up any fake news about salad dressing. Way to go, CNN! Michael
  5. William, Let's do the entire context thing. The video you posted is not from David Seaman's account. It is from the account of a guy named "mookixox." When you go to his about page, he looks like either a fringe alt-right kook, or a left-wing plant posing as alt-right (the tell, if he is a plant, is too many buzzwords used in a manner not typical). As of right now, the video you posted has 573 views. Like I said, let's do the entire context thing. Here is David's full video: As of right now, this video has over 25,000 views. Original account, full statement, 50 times more views. That's where the impact lies, not in some minor character who can't get much exposure and looks like he has a bone to pick with David. The reason David gave for stepping away is he is tired and scared of the constant physical threats and bullying, especially from people with pseudonyms, not real names. This includes threats from some people who claim to be researching Pizzagate. But to be clear, David stated openly--in this video--that Pedogate is real, so he is not backing away from his position. He's just not the point man anymore. He's caving to the bullying. On the other hand, I predict he will take up the issue again before too long. I've seen too many swan songs reverse online. So there's that. As a parallel thought, but this is waaaaaaaaay off point, if you want to see a recent swan song reversed in O-Land, there's a young guy who runs a fairly successful O-Land Facebook group called "For the New Intellectuals." His name is Anoop Verma. (He's a good dude, too.) I watched him do his swan song on his blog (see here) and in the Facebook group. He changed his blog name and that change stuck. But he said he was going to close the Facebook group. He later reversed that and has posted several times in that group since. Lot's of buzz all around. I watched all this play out and did not comment (until now). I've just seen it too often and the events unfolded according to the template right on cue. Have you ever noticed that when a person talks about ideas, it takes effort to get even a medium audience to comment, but when the person does a swan song, bans someone, drastically changes the rules, etc., anybody and everybody comes out of the woodworks to throw in their two cents? Michael
  6. Peter, What lack of principles? Letting everyone speak for himself or herself? That's principle No. 1. I hope you are not wishing for groupthink imposed by peer pressure with lip service given to independent thought. There are other O-Land sites devoted to that. I don't think you are wishing for that... I think you're just venting... Here on OL, people are mostly working through their thinking. When they strive to convince others, it has to be by rational persuasion, not by imposition. That's another principle that will never change. Under any circumstance. A political disagreement is not lack of principles. It's a political disagreement. Michael EDIT: btw - Both you and Marc are wonderful people. As are all OL regulars. I can't say for sure, but I suspect this also applies to all OL readers, too.
  7. Jerry, It's a question of checking premises rather than just accepting what someone else has done or said. From Rand's perspective, she saw altruism used as a weapon to gain and prop up dictatorial political power. The idea was why use force against people to get compliance if you can, instead, get them to hand their souls to you on a silver platter? That's the altruism con game used by dictators new and old all throughout human history. And that is true. Most religions preach altruism as a moral good. That is also true. The problem is, does this one use of altruism characterize the whole picture? Do people grow up in religions and/or adopt them because there is something inherent in the human that makes him want to be a patsy for an easy lie--and that's all there is? Of course not. Some of the most fiercely independent and productive giants in human history have been religious. It's simply stupid to think they were drawn to religion because they were fools, poor things, who didn't know any better than to take bait when it was offered so they could prop up dictators. They got plenty of other messages and value from religion and, I claim, so did Ayn Rand despite her stated antipathy toward religion. There are many parallels, especially in morality. For example, here is one with Christianity. One of the greatest underlying messages from the crucifixion story of Jesus involves how to face suffering. Notice that Ayn Rand also dealt with how to face suffering in her work. Now look how her way is very similar to the other. Neither said that the greatest moral good in life is to avoid suffering. Imagine John Galt caving in the torture scene in order to avoid suffering. That's not what he was about. Both Christianity and Rand claim that passing through suffering to come out on the other side victorious is the greatest way to live a meaningful life. The focus is not on suffering qua suffering. It is on the victory over suffering. They differ in the nature of the victory, but their process of passing through suffering rather than caving on moral values to avoid it is the same. Once you see that (and other parallel lessons of wisdom), you can no longer join the wholesale condemnation of Christianity that certain Objectivists do, nor mock it as a spiritual con game for fools. In other words, once you see deep parallel values like that shared by the two worldviews, you cannot spit on one without spitting on the other. Not if you are honest with yourself. So what is better? See this, but stay silent to avoid peer pressure and condemnation from the O-Land community? In other words, stay quiet to avoid suffering? Or open your mouth and say proudly that you see what you see and let come what may come? You already know which one I do. Michael
  8. William, I started going through that Periscope video and got exactly 4:25 into it and stopped because of Stranahan's bullshit. I wanted this to be a good thing because I saw part of a different Stranahan video I resonated with. Here are my two beefs. That was all there were when I stopped. 1. Stranahan claims there is no evidence at all for the list of jargon (pizza, hotdogs, etc.) that is being used for pedophile-related activities in the Pizzagate controversy. Jeez... Maybe someone should introduce him to Google and let him see how this came about, including the evidence. I gleaned the following very quickly. - It started with symbols from a 2007 FBI document leaked by Wikileaks (see here: Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences). - The Urban Dictionary, in 2010, gave the definition of cheese pizza as child porn. That might not be official, but it does show this term was widely used in the culture for at least seven years. - Alefantis got mixed up in all this because (1) he likes those symbols in the FBI report and used some in his pizza parlor design and materials, (2) he had a weird Instagram account (no longer online) with really weird pictures of kids, and (3) he was intimate with David Brock (Clinton insider) and very good friends with other Clinton insiders, and many of these people are in Podesta's emails talking about pizza, hot dogs, etc., in a way that makes no sense if literal pizza and hot dogs are what they are referring to. Is it such a stretch to think that people who know that "cheese pizza" means child porn would extend the jargon as they went along if they had a pizza parlor owner among them? That may not be a lot of evidence, nor might it be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence. There is no excuse for Stranahan saying there is no evidence at all and setting the issue aside. (btw - The following link from November 18 of last year is where a lot of the anti-Alefantis bias and confirmation bias comes from surrounding this issue. It gives pictures from the Instagram account and a whole bunch of stuff. Basically it's a data dump collection of what was circulating on the Internet at the time. Supposing 50% is BS, which is probably the case, that still leaves the other 50%. James Achilles Alefantis And His Comet Ping Pong Network. Warning. You need a good stomach to go through this.) As as an aside, I have a real beef with one of the gotchas being used by those defending Alefantis. When a hacker presents material to the police, they can't use it as evidence in a trial, especially because hacking is illegal . So any material hackers have come up and turned over to the police (as some have done) are used as leads, but are not legal evidence. The gotcha folks then crow that this stuff is not evidence. It's that game where they pretend a word has only one meaning and use this as grounds to blank out all the other meanings and implications and crow about it. 2. My other beef is when Stranahan started nitpicking the difference between a hot tub and a heated pool. I know the email he was referring to (from reading it at the end of last year) and when young kids are to be brought over for the "entertainment" of adults at a party, this kind of nitpicking, imho, is bullshit. So I decided to not waste anymore of my precious non-refundable time on that video. I'm sad because I wanted to use Stranahan as a check on my own protective emotions (protective of children, that is) as I work through my thoughts and observations on Pizzagate and Pedogate. But if this is the kind of crap he's going to present, whoopty doo. Hell, most of the comments I saw on his YouTube video complain that he didn't present anything that debunked anything. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't, but that's good enough for me. I'm not going to invest a half hour of my life finding out for sure. My thing isn't gotcha and Stranahan means very little to my life. Michael
  9. William, That was actually kind of cool. All those people appearing with cameras reversed the effect the heckler tried to promote. Michael
  10. The video was taken down, so it looks like David has changed his mind. That's good. Michael
  11. This guy Lee Stranahan (a top reporter at Breitbart) has a much different take on Cernovich (he thinks Cernovich is doing cult stuff), doesn't believe Pizzagate is a real thing, etc. Frankly, if Mike did not correct the errors Stranahan points out, he probably is in the first stages of forming a cult. It's a long video recorded on Periscope and I only saw portions of it, but he says some very good things, especially about how cult leaders get you to accept little lies and this makes it easier to accept the big ones later. I may not agree with everything Stranahan says, but I like his integrity. At least what I've seen based on this video. Michael
  12. 60 Minutes just did a segment on fake news. Woah... Now the Alex Jones apology makes sense. One of the people Scott Pelley interviewed was Alefantis, who obliged with getting close to crocodile tears as he talked about how scary the whole thing was, poor little thing. (Imagine being a really young girl, say about 5 years old, with her arms literally taped to a table around a lot of horny adults like was on Alefantis's Instagram account... would that be scary to her?... oops... we're not supposed to think about real victims who don't and can't have a voice.) Obviously this 60 Minutes report was a hit job on Pizzagate critics. Pelley also interviewed Mike Cernovich. Obviously again, this was a hit job on him. At least they kept in the part where Mike made Pelley stutter and change the subject real quick. (Mike asked Pelley, who cited the Clinton campaign as a source, why he believes the Clinton people about anything. ) And CBS kept in Mike describing in detail how they were going to spin his interview as a hit job on him, which they did to a tee. Unfortunately, the CBS video doesn't embed (even though there is code--it just doesn't work), so you have to go to the link below to see it. '60 Minutes' Report: How Fake News Affected 2016 Election It's funny how they slanted this report. They didn't interview any alleged left-wing fake newser or any right-wing victim of left-wing fake news like they did with Cernovich and Alefantis. Instead, they showed a couple of lame articles saying Trump snorted cocaine, etc., that not even lefties would believe because it was so obviously satire. Mark Dice had great fun with this part: Here. Let's see if I can help CBS. If they want to go raunchy, there was a much better fake news attack against Trump with, say, a spy dossier that claimed Trump hired Russian hookers to piss on a bed where Obama slept. I wonder why CBS didn't push that as a 60 Minutes example of fake news... Hmmmm... Oh wait... Maybe it's because CBS itself was publishing this exact fake news like, say, with this article in February (one among many): Dossier On Trump, Russia Gaining Credibility, CBS News Reports. Another thing I found funny is that they interviewed experts in bots, social media, etc., and one of those dudes said fake news was on both sides, the right and the left. (This was included to give the appearance of "fair and balanced.") However, the funny part was this: the profile of the typical left-wing fake news consumer is affluent and college educated. Not poor and not low information. Yup. The leftie snarky snoots (or sometimes snowflakes) are the very fools who believe and share fake news the most--and this coming from a CBS report aimed at bolstering the very agenda the snoots believe in. Here's a middle-America guy commenting on this part and presenting the clip. Man, do these affluent and college educated fools have fun mocking Alex Jones... Michael
  13. I think we can safely say if there are no humans, there is no murder. Michael
  14. I'll weigh in on this one. 1. I like Dennis Prager, but I don't like that video. I think he made a claim that is simply not true, that outside of the Judeo-Christian worldview, all other people claim morality is opinion. That's garbage. In our wheelhouse alone, morality is objective in Objectivism (notice the name? ). That is, morality is reality-based and absolute values exist. Doesn't anyone remember reading Ayn Rand? 2. There is a way to align Objectivism with Prager, however. That is to define God as reality and see the Judeo-Christian God as a personified mythological metaphor of what Objectivists see as reality (that is, without the mythology). When you start looking and comparing, it's there enough to make a case. Rand even talks about a "benevolent universe." Michael
  15. And here is what I think David was responding to. Regardless, it is Alex's response. Michael EDIT: The audio sync is totally screwed with the video, but this is mostly a talking head video, so you don't miss anything. If the sync bothers you and you want to watch it, treat it like a radio broadcast and don't even look. (Note: Alex uploaded a fixed version, so I replaced it.) Alex said he released the apology to distance himself from the Pizzagate distraction. He said he is now going to go after elitist pedophiles big-time--including reports on court cases, arrest records, etc. I believe him. I also expect to see him interview a lot of law enforcement insiders about pedophilia investigations and the elites. And a whole lot more. I think they poked a sleeping bear when they went after Alex and tried to nail him to a cross with Pizzagate.