Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Posts

    38,762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    646

Posts posted by Michael Stuart Kelly

  1. The January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot Horse Hooey

    Today is January 6, one year later, and there is going to be a lot of crap said everywhere.

    Essentially, the so-called riot was a setup to help get rid of Trump. Since there was no riot, some Deep State agitators managed to get Trump supporters at his rally to go into the capitol building.

    After that, the fake news press had a field day and we have another story to rival "muh Russians."

    Notice how much evidence is still being withheld.

    Notice how few people at that event are charged with violence.

    Notice how many were charged with misdemeanors, but were held in solitary confinement for months.

    As this thread unfolds, I intend to present evidence that has come out about the setup and how it happened. And probably some stuff on how propaganda works.

    For now, I just need to say that the The January 6, 2021 capitol riot horse hooey was a setup against Trump and Trump supporters.

    It's time that this becomes the frame.

    Why? Because it's true.

    Truth is the best frame possible. And the most long-lasting.

    Stay tuned. A hell of a lot more is coming...

    Michael

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  2. I noticed that William had liked the opening post of this thread today, so I came here to remember what it was about. After all, this was over 10 years ago.

    Heh...

    This was not one of Michael Marotta's better days.

    But it shows something that all of us are prone to if we let a core story rule our rational standards. He made up a story that had no basis in reality as a reason the OL domain exists. Why? I believe he believed it at the time. I have never seen him outright lie on purpose before, so I believe he convinced himself that his story was real and simply ran with it. His thing at the time was finding odd facts nobody else knew and talking about them. (Believe it or not, that intent, also, is a kind of core story.) I think he might have wondered if his version dealing with Nathan Hawking could have happened, then after a while, convinced himself it did.

    In today's world of fake news media (or, as President Trump recently said, corrupt news media), it's good to remember that this stuff exists in all our brains. Cognitive biases anyone? 

    Granted, we tell stories that make sense to us, we have to since that is the way we are, but we also have to verify facts and correct the stories we have told when they are proven wrong.

    Nobody likes to correct stories once they are telling them to others, though.

    btw - Ellen corrected the record over at RoR back then, but it had not yet been published when this thread ended. I checked and it finally got published there.

    No retraction from Michael M, though. Not one I am aware of. He was probably too embarrassed to say anything. And, of course, as anyone can see, he, also, did not like to correct a story he told.

    Welcome to the human race, I guess...

    :) 

    Michael

  3. Wow.

    That was a great interview.

    Beck got Trump to say that if he runs and wins the presidency again, he is going to clean house in the federal government and get rid of a lot toxic people who have been there for years and are left over from previous administrations. Trump said it just has to be done. The whole mess needs to be cleaned up.

    He didn't know Washington during his term as presidency, so he didn't know that many people. Now he knows everybody, so he knows who to promote and who to cut.

    Also, Trump is going to get education returned to the states. He said the federal government could be involved in broad guidelines like the schools have to teach English, but he thinks the American education system as run by the federal government is a total disaster.

    In fact, on everything, he thinks it will not be hard to turn it all back around, and it will be fast, should he be president again.

    They lightly covered the vaccine thing. Trump was emphatic that mandates and anything that threatens freedom are things he finds abhorrent. He and Beck apparently disagree about the vaccines, but they both agree--and from the way they talked, they emphatically agree--about freedom to choose.

    I was surprised at how much Trump showed he liked Beck. From the gist of what I saw, that business of Beck hiring planes to get Americans out of Afghanistan during the catastrophic Biden retreat meant a lot to him. I was surprised to learn that Beck's first load of Americans were members of the US armed forces. That was a condition the US government put on Beck to allow him to operate the panes in Afghanistan.

    From what I understood, this interview was filmed in December (they did not say when) and only aired yesterday.

    I highly recommend it if you are feeling a bit hopeless.

    Michael

    • Upvote 1
  4. Glenn Beck finally got to interview President Trump.

    Given his initial monkey-shines as the epitome of Trump Derangement Syndrome, he should feel grateful he got an interview at all.

    I'm watching it right now, so I don't have much to say. But Trump is always Trump, even though Beck is not always Beck (but he's been more consistent recently), so it is probably a very good interview.

    The fact that this interview was granted the day before January 6 is telling. I sense a finger of Bill O'Reilly in the cup mixing things around here. He and Beck have had each other's backs for years. Trump and O'Reilly are doing a Q&A-like tour project right now, so O'Reilly definitely has Trump's ear.

    Anyway, enjoy.

    Here is the video on Rumble in case the YouTube video is taken down.

    Michael

     

    • Upvote 1
  5. 1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

    BREAKING: Kazakhstan government resigns as protesters storm capital

    TG,

    Those called the January 6th setup of Trump supporters "storming the capitol" need to look at this to see and understand what it really means to storm a capitol and a capital.

    I don't see many people walking around like tourists and taking selfies over there in Kazakhstan.

    :) 

    Michael

    • Upvote 1
  6. Atlas Shrugged and Football

    How's this for a headline?

    Hmmmm?...

    Leftists Freak Out after Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers Reveals He’s Reading the Historic Anti-Socialist Classic “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand

    aaron-rodgers-atlas-shrugged.png
    WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

    Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is an American classic first published in 1957. The plot concerns the crumbling of the United States economy due to collectivism and altruism. It has sold millions of copies in several...

    From the article:

    Quote

    Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is an American classic first published in 1957. The plot concerns the crumbling of the United States economy due to collectivism and altruism. It has sold millions of copies in several languages.

    Socialism may have stumbled with the fall of the Soviet Union but its resurgence in the West by naive leftists is one of the greatest dangers we face today. Look no further than Joe Biden to witness once again the absolute devastation of the Socialist mindset.

    During an appearance on “Monday Night Football,” Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers revealed that he has Rand’s famous novel “Atlas Shrugged” on his bookshelf.

    Here's the tweet that's causing all the trouble.

    The rest of the article gives some of the snark aimed at Rodgers from the left.

    And snark there is. 

    But note: he also said he was reading French poetry.

    For me, that's the offensive part...

    :) 

    Michael

    • Upvote 1
  7. 4 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

    It was Nathaniel Branden who coined "social metaphysics", correct?

    TG,

    That sounds about right. I think so, but I'll have to check someday. 

    Rand definitely adopted it, though.

    You know what's odd? If I had learned about this within a context of learning an idea I was interested in, I would have no doubt at all right now. 

    But I learned about it during a time when the overwhelming subtext in the environment for discussions--and that means discussion about any issue at all--was "defend Rand's honor," "the Brandens are immoral," "Rand did not feel jealousy," and bullshit like that.

    In other words, I learned the ins and outs of this concept in the middle of a religious war, not in the middle of an intellectual endeavor. 

    The details simply did not anchor in my memory. They are kinda there, but not with the same clarity I have about, say, Rand describing Objectivism while standing on one foot (objective reality, reason, self-interest and capitalism). So I will need to look this stuff up to have certainty. I guess my subconscious determined it was plenty busy with my own bullshit, thus it didn't have much room to worry about bullshit coming from others.

    :) 

    Michael

  8. On 1/21/2021 at 10:18 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I believe Millie. I also know for sure she is connected to Trump insiders. She got Patrick Bergy (the Hammer and Scorecard whistleblower dude) a lot of traction with them.

    If President Trump had to leave, I'm glad it was in this manner, with his betrayers exposing themselves.

    He learns when he is betrayed like this. The next round will be a whole different game.

    It sure does look like a whole new game is coming in play--and a new game is even starting for Millie.

    Cool...

    :)

    Michael

  9. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    ... adopting the term "social metaphysics" and setting it up as a villain. (Incidentally, as I am sure you know, Barbara came up with that term.--EDIT: Oops. On second thought, I don't think that was Barbara. Her term was psycho-epistemology. :) )

    Since people generally don't reread posts unless they have a good reason to, I'm posting this to let those who already read my post know I goofed and corrected it.

    Michael

  10. 9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    The bio-boys are just getting started. Are we on the path to immortality, unless there's an accident? We may not reach the promised land--in fact we won't--but how about 150 for starters?

    Brant,

    (I'm riffing around in this post.)

    What you are referring to is transhumanism and I will have some ideas on that in another thread. In general, I am for using technology to achieve life extension, better health, enhanced capacities, etc. I am not in favor of discarding the human species and creating a brand new species as many transhumanists now aspire to (and they say it plainly, too). I, also, think they are using the wrong process to find immortality. To use a Peikoff idea, they are "misintegrating" and will likely create a Frankenstein monster without getting anywhere near immortality. More on all this later.

     

    On another point, you raise lot of evolution-related questions I am sure were buzzing around in Rand's head back then. At least enough were buzzing for her to write that essay, "The Missing Link," which is most easily found in Philosophy Who Needs It?. She floated the idea that "the anticonceptual mentality" might be the missing link between apes and man. When I look at this idea now, and look at it strictly from an evolutionary perspective, the term itself, "the anticonceptual mentality," is kinda weird. It is like calling a between-species creature that had not fully evolved wings yet an "anti-wing creature." :) 

    To use her own terminology based on Aristotle, that term comes from a bias toward "final causation," which she claimed did not exist. (Basically, this is when the end is the cause of all that comes before.) Still, she liked the idea enough to use it as a process in developing fiction plots. So why not use it at other times?

     

    9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    ... does this make me a superior man from the get go? I think real superiority is measured by other things and it may not be adulthood.

    You are scratching the top of the iceberg of one of the real issues with all philosophy and religion. I believe most people go into the different systems of ideas and religions in order to improve themselves. And the rub is that they use the wrong term, they use that damn term "improve." A better term for organic thinking would be "develop" or something along those lines. Why? Because along the way, these systems become signals of superiority for way too many practitioners. And from just looking, many of them are not superior in anything at all. They just think they are. So essentially they keep the signal as their own identity and forego the quest.

    Take a look at atrocities throughout history. Or oppression. Do you, like me, see that little bastard present? He's always there. The bastard is people thinking they are superior to other people. I think that is one of the biggest causes of moral crud throughout all humanity.

     

    I found in Rand a way to sidestep this crud, that is, pursue my mental and moral development without referring to others. That's what I loved the most about her work in my early days of getting into Objectivism. That is something I still love. But then she threw a monkeywrench into the conceptual purity of this process by adopting the term "social metaphysics" and setting it up as a villain. (Incidentally, as I am sure you know, Barbara came up with that term.--EDIT: Oops. On second thought, I don't think that was Barbara. Her term was psycho-epistemology. :) )

    People who study the brain know that many modules, and even the very size of the cortex, evolved to handle and process human interactions. That is the real social metaphysics. Not the weapon she and NB crafted to whip others with, a guilt-inducing whip at that.

    I personally think we should not discard the term social metaphysics. Barbara was actually on to something when she suggested it. But it morphed. So I think we should redo it--at least for our own use--to take out the toxic stuff and include all the brain stuff that evolved, or to use a Randian term, clean up the part dealing with "the given." After all, our brains come as they come, not as someone thinks they should come in order to wed with a principle.

     

    btw - I envy you your drink. I like drinking, but I just can't do it anymore. :) 

    As the saying goes, if I start again, I will end up somewhere four states over with dragon tattoos on my arms and legs, a nasty dog-bite on my nose, newly married to a Philippine store keeper, and I will not have a clue about how I got there.

    Put that into your evolutionary pipe and smoke it. Or, how's that for social metaphysics?

    :) 

    Michael

    • Upvote 1
  11. 8 hours ago, tmj said:

    The  capacity to manipulate our ‘environment’ is a freak adaptation , or the result of multiple random mutations and their eventual expression. Species qua species , that(those) adaptation(s)may be optimally sufficient to rack up points in the longevity category.

    T,

    Read Howard Bloom. Really.

    The Lucifer Principle, then The Global Brain.

    I've written about them here on OL. Search and read if the books are too long for ya'. 

    But the books will change your entire view of evolution, just as it is changing the view of many evolutionary scientists. They certainly changed my views.

    There is nothing freak about it.

    btw - Don't read Howard Bloom about Trump and especially avoid his Trump videos. He has one of the worst cases of TDS I have ever seen. And since he's goofy-looking and goofy-acting, he's not only wrong, he makes a weird impact. Seriously, you can even see him drool at times. :) 

    How a genius like him can do what he does re Trump is proof positive of Mass Formation Psychosis.

    Michael

  12. 35 minutes ago, anthony said:

    ... why should we need to evolve?

    Tony,

    This is where I generally don't understand you.

    Asking this question to me is like asking why should we need to eat? Why should we need to have two arms and two legs? Why should we need to cry and laugh?

    These are items that belong to the Law of Identity.

    Here's the syllogism.

    Life forms inherently evolve as part of their nature.
    The human species is a life form.
    Therefore, the human species evolves as part of its nature.

    That's not optional. It just happens. It comes that way. That's part of its identity.

    Michael

  13. 23 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

    The flu is not only making a "comeback", after having a "year off", but now, apparently, it's shacked up with the 'rona and had an illicit "love child"...announcing the newest addition to the family: "Flurona".

    TG,

    That's one belly-flop of an idea.

    It's premised on the notion that if a person is sick with two different things at once, you call it one disease only and make up a name for it.

    jikXAp1Lg1A_640x360.jpg
    WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

    WOOOOO SPOOOOPY oh wait it's just having two sicknesses at once: https://archive.ph/MPPyz Support via donation: Patreon: https://tinyurl.com/y2jothtp Subscribestar:...

    We can do this with food, too, I guess.

    Instead of a menu offering steak and potatoes, it can now offer a steatato meal.

    Imagine the price you can put on that, especially if you can get a celebrity eating it and calling it that. Best of all, you don't even have to change the food on the plate.

    Ms. Superhero Movie Star: "When I get hungry for steatato, I go to The Woke Cucumber. They have the best steatato in the world and it's delicious."

    :)

    Michael

    • Upvote 1
  14. TG,

    I've heard this "individuals don't evolve" thing before and it is stated in the tone of a catechism, usually with a finger-wag. But the premise is that individuals and species are not integrated. That they are two different life forms that are only connected by words, not reality, so to speak.

    In their view, evolution is not a holistic process that applies to life as it exists. It is the quintessential gotcha. An endless source of serotonin...

    :)

    Michael

     

    EDIT: To get more clarity, let's put it this way. If evolution is considered as a result only, it is the result of the adaptations and resulting gene changes of individuals.

    If evolution is considered as a process, there can be no evolution without individual adaptation and gene changes. They are part of the process.

    This is the same error that I keep harping on in O-Land where people believe human individuals can exist as individuals without being human. :) 

    • Upvote 2
  15. TG,

    So call it adaptation for individuals and evolution for species?

    And the criteria is a change in the genetic code for both? The same fundamental thing?

    I guess...

    Academics have to make their money somehow, I suppose.

    If I want a pet, I get a dog, not a theory...

    :) 

    I'm beginning to dislike academics as much as lawyers...

    :)

    Michael

    • Smile 1
  16. As President Trump once said, ""You know what woke means? It means you're a loser. Everything woke turns to shit."

    https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.
    WWW.FORBES.COM

    Univision has pulled the plug on Fusion TV, the cable network it initially conceptualized as an English-language news and lifestyle channel targeting millennial Latinos.

    My favorite quote from the article.

    Quote

    Executives and staffers struggled to find the elusive millennial audience they were targeting. It didn't help that a channel whose owners were two of the country's top broadcast companies, had no brand recognition and trouble getting distribution.

    Execs kept launching and pulling shows and talent. It was like they were throwing a bunch of spaghetti at a wall to see what would stick only to find nothing worked.

    :)

    Michael

  17. Actually, even though I'm no scientist re evolution, genes, etc., from what I have read so far, individuals can evolve brainwise through neuroplasticity (where the mind changes the brain).

    By evolve, I mean the brain creates new genes and is able to pass them on. Ditto for the rest of the body. So, there is something--a small something--to the Lamarckian view of evolution (he's the giraffe neck guy). 

    As an aside, you will encounter zealots when you mention Lamarck, but read more and you will see that "Lamarckian evolution has been 100% debunked" falls into the same category as "The science is settled."

    Species obviously evolve.

    So it is not either individuals evolve or groups do.

    It is both.

    We can even do this as a syllogism.

    Individuals evolve.
    Species evolve.
    Therefore individuals and species evolve.

    :) 

    Michael

  18. It looks like the Evergrande Titanic finally hit the iceberg.

    Property Stocks Sink After Demolition Order: Evergrande Update

    So many people are going to this link, the Bloomberg site is doing robot checks and presenting all kinds of hoops. It's even doing this on embedding the link here on OL. If you have any difficulties, here is the link on Archive. You will have no trouble reading it there.

    Quote

    Chinese developer shares dropped following local media reports that China Evergrande Group has been ordered to tear down apartment blocks in a development in Hainan province. Evergrande halted trading in its shares.

    An index of Chinese developer shares slumped as much as 2.8% in Hong Kong before closing 1.7% lower. A local government in Hainan told Evergrande to demolish 39 buildings in 10 days because the building permit was illegally obtained, Cailian reported on Saturday. Evergrande gave no details on the trading suspension other than saying it would make an announcement containing inside information. 

    I recall reading earlier that a lot of US hedge fund money is tied up in Evergrande. If that's true, this thing is wiping out American pensions.

    That's what a shipwreck looks like.

    Michael

     

  19. 3 hours ago, anthony said:

    Moot, since we can do no more than evolve personally and can only presuppose that future.

    Tony,

    Absolutely right.

    I recently read an idea somewhere that I like a lot. I don't remember where, but the person was referring to fake news. I find this idea applies to all thinking in general.

    Predictions are not facts.

    Predictions are important for setting goals, but they are not facts.

    Predictions are about the future. Facts are about the present. Even the past can get dubious fact-wise. 

    Michael