Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Michael,

Can you elaborate?

Ellen

Ellen,

Man, did I screw up the names. The only name I got right was Soros.  The correct names are Reagan Battalion and Indivisible Guide. I was going on memory and didn't have the time to check. (My bad.)

I have to rely on a source you have to verify (The Gateway Pundit) to give the details, but this report is easily verifiable by anyone.

BREAKING: Organizers That Took Out Milo Linked to Far Left George Soros Groups

It was the Reagan Battalion that went after Milo with the video. This was linked to "www.stopdonaldtrumppac.com" (on their "About" tab on their Facebook page), which was linked to Evan McMullin (Never Trump coalition) and Indivisible Guide (Soros funded group). Here's a more thorough report to add to Holt's (Gateway Pundit) from The Daily Dot:

Behind Reagan Battalion: The group that took down Milo Yiannopoulos has ties to Democratic activists

The Daily Dot doesn't say Soros, but it says everyone who is anyone in this story denies knowing all the other everyones who are anyones.  

Holt made the Soros connection, which appears to be through front groups.

Michael

[william.scherk]

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm not as quick as you to say Podesta is a saint.

Can you elaborate?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Can you elaborate?

William,

Pizzagate is based on Podesta.

You don't have to say Podesta is a saint to show an opinion. All you have to do is defend against the attacks on him at every turn without naming him.

It's like the climate change stuff. And that one goes like this.

WILLIAM: (Data dump on climate change and opinion by celebrated expert Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone.)

ME (or other): Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone has been caught with his pants down jiggering the climate data and science. Basically lying. What do you think of that?

WILLIAM: (New data dump on climate change. Silence on the rest.)

ME (or other): But.. but... but... Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone has been caught lying. What do you think of that?

WILLIAM: (New data dump on climate change. Silence on the rest.)

ME (or other): How about the liars? Nothing?

WILLIAM: (New data dump on climate change. Silence on the rest.)

ME (or other): My problem is the liars. I don't trust them.

WILLIAM: (New data dump on climate change and opinion by celebrated expert Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone.)

And so it goes. And it never gets better.

Your defense of Podesta is similar, but his name rarely comes up. It's just always there whenever something is aimed at him.

But I can understand why he isn't mentioned, not even as a celebrated expert...

We might start discussing his expertise in other matters like cannibal art and so on.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

 

William,

I finally saw this video by David Seaman (I didn't know it was by him from the thumbnail and you didn't say. Just by looking at it cold, I thought it was by some rube you dredged up to punctuate your post with mockery like you sometimes do.  )

It's not all that loopy despite the cringe-worthy thumbnail. For instance, Seaman does not adhere to the simulation theory. He says it doesn't matter and kinda bashes Elon Musk for adhering to it. His opinions seem to be modulated like that throughout the video.

But it did start going loopy with the Satanism stuff (albeit, there is a lot of Satanism among the elites and Alinsky did dedicate Rules for Radicals to Lucifer). But then he mentioned Terence McKenna. Woah! Now he's got me and all my incipient negativity toward him evaporated. McKenna is the dude who said science asks for one free miracle and they'll explain the rest. I like McKenna. Besides, he pisses off dogmatists and I always like that.  

As to the Rothschilds, I'm pretty sure there's a there there. Maybe not Satanist, but definitely a hell of a lot of influence throughout the world. I adhere to the view that those who promote endless war for profits supply both sides of the wars. I don't know if the Rothschilds still do, but historically, that has been their practice (if the historians I've read are to be believed). 

There is one issue about them I find a hoot, though. It seems like the Rothschild conspiracy theory was made up early last century (or probably before) as an attempt to demonize the "Evil Jews" stereotype like those characterized in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. WWII kinda threw a monkeywrench in that intention, but, moneywise, the banks and the Rothschilds are still among us.  Nowadays, many of the very people who call the Rothschild conspiracy theory loopy are really nasty about Israel (like many in the former Obama administration).

So it seems like the theory is splitting. The "banks rule us all through endless wars" theory is drifting toward one group of people and the antisemitism it used to be connected to is drifting toward the opposite. That strikes me funny...

Whatever...

As the world turns, we shall watch a Seaman navigate its turbulent waters...

Michael

[william.scherk]

Climate scientists are whores who sell their integrity to the highest bidder anyone who will give them a paycheck

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm not as quick as you to say Podesta is a saint.

Can you elaborate?

Pizzagate is based on Podesta.

You don't have to say Podesta is a saint to show an opinion.

Right. I have an opinion on Pizzagate. It is somewhat similar to Ellen's but far less pithy: 

Posted December 11, 2016 
I read through the whole transcript William posted in the post next above. [I posted John Lordan's Youtube video BrainScratch: #PizzaGate Theory Analysis, and its closed-captions transcript]

It looks as if a couple business owners who are completely innocent of any pedophile-ring connection are having their businesses wrecked by mass hysteria - and one of those business owners (fallout from the other pizza place) is a Muslim immigrant, I suppose a legal immigrant, who voted for Trump.

Ellen

Is it your opinion that John Podesta and his brother and Alefantis ran a child-sex abduction and trafficking ring out of a  DC pizza parlour? 

As for the fanciful dialogue in your metaphorical rendering ...  I don't think you are engaged in any Climate Change issue or controversy, let alone interested in posts on Arctic Weather, Tyndall gases effect, the perils of  sorting out Lukewarmers into an enemy blob, and other recent topics.  I have no idea if you work with or consider various points made. We don't seem to be on the same pathway.

But, let me deconstruct your fanciful dialogue to offer another point of view:

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

WILLIAM: Data dump on climate change and opinion by celebrated expert Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone.

Example?  (Maybe the contretemps following the John Bates guest article at Judith Curry's Climate Etc.)

Quote

ME (or other): Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone has been caught with his pants down jiggering the climate data and science. Basically lying. What do you think of that?

Hmmm.  Carrying on with the example, this would indicate that Thomas Karl was caught 'jiggering' ... Lying. Caught pants down.  I don't believe that.

The weird thing is you don't mention names yourself. So we generally have no idea who you are talking about. As here, who is Mr IknowBestForEveryone?  My guess at Karl/Bates  is likely wrong, but  you attached no specific claim to a person. 

Quote

WILLIAM: New data dump on climate change. Silence on the rest.

Data dump is a loaded term, Michael.  A metaphor for an overwhelming amount of 'data' dumped on a person -- instead of a more reasoned argument or claim or theory or narrative. 

You could easily point to a comment post of mine where I have "dumped" data without answering a query.

Quote

ME (or other): But.. but... but... Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone has been caught lying. What do you think of that?

Mr. Who? 

If you would mention a name or names, or ask a question about any name recently mentioned (from Fourier to Christy), it would clarify your remarks. But I am not sure you are interested in detail. It could be that detail is a 'data dump.'

Quote

WILLIAM: New data dump on climate change. Silence on the rest.

Data dump.  Data dump. 

Quote

ME (or other): How about the liars? Nothing?

Which freaking liars?  Give us names and we can perhaps discuss what it is you think I avoid.

Quote

WILLIAM: New data dump on climate change. Silence on the rest.

Repetition underlines my point. You may no longer  read material of mine touching on Arctic weather or CO2 science or radiative physics or "Lukewarmers" ...  it appears that what I write and argue is a dump.

Imagine how appealing that is from the other side, Michael, if you can.  Indulge the Principle of Charity for a moment or two.

Quote

ME (or other): My problem is the liars. I don't trust them.

Your problem here is that you don't put a name to the liars. It is just a big Them.

 

Quote

WILLIAM: New data dump on climate change and opinion by celebrated expert Mr. Iknowbestforeveryone.

That closes off communication, Michael.  Given that you distill and dismiss my efforts as dumps of unresponsive (or uninteresting) crap, it might be wise for me to ignore such metaphors and generalizations. If you wouldn't or couldn't give a charitable good-faith rendering of my efforts, then I wouldn't need to show you good faith engagement.

Data dump:

On 11/20/2015 at 9:02 PM, william.scherk said:

On 11/17/2015 at 3:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So long as there is silence from you and those similar to you about the crappy AWG manipulators and sellouts, I will not be persuaded to turn over my sanction for more money and power to those who wish to govern mankind's efforts against the alleged coming planetary apocalypse. Because that's what they are continually demanding: more money and more power. And they want to restrict what people can produce and how well they can live with manufactured goods. I do not treat their wishes for money and power as a distant abstraction. Nor do I treat all the dishonesty from AWG manipulators and sellouts as an inconvenient trifle.

Crappy AWG manipulators and sellouts, especially the ones who have been busted, are no longer credible.

Here is one issue I have with your rhetoric: I feel like I am asked to pull the lever at the gallows, without being told who is to be hanged. You simply haven't put names to the condemned. Like I said before, I can't guess. I am silent and unmoving before their crimes. So ...

You are saying in effect that I have to be the hangman for your side before deserving my opinions be admitted. Okay, who is to be hanged?[...]

And may I remind you that these are all from you, addressed hotly to me:

• those of your way of thinking, sleaze, scientists and administrators
• promoting the end of times
• power grab has been breathtaking in its amateurishness
• do I see you, or people who think like you, slamming the dishonest assholes?
• scientist who promotes AGW cannot be trusted
• Al Gore is a clown and jerk
• You just keep arguing
• blast the idiots who abused their authority and good name
• ostracizing them
• Only after that can you have skeptics listen
• huge mess of manipulation
• "that guy" was a dishonest prick
• filling his pockets
• intimidating honest scientists
• staging a power grab
• not OK to ignore "that guy."
• sleazy folks
• Throw the bums off the team and I, for one, will start listening to other options
• nobody believes people who tolerate and welcome scientists and administrators who sell-out their integrity on their team.
• one of the main reasons for their skepticism is the sleaze on your side.
• get rid of the sleazy folks.
• Get pissed
• sleaze. From nobody. Especially from folks on your side.
• assholes betrayed you,
• ignore it like you have been doing
• you and those who think like you
• You are afraid of the sleazy folks on your side come after you like you know they will
• you keep dwelling in this alternate universe driven by end of times panic
• contaminated
• sheer greed
• money and power
• clear foundation is that lying and sleazy behavior to persuade people to save the planet from an ecological Apocalypse is virtue

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Is it your opinion that John Podesta and his brother and Alefantis ran a child-sex abduction and trafficking ring out of a  DC pizza parlour?

William,

Nah...

Too many franchises.

Besides, they probably just used it. 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Data dump is a loaded term, Michael.

William,

Did I step on a bunion?

  

Michael

EDIT:

10 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

That closes off communication, Michael.  Given that you distill and dismiss my efforts as dumps of unresponsive (or uninteresting) crap...

And you don't think data dumps in the place of engagement about the liars is closing off communication?

That communication has been closed off--at least with me--for years now. You want names? Go back years. I stopped debating it when I would give names and they were ignored (with data dumps instead), only to reappear as sources later.

Besides, I like you. So I prefer banter. Climate change to me is not a serious issue unless larceny of scale is the topic.  

[Ellen Stuttle]

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

Man, did I screw up the names. The only name I got right was Soros.  The correct names are Reagan Battalion and Indivisible Guide. I was going on memory and didn't have the time to check. (My bad.)

I have to rely on a source you have to verify (The Gateway Pundit) to give the details, but this report is easily verifiable by anyone.

BREAKING: Organizers That Took Out Milo Linked to Far Left George Soros Groups

It was the Reagan Battalion that went after Milo with the video. This was linked to "www.stopdonaldtrumppac.com" (on their "About" tab on their Facebook page), which was linked to Evan McMullin (Never Trump coalition) and Indivisible Guide (Soros funded group). Here's a more thorough report to add to Holt's (Gateway Pundit) from The Daily Dot:

Behind Reagan Battalion: The group that took down Milo Yiannopoulos has ties to Democratic activists

The Daily Dot doesn't say Soros, but it says everyone who is anyone in this story denies knowing all the other everyones who are anyones.  

Holt made the Soros connection, which appears to be through front groups.

Michael

Thanks for the links.

I read them.  It doesn't look to me as if Soros himself would have necessarily known anything about the Reagan Battalion video, or even about that group, if it is a group and not just a website. Connections to connections, vague and distant, is all that is indicated, nothing directly implicating Soros.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Climate change to me is not a serious issue unless larceny of scale is the topic.  

Again, taking issue with your casting the "climate change" scare as basically about money.  Yes, there's loads of money involved.  But much deeper than that, it's an attempt at world government control of the lives of everyone.

I'm not trying to "gotcha," Michael, just to alert you to what's at stake besides money.  (There's also corruption of the scientific enterprise, which I find very upsetting and very dangerous to human wellbeing.)

In William's long post above, among the quotes he's collected from posts of yours is the statement that "[the] power grab has been breathtaking in its amateurishness."  No, not amateurish.  Skilled, and with a horrific amount of success.  And it isn't over, though Trump might put some strong braking into effect.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Connections to connections, vague and distant, is all that is indicated, nothing directly implicating Soros.

Ellen,

Have you seen the list of Soros front groups?

Here's a preliminary listing that David Horowitz put together.

Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations

A front group exists precisely to keep the principal from being directly implicated.

That's why people chase the connections.

 

Maybe Soros himself was not aware of this particular operation, or maybe he was, but I am 100% sure he knows his people do this kind of thing regularly. And I am 100% sure he knows the extent of his front groups. He's the one who either set them up or had trusted people set them up.

In political persuasion, it is better to think of front groups like cancer, not like a broken arm. With a broken arm, you can see it. But with a cancer in one part of the body right before it has metastasized, say the gall bladder or something, you won't see it in the arm. Not until it spreads. Then it is too late.

The political front group exists with that effect in mind.

Think about this. Where are the stories talking about all the thugs at rallies and demonstrations being funded by Trump?

There are none.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Again, taking issue with your casting the "climate change" scare as basically about money.  Yes, there's loads of money involved.  But much deeper than that, it's an attempt at world government control of the lives of everyone.

I'm not trying to "gotcha," Michael, just to alert you to what's at stake besides money.  (There's also corruption of the scientific enterprise, which I find very upsetting and very dangerous to human wellbeing.)

Ellen,

Sure.

I fully agree.

But here's a thought. Each of the scientists is getting a paycheck and that might be what you think I am thinking about when I don't mention the large-scale corruption of the science community and even science itself as promoted by the official organs. (Granted, I sometimes talk about that paycheck to be sassy.  )

It's deeper, though.

Persuasion-wise, the main approach of the manmade global warming cartel is to always paint those who defend fossil fuels as in the tank of big greedy oil corporations and their politicians on the take. It's all about them destroying the planet for money. Those damn profits. That's the way they frame it. So I harp on the money to throw it right back in their own greedy-ass control-freak faces. Big oil (which has its own crony problems) is a bunch of pikers compared to the oceans of moolah a carbon tax plan would unleash if it were universally adopted. And that carbon tax (with respective power) is a major component of the end game for the climate change folks.

The thing is, former President Obama almost did that with the Chicago Climate Exchange--he almost got it going for real.

I believe it was the money and power scare, not the scare of corrupting science, that held it back.

In other words, it's one thing to try to convince adult scientists that being sellouts and corrupt is a bad thing and living with integrity is a good thing. It's a hardass sell these days given the weak commitment to truth of modern climate scientists in the main. 

It's quite another to convince the public that this whole manmade climate change thing is baloney. The public understands money, which it often equates or lumps with power. And it understand how gobs of money is attractive enough for scientists to sell their souls. So you persuade the public better with talk about money. The public at large is not so up to speed on Popper and the halls of academia.  

It's not that this is not important. In the big picture, it is critical. But short-term, it is easier to do something effective like, say, help elect Trump, by talking about the climate change scam and the crooks behind it than it is to talk about how science is being corrupted. People listen to the first. They zone out with the second.

Regardless, we did elect Trump, didn't we?  

So the problem is going to be fixed.

After the yelling dies down in the scientific community after the EPA has its teeth pulled, it might be interesting to discuss the persuasion techniques best suited to scientists.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Quote

I finally saw this video by David Seaman. It's not all that loopy despite the cringe-worthy thumbnail.

It is sloppy.  It looks like he collected a few iffy meme quotes of the first British Baron Rothschild, Nathan Meyer Rothschild. At least two of the Rothschilds "quotes" is a fabrication, after which I quit checking.  That sloppy approach is a turn off. The rest of his argument is choppy and digressive.

Quote

But it did start going loopy with the Satanism stuff (albeit, there is a lot of Satanism among the elites

There is a lot of rape among the white people. White people are rapists. LaShawn de Rothschild is a rapist in a Satanic Cult that spans generations.

I mean, "a lot of Satanism" among the Blob.  Thus satanic ritual abuse led by Illuminati deacons like LaShawn and his family.

Quote

and Alinsky did dedicate Rules for Radicals to Lucifer).

Lucifer the Rebel, or Lucifer the Pizzagate bouncer?

You are showing a lot of swivel in your identifications today. Must be spring.  We can't even get a straight sentence out of you on your actual beliefs in re Pizzagate.  

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Maybe Soros himself was not aware of this particular operation, or maybe he was, but I am 100% sure he knows his people do this kind of thing regularly.

The Reagan Battalion action is four Kevin Bacons from the Evil One, Michael.  Check out the Mic article, which synthesizes the claims and sorts out the confusions about hands in gloves in pockets. 

100%

Here is another guy who does go on, who gives more than one sneering tweet to throw Milo to his fate.  Invest 23 minutes of your life (at 2X speed) to analyze the data Molyneux dumps.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of Milo:

Knowing the level of funding Milo has access to, I this is going to be a lot of fun.

The word "awesome" comes to mind.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Here is another guy who does go on, who gives more than one sneering tweet to throw Milo to his fate.

William,

I stopped listening right near the beginning.

Molyneux said he doesn't play favorites.

Well, I do. So screw him...

I'm not interested in what he has to say about Milo.

I'm not a Molyneux hater like the trend in certain corners of O-land tends to be. He's useful for me at times. He works hard. He built what he has and what he has is worthy of respect.

I admire producers, even when I don't agree with them or like their style.

But if he is trash-talking Milo, to hell with him for now.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

 

[KorbenDallas]

 

[Peter]

excerpts from Straightforward From Here To The Left’s Fascist, Maybe Violent, Endgame by Kurt Schlichter Posted: Feb 23, 2017 12:01 AM: The Democrat Party, its Media serfs, and Social Justice Incorporated are all outraged because we uppity normals are again presuming to rule ourselves, and their agony is delightful. Less delightful is how, in the process of trying to claw their way back into power, they are incinerating the norms and rules that preserve our political order. That stuff Hillary babbled about honoring the legitimacy of elections? Yeah, no. There’s an invisible asterisk only liberals can see that explains that the norms and rules are void when liberals lose.

So, where does this crisis end? We know where the leftists want it to end, with us silenced and subservient forever, toiling to pay taxes for them to redistribute to their clients as they pick at, poke at and torment us. You look at the things Trump stands for and all of them are about lifting the yoke off of us – cutting taxes, slashing regulations, guaranteeing the Second Amendment, protecting our religious liberty, and safeguarding us from terrorists and illegals. But everything liberals want, everything Hillary ran on, is about clamping the yoke ever tighter around our necks – raising taxes, issuing more regulations, disarming us, limiting our religious freedom, and putting us at risk from terrorists and alien criminals. The whole leftist platform is about putting us down and keeping us down.

 . . . . How will they do it? This massive resistance campaign against everything Donald Trump has done and a lot he hasn’t done is one way. The media’s liberal advocacy and tsunami of fake news is another; the press is now just one more partisan political player campaigning to restore the establishment to power. These same liars who fantasize about Trump silencing critics will cheer as the next Democrat commandante does it for real. Remember how they said nothing when Democrats voted to repeal the First Amendment so Congress could control speech during elections? And they think they’re winning.

[Peter]

From Town Hall. Ask Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) what she thinks of the Trump administration and she'll be brutally honest. Chris Hayes did - and he got a mouthful. Waters, after accusing Trump and his team of having won the presidential election thanks to Russia's interference, took to name calling. "I just think the American people had better understand what's going on," Waters said. "This is a bunch of scumbags. That's what they are. Who are all organized around making money."

[anthony]

18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It is sloppy.  It looks like he collected a few iffy meme quotes of the first British Baron Rothschild, Nathan Meyer Rothschild. At least two of the Rothschilds "quotes" is a fabrication, after which I quit checking.  That sloppy approach is a turn off. The rest of his argument is choppy and digressive.

There is a lot of rape among the white people. White people are rapists. LaShawn de Rothschild is a rapist in a Satanic Cult that spans generations.

I mean, "a lot of Satanism" among the Blob.  Thus satanic ritual abuse led by Illuminati deacons like LaShawn and his family.

Lucifer the Rebel, or Lucifer the Pizzagate bouncer?

You are showing a lot of swivel in your identifications today. Must be spring.  We can't even get a straight sentence out of you on your actual beliefs in re Pizzagate.  

The Reagan Battalion action is four Kevin Bacons from the Evil One, Michael.  Check out the Mic article, which synthesizes the claims and sorts out the confusions about hands in gloves in pockets. 

100%

Here is another guy who does go on, who gives more than one sneering tweet to throw Milo to his fate.  Invest 23 minutes of your life (at 2X speed) to analyze the data Molyneux dumps.

 

I heard most of that, and it's about what I've found in some other Molyneux opinion pieces. He is a fine analyst, independent and honest and original in approach. When it comes to eliciting facts, and often in his evaluations. After which, his moral evaluations tend too much to the psycho-social for my mind. You simply take him for what he's good at. I think he did a mostly good read of Yiannopoulos, and didn't shy away from the deep and murky waters in all this. Milo is the staunchest of free speech advocates, a most unpopular position today, so he gets admiration for that. Trouble is, he confuses free speech with "let it all hang out man". There is only so much one wants or needs to know about someone's intimate past, the rest is gratuitous. He also confuses the specific with the general (or the individual and the society).  His early experiences ~might not~ have been traumatic, even as he puts it, beneficial - for HIM - and he certainly nullifies any "victimhood" in his telling. However, he is too bright not to know the social-moral consequences of what he (a public figure) seems to be condoning - pretty much confering "sanction of the victim" upon predators, few of whose victims would have anything like his level of precociousness/maturity. Shock is part of his spiel, but he must stay with principles and shut up more on the personal stuff.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As the world turns, we shall watch a Seaman navigate its turbulent waters...

 

I was going to put this in the Fake News thread, but David Seaman says good things about Lynn de Rothschild.

He's pissed at Jake Tapper, though. Really pissed.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Milo is the staunchest of free speech advocates, a most unpopular position today, so he gets admiration for that. Trouble is, he confuses free speech with "let it all hang out man".

Tony,

Add to that a HUGE double standard.

See this article:

Milo Is A Rorschach Blot About Whom The Reaction Reveals All
The reaction to Milo Yiannopoulos is riddled with the hysteria of a witch-hunt that will embolden progressives and weaken conservatives and libertarians.
By D.C. McAllister
Feb. 23, 2017
The Federalist

First a preliminary idea or two from the article:
 

Quote

Think of Milo as a Rorschach test, an ink blot that reveals truths about whoever is observing him. What’s important isn’t the ink blot, but what the response to it reveals about the observer. The outrage and violence that swirls around Milo isn’t just about him; it’s about those who react to him.

. . .

The problem is too many on the Right are unwilling to open their eyes to what the light is showing them. They’re too afraid because they’re buying into the narratives of the Left and even joining with them as they light their torches to burn all dissenters at the proverbial stake.

. . .

The hypocrisy of the Left—along with its real anti-freedom agenda—is on full display if only we are willing to see it. Milo is driven out for supposed pedophilia comments, yet our culture has tolerated this and worse from others: A-list director Bryan Singer and his reported penchant for young boys, actress Lena Dunham and her self-reported molestation her young sister, Roman Polanski and his rape of a child, not to mention the many unnamed pedophiles in Hollywood referenced by Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood.

There’s also Star Trek actor George Takei, who spoke happily about being sexually abused by an older man when he was 13 years old. When Howard Stern asked Takei if he had been molested, the actor said “No, no. Cause I was kind of, you know—well, I thought he was pretty attractive.”

Now think about the following excerpt. Lots of people in our neck of the woods just love Camille Paglia because she is a libertarian, etc. Lot's of people on the right love her, too. And when she speaks on college campuses, I never see anyone rioting.

Continuing from the article:

Quote

Libertarian Camille Paglia often speaks on college campuses, writes for magazines, is often quoted favorably by conservatives, and sells books—all of which Milo has now been denied in one form another. Yet, Paglia unapologetically supports pedophilia.

In her book, “Vamps & Tramps,” she says at one point that she “became aware (when Polaroid photos of a kneeling boy’s golden genitals fell out of a book) of a private connection between a genial aging male poet and a good-looking local youth in his early teens. It was against the law, but I saw nothing wrong with it.”

“The damage from many pedophiliac encounters probably comes, as some psychologists suggest, less from the contact itself than from the culturally enforced stress and secrecy surrounding it,” she continues.

Paglia delights in the interaction between a man and boy, describing one such encounter in graphic terms: “Unlike the art-illiterate anti-porn fanatics, gay men glory in every angle on the sexual body, no matter how contorted. A sleek, pretty boy in cowboy boots spreading his buttocks for an up-close glimpse of his pink anus is an alluring staple of gay magazines. ”

‘Pedophilia Is Just Another Sexual Difference’

Here’s more on Paglia’s advocacy of “man-boy love”:

“Man-boy love is perfectly obvious in the pagan homoerotic art tradition, from Greek sculpture to Donatello and Caravaggio and late nineteenth-century poetry. NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) is consistently banned from gay marches and events. The narrow political focus of gay activism prevented it from addressing larger questions about sexuality. Pedophilia, for example, is yet another indicator of sexual difference, since it applies only to gay men, never lesbians. By keeping NAMBLA at arm’s length, activists apparently think they can broaden their acceptability and sell their agenda, which includes a preposterous demand for openly gay Boy Scout leaders. (What would feminists say about grown men dying to take pubescent Girl Scouts on hikes, sleep-overs and camp-outs?)”

She admits that her views on pedophilia have not always been received warmly, though she has continued to speak, publish books, and write for various publications.

“I was nearly lynched by a furious audience on a television talk show in 1992, when the host asked me about my defense of man-boy love in Sexual Personae. I have no erotic interest in children, but I protest the thought-blocking and context-blind value judgments inherent in automatically referring to every adult-juvenile physical encounter as “abuse,” “molestation,” or “assault.” There are certainly atrocious incidents of genuine rape, which we must condemn. But in some cases the contact is actually initiated by the youth; in others, the relationship may be a positive one, but of course one never hears about it, since the affair doesn’t end up in court. Loaded terminology is self-defeating, since it coarsens distinctions and prevents us from recognizing authentic abuse when it occurs.”
“In Sex and Destiny (1984), Germaine Greer documents the far freer sensuous physicality of adults with children in non-Western cultures but unfortunately stops short of my conclusions. The moment was right for a searching critique of our priggish sexual assumptions in this area, which have been institutionalized by a banal social-welfare bureaucracy. I have been thanked for my views by many men, by letter and in person after lectures, because of their own adolescent liaisons with supportive adults.”

Paglia thinks the age of consent should be lowered to age 14, given the growing sexual interest of young people at that age. “[O]ur present age of consent is far too high and treats adolescents as an enslaved class owned by their parents. Who is to say whether or not a juvenile is capable of informed choice? When does protection of children become oppression?”

What’s Behind the Hypocrisy of the Left?

Paglia has given us more than anything Milo has said on the topic, yet he’s run out on the rails. Why? For one thing, Paglia has been around awhile and has cred with many liberals. As they have always done, they not only ignored her deviant views but embraced them. However, if she were an avid Trump supporter in the same vein as Milo, opposing liberals at every turn and writing those things in this climate, you can be sure the torches would be lit up for her as well. She would be facing opposition greater than any outcry she experienced in the past...

How about them apples?

If the right is to be moral for real, it has to be moral all the time, not just when the headlines are screaming for another sacrificial victim to faux outrage.

That is a process defect, too--one that has nothing to do with pedophilia. The right-wing folks (and even many O-land folks) are selling out their morality BEFORE they even define what they consider to be tolerable limits (if any) of pedophilia. They are all over the friggin' place.

Why?

Because they worship at the alter of the mainstream press.

Given the press and their souls, they will choose the press every time. (Rand wrote a book about people like that--The Fountainhead.  )

There is no way for them to bash Milo because of his comments on adult-child sex and speak glowing about Paglia and be serious about moral values. They can only pretend to be.

As to the left, their hypocrisy on this issue is merely a tactic--a reflection of the evil they promote. It is not about morality with them. It's about power. So anything goes just so long as it works to destroy the targets in their way.

Michael

[william.scherk]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Data dump is a loaded term, Michael.

Did I step on a bunion?

Well, depending on your metaphor, maybe. On the other hand, if ''data dump" is a blob term, maybe not. Stepping on people's feet can be a sign of bad dancing. You big foot-stomper, you.

CREATE TABLE Leaks_Dump (
`id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
name NWO_name 34,
ID Chip_ID null,
first name Nick ,
crime Scientific_Crime 
)ENGINE=MySQL;

Quote

EDIT:

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

That closes off communication, Michael.  [Given that you distill and dismiss my efforts as dumps of unresponsive (or uninteresting) crap, it might be wise for me to ignore such metaphors and generalizations. If you wouldn't or couldn't give a charitable good-faith rendering of my efforts, then I wouldn't need to show you good faith engagement.]

And you don't think data dumps in the place of engagement about the liars is closing off communication?

The [unnamed] Liars!

What is a data dump?  What isn't a data dump?  What is a good working definition of a data dump, if it is not just a generic term of dismissal?

Quote

That communication has been closed off--at least with me--for years now. You want names?

Turn the table, Michael and take this in as if I was saying it to you about a Blob, as if that Blob of bad actors was "people who think like you":

• blast the idiots who abused their authority and good name
• ostracizing them
• Only after that can you have skeptics listen

If you asked me who I was talking about ... and I couldn't fetch up names from the Blob, what would be your reaction?  I don't expect you to elaborate, but it would be nice if you thought about it, thought about the usefulness of good faith and the Principle of Charity, Steel-Manning. 

But basically, with tables reversed, I demand you blast the abusive idiots on your side, the "people who think like you," and ostracize them. Only after that could I engage with tedious data dumps.  I demand you show outrage at all the outrageous liars and schemers of your 'side.'

You want names? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

But basically, with tables reversed, I demand you blast the abusive idiots on your side, the "people who think like you," and ostracize them.

William,

If they work to get the kind of power over me, everyone I care about, and all the rest of humanity excluding their own little insider clique that your blobbers want, seek, and constantly corrupt everything around them to get, you better believe I will blast them.

In fact, I've been doing it. Right here in front of you. For months and months.

Here's just one example. I worked hard to help get President Trump elected--precisely focusing on words versus deeds in many of my messages. Why? Because I want to see the language reconnected to reality when people talk about policy. There were a lot of folks who wanted power on the conservative-libertarian side who didn't want him to be elected and, frankly, got irritated with me when I kept harping on the reality connection. (They pretended that Trump's marketing exaggerations gave them a get out of jail free card to exclude reality altogether.)

Now, if a blobber wants to talk blob-blather but doesn't want gobs of money and gobs of power over me, even if he has an audience, I say let him talk blob-blather until he turns blob-blue.

I can listen or not when power is not involved. That's a freedom idea.

Let me put it this way. Would you be comfortable and take my messages seriously if I started promoting Bernie Madoff to become appointed as Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Federal Reserve? That's not a quip. I'm serious.

Wouldn't you (1) initially not believe I was doing that, then (2) start pointing out that it's a bad idea to have a Ponzi scam artist in power over the economy?

And if I keep promoting him while ignoring your complaints, and even citing him as a financial expert at times, wouldn't you stop listening to me even when I talked about other people? And how about if I peppered everything with massive financial data dumps full of jargon?

   

Now, if I said Bernie Madoff was turning over a new leaf and just wanted to live and let live and wanted to practice Scientology and plant hydrangeas throughout the land if he ever gets out of jail, would you give a fuck?

I doubt it.

So what's the difference?

Power.

Ah yes... and gobs and gobs of unearned confiscated money.

Manmade climate change is not about the earth and it is not about the climate at root. It's only about power over humanity. For the insiders, all that data and scientist adherence and so forth is nothing but window dressing to get power.

Remember when Lenin and Stalin called Western journalists "useful idiots"? That's what AGW insiders think about those who argue about climate change passionately as if they were saving the planet.

You may not believe that's what they are after, but if so, I say, OK. Suggest to them that they give up their power aspirations. Tell them you prefer them to promote an educational phase for humanity instead. Tell them you want them to convince people in the marketplace of ideas. Let their grandchildren deal with the power angles if such is needed when they grow up.

See how far that gets you.

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Camille Paglia, as quoted by DC McAllister, said:

I was nearly lynched by a furious audience on a television talk show in 1992

Free ride!

1 hour ago, McAllister said:

Paglia has given us more than anything Milo has said on the topic, yet he’s run out on the rails. Why? For one thing, Paglia has been around awhile and has cred with many liberals. As they have always done, they not only ignored her deviant views but embraced them.

Except for the nearly lynched moments, and, er, a whole sub-genre of liberals who fucking loathe Camille Paglia, at length.  She has been dealing with the third rail of sexuality since before book one. I mean, she struggled to get published, struggled with bullshit feminist standpoint theory, struggled to emerge from the strife and controversy of her book-less years.

The important distinction is she didn't try to have it both ways, saddle up for a political movement, edit a 'news' publication, encourage a cult of lost-boys to ride a Paglia bus, or call out the Jews who own Hollywood.  She didn't call her favourite candidate Daddy.  She published a book containing her NAMBLA gyrata before she was famous. She gained a professorship before that.

I don't appreciate her as much as I could, perhaps, but comparing her to Milo is fraught.  She has poked the leftist bear as much as the conservative.

Paglia didn't have to walk back any remarks or apologize -- because she doesn't try to have it both ways, as victim and predator. She may be smarter and more individualistic than Milo, having not been whored-out or co-opted as a symbol or a leader of a faction, having not taken a stereotyped  role in conservative-liberal opera.

She's a honey badger.  With tenure.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't appreciate her as much as I could, perhaps, but comparing her to Milo is fraught.

William,

With all due respect, bullshit.

Both essentially said the same thing. In their view, adult-child sex is beneficial to the child in a minority of cases and harmful in most others.

What am I missing?

According to the professed values of their target audience, that should land like a ton of bricks in both cases.

That it doesn't speaks volumes about the moral shallowness of those who are calling the shots in the name of morality.

Michael