Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael Stuart Kelly

  1. SJW Super Hero

    SJW Super Hero From the wilds of wanton willfulness... From the seas of sleeper salvagers... From the tempests of transcendent tolerance... Comes the new man, the new woman, the new gender... The talebearers of telltale tamper... Thus shall they be legion... Thus shall they be legend... Michael
  2. What's Up With Harvey?

    I swear, all these tattle-tale sexual abuse scandals have me running back into the literature of Harold Robbins. I devoured that stuff in my youth (The Carpetbaggers, The Dream Merchants, The Adventurers, The Betsy, etc.). In a typical bedroom scene in one of his potboilers, a rich woman will mouth off to a dude who has clawed his way to the top from poverty through grit, nasty fights and intrigues, he will slap her around, they will land on the bed, then she will beg him to possess her while showering him with sexy kisses. Whew! Life suddenly feels normal again... btw - I sympathize with the women who are actual abuse victims. God knows I've defended my share. What's going on in the culture, though, is starting to fall in the "madness of crowds" category. For a con man, it's a good time to run a scam... At least and for the most part, it's ruling class establishment toadies who are going down... Michael
  3. What's Up With Harvey?

    What's Up With Harvey? Just so people know what I'm talking about months and years later, here's a NYT story from yesterday: Harvey Weinstein Is Fired After Sexual Harassment Reports People can talk about the pros and cons and victims and gossip and creepiness and abuses and so on about this dude, but something more is going on than taking down a pervert. The left is piling on Weinstein and they mean hardcore business. They want blood and they want it to hurt real bad before the kill. Don't forget, he is (or was ) pals with former President Obama. After a lot of right wing mockery about the silence of Meryl Streep and other A list actors (and sundry A list celebrities) on Harvey's sexual bullying over decades, it seems like the gates of hell have now been opened on him from those very same stars. Everybody and their brother is soapboxing all of a sudden. Hell, they didn't even do that with Anthony Weiner and there were photos of his junk all over the Internet. And everybody and their brother is saying they didn't know about Harvey, had no clue about Harvey, etc. etc. etc. They are shocked, shocked, shocked about Harvey, they piously clamor! (When everybody knew or heard stories for decades, of course. Like with Cosby.) So what's up with Harvey? Why is Harvey Weinstein all of a sudden the scapegoat of a leftwing mainstream that magically has become more Puritanical than fundamentalist Christians? If I find out anything, I will let you know. And if you find out anything, please share... Michael EDIT: Breitbart is keeping a live update thing going with a constantly changing headline (started two days ago, this edit being on Oct. 12): **Live Updates** — Harvey Weinstein Scandal
  4. Canada Let A Cockroach In

    Canada Let A Cockroach In The cockroach is called thought crime. Here is the cockroach starting to breed: Extended: Excerpts from secretly recorded meeting between Wilfrid Laurier University grad student and faculty It's hard to listen to. This young woman being accused does not--and cannot by decree of this kangaroo court--know who her accuser is, how many there were, how she damaged her accuser, and so on. Her crime? She presented the different points of view in the culture on gender names without taking a stand. This thought crime thing is breeding under the initial banner of demonizing and taking out Jordan Peterson. Once more cockroaches breed, in the not too distant future, I see formalized indoctrination with forced reeducation camps to avoid jail sentences. I really hate to see this happen to Canada. It will still be OK for a long time, but this is cancer. If not treated, this cancer will eventually kill the host. I hope for--and look forward to--a healthy backlash. Michael
  5. [Atlasphere]Exciting Changes on the Horizon for the Atlasphere

    Heather, Good luck on this new phase of Atlasphere. Michael
  6. What's Up With Harvey?

    Neil, Now there's an idea for ya'. I wonder what the Romans paid the Apostle Paul with, money, sex and power? Land? Camels? What would life be without goofballs like Valliant for amusement? Michael
  7. What's Up With Harvey?

    Dennis, You are right. When we get to ancient Roman history, I'm more than a little confused. This is due to a glitch in my head. That's a quip, but it's based on truth. I have the hardest damn time remembering names. I'm always looking them up and re-looking them up and re-re-looking them up. Ditto for spelling. As to Decline and Fall, I'm actually getting used to Gibbon's writing style, which is definitely an acquired taste. It's kind of like a banquet of the passive voice. I guess this was the way people wrote a few centuries ago. Just delete what I said about getting to the Flavians. (I fudged using search. ) I started my Decline and Fall reading project a few days ago due to Bannon talking about it so much. Here's how I'm doing it. I put the Gutenberg version on the screen and listen to the Libravox audio files. I've only done the introductory material and Chapter 1 of Volume 1, so I'm still a babe in the woods. I'm thinking of getting the print version, though. I wish the offers weren't so expensive. As to Valliant's thesis, from what I can tell, paraphrased, it goes like this. Because of all the trouble the Roman empire had with the Jews, the Flavians (Roman elites, etc., at the time) decided to defang them by ramping up the altruism. So they invented Christianity and covertly fed it into the Jewish culture. Voilà. Ayn Rand conquers the Roman Empire. On another point, I don't think Valliant is even aware of the antisemitism of his thesis. It always boils down to those damn trouble-making Jews according to some people. I like the way Bannon talks about Gibbon's thesis and that's the reason I started reading Decline and Fall. According to the way he says it, the Romans became more and more interested in money flowing to the top (the elites). The elite ruling class gradually became worthless, lost it's Roman identity virtue-wise and became detached from the masses (who the elites constantly screwed), as they allowed waves of foreigners in for cheap labor and soldiering. Just like America is doing today. Here's a Breitbart article citing the Bannon bio I just read, Bannon: Always the Rebel. I only finished the bio yesterday (it just came out), but I started reading Decline and Fall a few days before I started the bio. Bannon has been talking about Gibbon for a long time. Steve Bannon: Same Causes of Roman Empire’s Decline Can Be Seen in America Today From the article: Michael
  8. What's Up With Harvey?

    Neil, I skimmed parts of Valliant's book on the Amazon preview back when it came out (he set it up so there is a lot available to skim) and I've read your criticisms, which are very good. I've recently done a lot of study into religion and its impact on humanity and, frankly, I find Valliant's approach of boiling it all down into political maneuvering by those in power silly. Oddly enough, because of Steve Bannon, I started reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon but I've got a ways to go before I get to the Flavians. At least I know I will receive a far better understanding from Gibbon than I ever would from fairy tales by an ortho-Randian traipsing about as a history expert. (As an aside, I read Devil's Bargain a few weeks ago and today I finished Bannon: Always the Rebel. Bannon is a fascinating guy. He has a low opinion of Rand, but he gets her wrong. I think he gets his notion of her from orthos. In fact, if Rand's works meant what he thinks they do, I would agree with him. ) I'm kicking myself because I'm actually enjoying Decline and Fall irrespective why I started. Why didn't I ever look at this stuff before? Oh well... Anyway, I find my time doing this and cultivating my sense of wonder far better employed than rebutting and getting irritated at another boneheaded attempt by Valliant to fit reality to his Rand-inspired dogmas. He's Don Quixote slaying windmills, except he does it seriously, not as satire, and does it with all the excitement of watching a slug cross a sidewalk. The dolphin and anchor stuff was interesting up to a point, but I have a feeling he overextended his interpretation of that. As this is a thread devoted to the political impact of current sexual scandals, let me see if I can tie in something. Hmmm... I can't imagine Valliant having sex, much less being involved in a sex scandal. Maybe he can try to dig up some relevance by reminding folks that he thinks Nathaniel Branden is a rapist. Michael
  9. What's Up With Harvey?

    Dennis, I've read Cialdini's Influence: The Science of Persuasion twice and referred back to it more times than I can count. I have Pre-Suasion, but I haven't read it yet. I probably will over the next couple of weeks. From what I understand, it's all about setting the table, or to use a term from behavioral science (like Kahneman), priming. Cialdini actually is Godzilla persuasion-wise. He's the foundation, or one of the main foundations, on which most other modern persuasion systems are built. The funny part about it is he started studying this because he's very gullible and wanted to figure out how to not get taken so much. Here's a little tidbit for you on writing persuasively if you have a call to action at the end. Make your message go through all six major categories Cialdini mentions, but they should go in a certain order. I got this from an Internet marketing dude. It works, too. (Incidentally, I don't do this stuff on OL. If I ever start, I will tell people up front what I am doing.) Here is the sequence: Authority Liking Consistency (baby-steps) Reciprocity Social proof Scarcity In my view, the important parts of this sequence are the first two and the last one. And even then, the first two can be inverted with the same effect. In other words, you start by bonding with the audience and getting their respect. In fact, I tend to prefer this inversion of Liking then Authority and the Internet marketer's starting with Authority. And at the end, when you have a call to action (which you should in normal marketing messages, or hell, in most messages where you want to convince people of something), you have to have Scarcity to create urgency (after such-and-such time this opportunity will end, there are a limited number of units available, etc.). The other three, Consistency, Reciprocity and Social Proof can be done in any order. People have to know you, like you and trust you before they will willingly do what you want them to. This little sequence is a shortcut to establishing that without any Pre-Suasion. Michael
  10. What's Up With Harvey?

    Here's a little fun that just came out. Michael
  11. What's Up With Harvey?

    Dennis, I've already gone through the audiobook and am in the middle of doing it a second time. The print copy arrived in the mail today and I already know which parts I want to mark up. This book merits study. It's not the best persuasion book around, but it is so clear and simple on some core techniques, it's more valuable to me than more complete book. Yes, Scott sucks as a reader. But, then again, he's overcome a medical condition to be able to do that at all. So just listen to it at double speed. That increases his energy some and, since he talks rather slowly, you won't miss a thing. As an aside, I'm doing a few Udemy courses right now on brain development, neuroscience and marketing by a guy named Gregory Caremans (see here). There's a Black Friday sale where the courses are $10 a pop. I've only done the one on focus so far, but I was impressed with his info and approach. Most focus books and courses either talk about mindfulness and Buddha and stuff like that, or they give you helpful tips about decluttering, don't watch TV and study, etc. Caremans is the first person I have encountered who makes practical use of Kahneman's System One and System Two thinking to help you improve focus. His teaching style is overly-mannered, but, hey, you can't have everything. And at least he's not boring. Michael
  12. What's Up With Harvey?

    Gloria Allred's gotcha attack seems to be at the start of collapsing. If all she's got is a gotcha like Moore signed divorce papers, but the lady didn't actually see him when he did, it's going to be a PR fizzle.There's a video at the link below and Allred sounds like a disaster answering a normally friendly Katy Tur. Allred can't seem to get her words out with any kind of flow or expression that would indicate normal honest speech. She is choppy, evasive and even shows irritation when Tur asked certain questions. It doesn't help that she's trying to punk off Congress for publicity and everybody sees that. Even Tur says that doesn't make any sense to her. Gloria Allred: ‘I Haven’t Asked’ Beverly Young Nelson If She Saw Roy Moore Sign Her Yearbook Nice try, Gloria... Now let's see if you have an A Game. Michael
  13. What's Up With Harvey?

    Here comes the Linguistic Kill Shot: For those who don't know, a Linguistic Kill Shot is a term created by Scott Adams (the Dilbert creator) to mean a nickname or adjective that is engineered to stick to a public target like a tick and suck his or her blood. It does not have to be original, but it does have to be outside of normal use at the time (so the freshness is entertaining). It needs to have a spotlight on it when it is launched. And it must carry a negative truth about the target that is easily seen by anyone, but few have mentioned as normal public talk up to that point. Al Frankenstien... LOL... Yup... It's right up there with Low Energy Jeb, Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hillary, Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren), Rocket Man (Kim Jong-un) and so on. Michael
  14. What's Up With Harvey?

    Whew! Jake Tapper almost didn't get the money shot with Tweeden. But she finally did cry. I think Jake's the only one who got the money shot from Tweeden today. And she's been interviewed a lot. Go to 21:37 and watch Jake set it up correctly and get the payoff. I wonder if he feels proud of his journalistic prowess... Michael
  15. What's Up With Harvey?

    Jonathan, How about here? Michael
  16. What's Up With Harvey?

    See my previous post. Ditto on what I said in spades for Bush. Michael
  17. What's Up With Harvey?

    Here's a question to ponder. In Christianity, the believer is encouraged to confess his or her sins and repent without being accused. Not all do, but there is a pattern of many who do this. I. myself, did this in public about my drug abuse (and some other shortcomings) and I'm not Christian. I just wanted to be good after being weary of carrying all that baggage of doing bad and keeping all those useless secrets. Frankly, it was liberating. To be consistent with Objectivism, you can even say I did it for a selfish reason. But I wonder about Al Franken, who tends to act holier than thou. He just said: “There’s more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it’s the only thing you care to hear, that’s fine—is: I’m sorry.” Is he truly sorry? Would he have been sorry if he had not been caught or would he have continued doing what Al did up to then? Would he have repented on his own without first being accused? If not, should we treat him as a man of integrity who saw the light? Or as a sleaze who got caught? There is no doubt he will make a play of presenting an image how honest and upstanding he is now. Hell, he's even called for an investigation into himself. Granted, after this scare, he probably won't do it again, but it will be hard to stomach him preaching about how moral and caring of humanity he is. He needs to earn back his public respect, not pounce on it because he was exposed. Give it some time, Al. Just get out of the spotlight, start doing good and give it some time... Michael
  18. 24 Reasons Objectivists (Might) Love Roy Moore [Updated]

    William, I just watched a video with Mike Cernovich (recorded live) and one of the viewers asked him this. He said Drudge has a grudge against Bannon because Drudge is friends with Jared Kushner. So even though both are on the same side in general terms, they do frenemy stuff at times. That makes sense to me. Moore is Bannon's dude. Kushner wanted Luther Strange. Drudge probably doesn't give a crap, so he turns into a pebble in Bannon's shoe just for the hell of it. Michael
  19. What's Up With Harvey?

    Lots of drama about Judge Roy Moore. In my opinion, this is all political. After scrutiny, the Beverly lady's case keeps getting holes blown into it. For example, Judge Moore ruled on her divorce 18 years after she claims he assaulted her. Yet, as Moore said in his open letter to Sean Hannity, she didn't have any emotional reaction like she did in front of the cameras the other day. Allred was asked if the writing in the yearbook was forged and she clammed up. She said no way José to letting an independent expert examine the writing in the yearbook or even verify that the yearbook is not a fraud, not without a Senate hearing first (see here). Frankly, this is getting boring. New women are appearing and it is tedious to examine each one to see the holes in the story, then find there are. There is going to be a whole month of this back-and-forth crap before the election, so I'm going to focus on other things a little more unless something decisive happens. According to Rush Limbaugh, this series of female accusers is a fight between Mitch McConnell and Steve Bannon and would happen even if Bannon's candidate were someone else. I agree with Rush. And, of course, there's this. The viciousness and relentlessness of this attack on Moore is to send a message to any "old boys club" outsiders who want to crash the party. Look at what will happen to a person if he or she even tries. Just shut up, sit down and let them rule, goddammit. They own the Senate, not the voters! One Trump is enough to irritate the hell out of them and they are still trying to figure out how to take him out. Lesson? Do not go poking swamp creatures with a short stick. They'll bite your arm off. Fortunately, I believe Bannon has a long stick. He has his own press and he has a lot of forgotten pissed off citizens who vote. Michael
  20. 24 Reasons Objectivists (Might) Love Roy Moore [Updated]

    William, You might as well include Rush's follow up: Drive-Bys Annoyed by My Observation That Roy Moore Was a Democrat When Alleged Sexual Misconduct Occurred It's about how giving Bill Clinton a pass all these years is now biting the Democrats on the hind-end. Michael
  21. Rape by an Objectivist

    Cat, I am glad you are starting to make progress on this. I think the conference call with ARI will do you a world of good. And I imagine that ARI, which will be worried about it's public reputation given the recent sex abuse scandals all over the culture (and especially in California among the "ruling class"), will be amenable to working things through with you, but I bet they will want to be as quick and simple as possible. If I were you, I would examine whether "quick and simple" will be as good for you as it will for them. In this window of opportunity in our culture, you have the leverage. I don't expect this window to be open for a long time. Why? That's a long discussion involving history, trends, cultural markers, etc., and some folks may not agree with me, but let's just say that I see it this way. So, given that I believe in the temporariness of the opportunity, in my humble opinion, I think you should use your leverage without mercy. They certainly did when they had the leverage. They showed you the rules they play by. I can't tell you what you should want, but I can advise you to get it all--all of it--while the wind is at your back. Michael
  22. What's Up With Harvey?

    Looks like the stepson of Allred's pure-souled prey for mean old dirtball Moore doesn't believe his angelic step-mom. Stepson of Roy Moore Accuser Says She’s LYING – ‘I STAND BEHIND THE JUDGE 100%’ (VIDEO) It's quite a video, too. Michael
  23. What's Up With Harvey?

    Gloria Allred brought forth another woman (Beverly Young Nelson) to accuse Roy Moore--this time of attempted rape (see here). And she produced a high school yearbook as some kind of proof. But these folks are getting sloppier and sloppier. The following is from The Gateway Pundit, which often needs to be checked--it likes to jump the gun on conclusions at times, but in the case of comparative analysis of handwriting, it presents a very reasonable case: IT’S A FAKE! Analyst Says Judge Roy Moore Signature Inside Gloria Allred Accuser’s Yearbook Was FORGED The funniest part about this is that the alleged signature of Moore on the 1977 high school yearbook is dated "Christmas." And as the article state: (The last two lines above are from a tweet by Thomas Wictor that is quoted in the article.) Who indeed signs a yearbook in December? When I was a kid, nobody knew where they had stored their yearbooks from the year before. And from what I read, the yearbooks of this high school were issued in August. Even today, who knows where their yearbook is after 5 months? Besides, this contradicts what the lady said (see the transcript in the first link in this post). She said she received her yearbook in November. There are a lot of discrepancies, the least of which is that Moore was DDA at the time, not DA as in the writing in the yearbook. Also, the restaurant was called "Old Hickory House," not "Olde Hickory House" as in the writing in the yearbook. Somebody screwed up big time... In fact, this story is so lame, the lady said Moore reached over in the car and locked it so she couldn't get out. Er... Did she forget to pull on the door handle to open the door? I mean, that's how you got out of a locked car back then, even is someone is groping you. From what I saw on a Google search, with very few exceptions in certain luxury models, only modern cars lock the passenger in and leave it up to the driver to release them. This lady even said Moore finally allowed her to open the car door to get out. Michael
  24. 24 Reasons Objectivists (Might) Love Roy Moore [Updated]

    btw - In the dark corners of the Internet, I keep hearing it said that Karl Rove is the one behind this eruption of women accusing Moore. Michael
  25. 24 Reasons Objectivists (Might) Love Roy Moore [Updated]

    William, That is my prediction, also. There are many reasons to not want Roy Moore to be elected. So why resort to making stuff up or impossible to prove if real? I smell desperation and arrogance. Here's what I mean. How's this for starters? Hey, Alabama! Nobody denies Judge Moore's character and beliefs. He's a good man. But do you really want a lawmaker who won't follow the law? This man had to be removed twice as judge. Why? He wouldn't follow the law. Will he be different as Senator? Will he last if elected or will he refuse to follow the law again? A lawman cannot decide which laws he likes. His swears an oath to the law. That is the way of our great country. We are a nation of laws, not men--not stubborn men who deny the law. Roy Moore might mean well, but the road to hell is paved with good stubborn intentions. We are a nation of laws, not tyrants. We the people make the law and we the people follow the law. That's what makes America great. Do the right thing and elect someone who upholds the law. (Then talk about the opponent.) This is something Scott Adams calls the "high ground maneuver." Alabamans agree with law and order and you appeal to that as their hero's weakness. I can do other anti-Moore messages, too, and I believe they would resonate. But the main problem I see with Moor's opponents is that they have contempt for typical Alabamans. Here's an indication of what I mean: They just couldn't help themselves, poor things. A chance to mock rubes? Don't expect this to win any elections soon in Alabama. The folks who hold this view of Alabamans might get a chuckle and feel superior as they yuk it up at the SNL skit, but don't expect them to be elected to a major office in Alabama. There are way too many people who oppose Moore who do yuk it up and they don't hide it--even as they talk to Alabamans. So I don't give them much of a chance of taking Moore out. I, also, don't give much of a chance for sleaze to do the job. That is, unless Moore confesses and I don't see that happening. WaPo, Allred, etc. are considered sleazy to conservative Alabamans. Having the very essence of sleaze in their minds accuse their hero of sleaze is such a persuasion mistake, I stand in awe that the establishment is trying it. This comes from arrogance, contempt and breathtaking communication blindness. I don't expect WaPo, Allred & Co. to have such self-awareness, though. I think they would find being looked down on as sleazy by the backward ignorant hickey hick hicks in Alabama--by their inferiors who should know their place--as too incredible to believe. Michael