Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

    33,140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    186

Michael Stuart Kelly last won the day on April 6

Michael Stuart Kelly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

585 Excellent

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

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

Recent Profile Visitors

68,103 profile views
  1. TG, Not just related. This is smack dab in the middle of the unfolding into the mainstream. These Internet lifestyle celebrities see the ideas from sources they trust, the ideas make sense to them and they run with them. I doubt any of these lovely celebs are keeping strict tabs on sources and running down vague ones. These celebs are not mainstream, but they are one of the middle stepping stones Q's ideas go over on the way to the mainstream. The Buzzfeed article and awful video about Q therein are at the perplexed stage of wondering how this could be happening. So they pat the wayward ladies on the head amidst snark and tsk tsk tsking to try to get them back in line. The dorks haven't figured out that these women are merely trading up the chain in a manner they themselves did earlier with different narratives. Tsk tsk tsk... I'm not criticizing the celebs or Q, though. I'm just mentioning how the process works. The efficacy of the process has little to do with the content. It worked like hell for the globalists. Now it's working like hell for Q and Trump supporters. Leftie globalists are not amused. Trading up the chain done right is very powerful as a publicity tool. it even works well as a philosophical publicity tool. Have you ever read Rand talk about how a philosophical premise gets into the mainstream? She mentioned somewhere that when an idea gets to the level of TV sitcoms and comic books (I'm paraphrasing, so this isn't exact, although the gist is correct), only then is the idea embedded in the culture enough to shape society. She talked about this several times. She never did get around to saying how that works, though. (Or at least, I don't recall ever seeing it.) She did illustrate a few processes and outcomes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but she was vague on the precise actions individuals take in handing off an idea from one person to another in a form that the receiver accepts it--how word of mouth works so to speak. Or how an idea becomes viral. Trading up the chain is one such mechanism--on the press level. From the press to individuals, though, it works differently. It woks on trust--there is an unspoken bond of trust individuals hold for the press. That trust is the basis of an enormous amount of uncritical acceptance of weird ideas and bad ideas and lousy-ass ideas. As an aside, that bond is so deep and fits so well with how the human mind is constructed, it's impressive to see it breaking down in modern times. The dorks in the press really had to work hard to screw up that badly. I guess suicide is hard to pull off, but they're hard at work on making it happen. By God, no one will tell them what to do. They'll be blatantly lying, mocking their readers and laughing all the way to the grave. So there! Back to point, trading up the chain works equally well for good ideas and evil ones. Obviously, it works great for marketing and selling stuff. That's the world Ryan Holiday was in when he came up with this thing. .Michael
  2. There is another way I understand Q--in essential terms. I've talked about this before. It's called " trading up the chain." In mainstream press terms, the QAnon phenomenon has been a variation on this. Note: I'm not talking about who is behind this. I'm merely talking about how this spread. Trading-up-the-chain is a press strategy identified and named by Ryan Holiday. It works like this. If a person wants to get an idea (or any kind of publicity) into the mainstream press through the back door, so to speak, he starts with a small site or place with no audience. But at that site or place is a discussion of the issue in legitimate-sounding highly-informative terms, but slanted. This slant is what is really being promoted. (Whether this slant is on the side of the good guys or bad guys, whether it is more objective or totally misleading, is not the issue. The mechanics work the same.) Then the person using this strategy gets in contact with people a little higher up in the press food chain who are sympathetic to the slant and points them to this information. As these people are overworked, they don't have time or inclination to check sources. The material sounds legitimate and looks like a source, so they report it. And the people above them use their publication as a source, since they suffer from the same lack of time under a lot of pressure. And off the slant goes up to the mainstream as if it were proven fact. This is happening with QAnon and here is a very good example of how Q has reached the stage right before the mainstream. Notice that Stephen Bannon does not mention QAnon, but he does mention what Q wants in quite clear terms, and specifically naming Kissinger, Davos, hedge fund managers, etc., as a starting point. Bannon is hardly ever this explicit in threats. Before too long, expect to see this--and other things like it, maybe mentioning other targets--as regular news items in the mainstream. That's how Q has spread. Q was the starting point, but instead of going away and relying on a single push, it kept pumping out drops laden with mystique and some solid predictions. So many people started pushing it up the chain. The fringe carried it at first, then the larger alt media got on board. Now Q is penetrating into much higher-ups in the press and, like with a typical trading up the chain process, Q, being the original source, stops being mentioned up near the top. But the ideas are. And once these ideas are in the mainstream press that way, not even the coronavirus can keep them from getting into people's hearts and minds in the mainstream culture. Like Bannon said, after saying, "It's all going to come out," about Kissinger and cronies (including Davos people, Wall Street people, etc): "The world is going to stand in judgment of you." It will, too. And these people are going to get thrown into the garbage bin of history along with tin-pot dictators, Bernie Madoff and the like. Their end will be jail, being killed and/or disgraced forever throughout history as evil people who did evil things. That is how the world changes when the trading-up-the-chain process is used effectively. Michael
  3. Fake news. CBS is working overtime to produce one fake story after another. It was busted just the other day using video of Italy in a report on NYC hospitals. I wonder which billionaire's ass it is kissing. Like I said, fake news: Go to that Twitter thread and all the info is there. Michael
  4. On a feel-good note, Corey posted this today on Twitter. Awwwww... Michael
  5. There is a lady Amazing Polly uses as a source at times and Polly mentions her a lot: Corey Lynn. Corey has a website called... Corey's Digs ... where she presents a lot of reports and things, including a long six-page report on the history of eugenics that I started. It's really good and I will finish it. I was listening to Corey's latest podcast (April 3) and I like it. So here it is for you if you wish to tune in. I have only listened to half of it so far, but I do find Corey's interest in facts--and the way she is interested in them--something I resonate with. In the video, she keeps trying to separate actual fact of the coronavirus threat (like actual hospital shortages and the actual deadliness of this virus for some people) with the horrible media onslaught of overhype and made-up stories. Correy even said something interesting about the placebo effect. It works both ways, for curing people and for making them ill. The media is literally making some people ill right now. Physically ill through the power of suggestion. Like a placebo does in curing come people. Michael
  6. And if you are or were making money off of "free trade" with China, think about the following: Michael
  7. Look what the mainstream news is doing. This is disgusting. Bah... Michael
  8. TG, I get the wordplay, but I took a look at Greg Laurie in "identify then judge" mode. I saw the beginning of this sermon: God’s Answer to Fear, Anxiety and Worry, Part 2. What follows is a little off-topic, but who cares? I find it interesting and probably several readers will, too. When I go into "identify then judge" mode on looking at something new, I turn my brain into a sponge. I try to set aside everything I can from what I already know and believe about similar things and just observe. I can't turn off everything, of course. There are countless memories and abstractions floating around in the underbelly of my brain, so I can't do this literally. But I can turn off my critical faculty to a conscious extent and just soak up the experience, which I can later judge consciously. It's like I give my brain a command: "Just observe and identify." In that frame of mind, what I saw surprised me in a pleasant way. It had nothing to do with political message, but instead with music. I normally don't like modern Christian music because the lyrics tend to suck. (Many older hymns rock, though.) Of course, I'm referring to what I've heard. The lyrics of the modern stuff tend to have little poetic value and do not integrate with the music. So on hearing the opening song of the sermon, once again, the lyrics were not what you could call poetic. But I wasn't judging, so I got a nice surprise in the chorus. The lyrics integrated with music and the listener in a really cool way. The verse was the normal first-person statements of the obvious for the context I dislike ("We are your church, we are your sons and daughters" and so on). But the music underneath started getting a real nice groove on. Then the chorus came: "With our hands to the heavens, alive in your presence, Oh God, you are here. So pour out your spirit, we love to be near you, Oh God, you are here." If you allow yourself to get into the groove of the underlying music, you should get a mix of nice, cool, wonder, just let go and feel, and a few other such things thrown in. Granted, this is subjective, but from what I've observed, a smooth easy-listening style of music heavy on ninths in both harmony and melody (sorry for being technical, but I don't have other words for it) generally produces a pleasant hypnotic effect where you let go of negativity at that moment and just coast on feel-good rhythm. But with this song, the words of the lyrics direct this all-consuming emotion toward God at the time you are feeling it, and even give you instructions of what to do with your body and how to feel about God--through presupposition at that. The words don't tell you what to do. They say what you are doing. Note, I'm not analyzing whether God exists. I am analyzing how a strong emotion gets elicited through music and unexpectedly attached to God in lyrics through the image of God pouring his presence over you at the time your are feeling the emotion. This same process could be used for a country, for a person, for the planet, for anything big, or admirable outside of you. There is so much going on in this song and performance in both aesthetic experience and covert persuasion I could write a long article about it and still uncover new things. I am definitely going to do some serious thinking on this. For example, the process I described can also be done in reverse, that is, after eliciting in you (should you allow yourself to get into the music) a negative emotion like raw aggressiveness, using first-person statements in the lyrics--while you are feeling the emotion--to attach that emotion to something or someone outside of you. Instant hate and bigotry. Wow. I did not expect to see, hear and observe that. As the saying goes, people don't remember what you tell them, but they never forget how you make them feel. I don't know anything else about Greg Laurie and his people other than he's a famous preacher, and I didn't watch the video for much longer after the song, but I do know he knows what he is doing. And, I get the feeling he is a good man. Which is good. Bad people with his level of competence could do a lot of damage in society. In fact some do. I'm glad Greg Laurie is on the good guy side. Michael
  9. I haven't checked the following for accuracy, but if true, this might explain a little something... Hmmmmmm... Michael
  10. This one is funny (I laughed when I saw it ), but brutal. Michael
  11. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand wrote an article called "The Argument from Intimidation." It is chapter 19. If you want to see a great example of an argument from intimidation and how to respond, look at the tweet below. But first, let's look at Rand's own words which can be found online: The Argument from intimidation. President Trump just offered a perfect example of how to respond by refusing to accept the moral premise of a questioner using this form of framing. It's not as evident in the first tweet (which I did not want to embed, but it comes automatically with the second) but it's still there. However in the second tweet, it's there in all its glory. Rather than accept moral guilt for being inconsistent, which was the reporter's frame, President Trump essentially said his legal and moral standard for acting was The Constitution. President Trump answers gotcha questions a lot in this manner--by refusing to accept the moral premise of the question and giving an answer based on his own moral premises instead. I noticed this a long time ago. And that's how you do it. That's how Rand did it. Michael
  12. It didn't take long for someone to clip and post it. Glorious. Michael
  13. It looks like President Trump is starting to react in his older kickass manner. That's good to see for this spirit. I know I am not alone. Michael