Michael Stuart Kelly

William, And it also can be viewed as a priority, which is what I do. Obviously, we all live in a collective society and it influences us. And just as obviously we are all individuals. But which one kicks in first when one decides to trash a person or do something great? That's what one chooses--the default priority. For example, at a football game, you can choose to root for your team right along with the mindless herd. You give vent and catharsis to that impulse that is in all of us. It's fun and there's nothing wrong with it. That's why we put satisfying this impulse into a structured safe environment with a game to observe. But when one is faced a mindless mob of fake news mockery and sees it is also possible to hunt down facts and think critically, but chooses the mindless mob as default--and implies that this is everybody to boot, one has turned off the critical reasoning individual inside one's soul. That's fun, too. It's icky fun, but still fun. To be clear, the guy who hunts down facts and uses his brain on purpose under his own individual command lives in a collective and is influenced by it, but that collective influence is distant when he is using his brain in this manner. The person who gives over to the ecstasy of mob outrage and mob mockery in the place of using his brain is also an individual, but his individual will is practically asleep at the time. Think of it like a seesaw where both sides never go away and the board raises one side up in the gravitational pull--instead of an on-off button. Then it becomes a clearer metaphor than the filter you are using. So the false alternative you mentioned is nothing more than a semantics game used for muddying clear water. Like I said, I go with the man of the mind as my default priority (except when the Patriots are playing ). Others go with the mindless herd. We all make our choices. But then we have to live with the consequences of our choices. And those consequences will not go away with a gotcha or put down. Reality is cruel like that. It's indifferent to snark. Michael

This one got President Trump's attention: Michael

William, I like it. Michael

The collective mood of propagandists, not collective mood of everybody. Propagandists... I prefer reasoned fact-filled discourse from a man who is one of the few who actually debated Jack Dorsey in public. (How many of the propagandists in the howling mob can say that?) I don't agree with Tim Poole on many things, but he's no propagandist. I am a fan of his. In this post you are reading right now and the one preceding it, you have the entire theme of a Rand-based website. Should we go with a howling mob of fake news media propagandists, or with reason expressed by an individual independent thinker doing his honest best (and, incidentally, due to his talent, changing the world for the better)? Don't forget the pure futility of the howling mob mocking President Trump when he started his election campaign. With Trump, once again, an independent individual using reason stepped up and changed the world for the better. So which is it? A mindless herd or a man of the mind? Choose your side. I've chosen mine. Michael

Jonathan, People often confuse bluntness, especially when negative, with temper tantrums when they are the target. And the more they have fucked up, it seems the worse the tantrum they report. Michael

Peter, Bolsonaro is a Brazilian Trump with a hard-line conservative flair. He is just what Brazil needs at this point in time. Michael

William, I don't own Twitter. That is your decision. However, I will say this. I don't understand the urge to vest the name of another in normal public (i.e., not in a fantasy costume-like context like a parade or party or show or Halloween or whatever). I would, under no circumstances, register an account called "William Scherk" (or similar) anywhere on a discussion site filled with strangers, then start posting ideas or slant commentary in a manner that I know you would not agree with. I could see making an account called "William Sherk Fan" or "William Sherk Troll" or something like that as admiration or parody. But I would never set up something to make it look like I was you. That's just plain weird to me. Those are my criteria. You have yours. It's a free world (so far) and Twitter has its own rules. So it's your choice. Follow your bliss. I follow mine... Michael

Some say pedophilia in the government is a conspiracy theory. Anyone wanna see how it works on the front lines? That's disgusting. Michael

William, The opposite of fake news is not censorship. Not when Russia does it. Not when the social justice warriors do it. The opposite of fake news is truth, which can only be gotten consistently with freedom of speech. Fake news can only exist among authoritarians, so Putin is merely going to replace one form of fake news with another. But it's all shit. Michael

Oops... Poor casting, apparently. The casting call was for a lefty hero, not a greedy bastard. Ocasio-Cortez Quietly Removed From Board Of PAC She And Top Aide Controlled Michael

Tony, Why the qualifier? Why talk about "full-blown" when I'm using the word altruism without a qualifier? I'm not confused about what I am addressing. I've been doing this online thing for over 15 years and you would not believe the level of knuckleheadedness in our subcommunity. I can't remember the name of the tidal wave disaster about a decade ago (I could probably look it up), but after it happened and practically destroyed a few island paradises, some idiot or other over at ARI published, under the auspices of ARI, an article saying it was immoral and evil to help the victims of the disaster because that would be altruistic. Thankfully, they took that garbage down. But still they had it up for a few days. So in my view, they are confused about what the truly truthy true altruism is. Not me. I see this discussion as a war of jargon, not concept. And, as I am getting sick of leftwing politically correct speech wrecking the entire news industry, I see no virtue in adhering to altruism as a kneejerk term in our subcommunity. That kind of one-definition-only approach worked for the world of the novel Atlas Shrugged. That's because the novel had a theme. But out here in real-land, open any dictionary and anyone can see that all words (except for two or three) come with at least two definitions. That's just the way English works. Try to understand conceptually what I am saying, then realize that the boo-boo word you want to split hairs over has been used by people in our subcommunity countless times to mean the benevolence I am talking about, not just the manipulation Rand was talking about. Then you will understand why I am no longer on board with using this jargon in such a rigid fashion. I do agree with you about Rand's portrayal of altruism when it is used for evil purposes. But, having seen the good stuff called evil over and over and over because of Objectivism's own form of political correctness, I've lost patience with the semantics game. (btw - They've even crucified David Kelley over his writing on benevolence, calling it altruism in disguise.) I have an interesting concept for you: poetic justice. This is the motor of most great storytelling. Guess what one scholar calls it when the punishment is meted out by a heroic avenger? Altruistic punishment. (The idea is that the avenger suffers personal loss to avenge the suffering of another who he may or may not know.) The scholar's name is William Flesch and he wrote a book about it called Comeuppance. It's a book rich in wonderful concepts (seriously great ideas), but written in one of the worst academic drivel styles I have ever encountered. He makes postmodern proto-feminist garbage against the patriarchy of male gerbils causing slave societies sound clear. It's a highly irritating book because of this, but well worth the effort to translate it into something resembling English if you have the patience. In my early days of Randian influence, I would have simply seen the term "altruistic punishment," then determined this was an evil book without looking further. Nowadays I look. We can call poetic justice anything we want, but the concept is going to remain the same. Poetic justice is not what Rand meant when she used the term "altruism." So do you see the colossal error I would have made in my early days over jargon? It's not worth it. We should split hairs over concepts, not just words. We should fight over the candy bar, not the wrapper. (And no, I won't give you my half.) Michael

The hits just keep on coming. And I love it. The cure is simple. Big tech needs to go back to free speech instead of preaching it while practicing mind-control gate-keeping. Michael

Tony, Here's a nit I want to pick. Altruism is never the end goal. It is merely a tool of disarmament for the propagandists who preach it to achieve the end goal: unrestricted political power. Illuminating that was, to me, one of Rand's greatest messages. And I am forever grateful to her for casting light on that particular wolf in sheep's clothing. As to helping a bro out when he's down, I think differently. I don't think twice when I see distress and helping out is my size, that is, within what I can do without disrupting my life. (Even Roark helped out Peter all through their coming of age.) When I give like that, it's one way. I give without strings, then I sever the attachment to what I gave. If the bro wants to reciprocate or pay it forward, that's his business. I won't give a second time if he doesn't though. But what I gave the first time is no longer mine, so no strings. I think that form of altruism is a good thing. I like living in a world where people do that. Michael

Right on, Joshua Moon. His response is hilarious. Michael

Now for a wise perspective on power grabbing and empathy. Michael

Here is how Chelsea Clinton is seen on the true progressive left: It's not pretty. Just look at the hatred. Riffing off of Rush, in Chelsea Clinton's defense, she married a Jew, thus has Jew kids--to put it in the most blunt manner possible to highlight the part her protesters don't want highlighted. In other words, a Jew going to a Muslim event like this... Guess what happens? Can anybody say bigotry meets crony corruption? Michael

Soooo... According to the left on Buzzfeed, Chelsea Clinton cased the NZ mosque massacre? According to Rush Limbaugh, the only person who defended her was Donald Trump, Jr. Not the NYT, not other politicians, not CNN. A Trump did. Dayaamm! Michael

Jon, His daughter is looking like she will continue his duplicitous war-mongering legacy. Michael

Jon, For as much as I detest Perigo (the SoloPassion guy in NZ), I don't wish harm on him or his people. After all, he runs an operation in the Randian universe (for however it's weird). And, oddly enough, we share many of the same values re President Trump, free speech, and so on. I don't see NZ as a healthy environment for his kind of "death to Islam" rhetoric right now. I sincerely hope they don't shut him down or come for him. I don't give high odds for the NZ government doing that, but you never know. Right now they're coming for guns, censoring people they don't like, etc. Why let a crisis go to waste? One of the things I take into account about NZ as a tyranny is that Kim DotCom lives there. He is one of the biggest pains in the ass on the planet for the US establishment in terms of copyright in the cyberworld (we're talking major moolah). He keeps the NZ government in the courts constantly and has not been harmed so far. So NZ is a halfassed tyranny at best. But a halfassed tyranny with a gun is still a power-monger with a gun. And right now that power-monger has a full-blown terrorist mass shooting to use. Whether the shooting was a false flag or not, I don't believe the NZ government will find out much objectively. I don't think it wants to. The propaganda gift is just too great. Michael (LATER EDIT: This does not mean I am making a peace overture. I find it impossible to forgive what they did to Barbara Branden. I'm just speaking out in their favor on principle. Why? Because the current threat is real, not fantasy-world bluster. And the human values involved are universal. Especially force and free speech. One must speak out in this context.)

Technically these reports are mentioning the massacre, but they are not targeting how the investigation is unfolding and things like that. They are mostly discussing how Muslims feel victimized (mouthed by the same old suspects) and why they believe gun control should be imposed on everyone. Both are talking points of the left-leaning fake news media and the mention of the shooting is used as a pretext for propaganda. And, still, there's nowhere near the volume as before. (Compare to coverage a couple of days later of, say, the Las Vegas shooting or, practically, any other mass killing in relatively recent times.) One thing is for certain, propaganda informs what coverage there is. Objective reporting is almost nil. So let's call it a gray-out. Michael

The following video is not about the story war technique per se, but it shows very clearly what the result of a well-fought story war looks like. If you do a story war right, you literally implant false memories in the heads of the people susceptible to that particular story. I like Scott's deprogramming at an individual level with specific individuals, but it doesn't seem to work on a broad scale. How many times are facts clearly demonstrated, yet people still cling to the story in their heads that tells them the contrary? Still, this video is well worth watching. Watching this with real people live is interesting, especially the part where the deprogrammed person pauses to reboot his or her brain. Michael

I'm seeing around the Interwebs a reference to two Al Qaeda terrorists having come from one of the mosques in Christchurch that was targeted in this attack. If true, that doesn't excuse the shooting (nothing can), but it does show some hidden rot beneath the surface. btw - New Zealand seems to be going on a censorship rampage that any brutal dictatorship would take his hat off to in respect. I've read in several places that anyone caught viewing the video the shooter made--even online--will be jailed by the NZ government for up to 10 years. There has to be more happening. And just let them try to shut down the Internet. It's odd--here in the West--how there's almost a media blackout on this massacre in the fake news mainstream media after all the nonstop coverage. Arabian oil money buys a lot of goodwill from media owners, apparently. Michael

Peter, Not Islam, that's for sure. Imagine Romney wearing a Mormon hat in Congress. Michael

You're not supposed to wear a hat in Congress. It takes guts to say that these days. Michael

Peter, Dayaamm! Michael