Michael Stuart Kelly

The Story Wars of Hot Political Issues

Recommended Posts

Ah gee. After several cups of coffee in me and thinking about Star Trek, do I hafta stay on subject? Watch now, as I effortlessly meld two discombobulations.

Michael wrote about the Sandra Fluke incident: Rush was resilient enough to beat back that attack, but he did catch a painful metaphorical bullet or two at the time--all because he fell for this process. He took the story bait. end quote

I remember that. There was talk that Rush would soon be off the air, except in Yorba Linda, California. (Warning. Inner hull failure imminent on decks twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-five. Decompression eminent . . . grab hold of any object bolted down. A photon torpedo will detonate in 10 seconds, destroying the Borg ship captained by The Borg Queen Sanda Fluke. 9, 8, 7 . . . . To many fans, Majel Roddenberry will always be the voice of the Star Trek computer.) I do keep worrying Rush will retire. How old is he? I will look it up. Peter

Maybe Rush can get this job next time he errs big time. Posted on: June 5, 2019. City Seeking Applicant to Fill Vacancy on the Traffic Commission. The City Council of the City of Yorba Linda is seeking applications from Yorba Linda residents to fill ONE vacancy on the Traffic Commission. The Commission, appointed by the City Council, is comprised of five members who serve alternating four-year terms. The term for this appointment will terminate on December 31, 2020. The Traffic Commission meets on the fourth Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m.

edit. Rush is 5'11" and 68 years old.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked her up and now I have spent too much time on the likes of her. Fluke is a bit heavier now. She may not be well liked. And she may NOT be a lesbian as some have speculated. From Wikipedia: In April 2012, Fluke became engaged to Adam Mutterperl. According to Fluke's state senate campaign website, "Sandra and her husband, Adam, live in West Hollywood with their dog, Mr. President."

A guy named Mutterperl? A dog named “Mr. President?” As in a Marylyn Monroe’s sexy tribute to President Kennedy’s private parts? Or is that a latter day dig at President Obama in 2012, not El Presidente Trump in 2016?  

From below. “Allowing Citibank or Nike or Sprint to deny birth control coverage to employees is not a valid religious liberty concern.”

Her reasoning is that not giving free birth control is denying access to birth control? Two pictures from when she was promoting free contraception as a right showed her with her lips sexily pursed up, (called a moue by the French?) which pictorially, hee hee, hinted at another way of keeping a man’s bleep out of her bleep. You’re welcome Rush. I know you couldn’t say that on the air. Peter      

From “The Daily Caller” and The Net . . . . Later that year, after being the subject of radio host Rush Limbaugh’s criticism, she spoke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. She also tried to raise her own profile by rallying support for Obama’s reelection campaign. In October 2012, for example, Fluke delivered a speech to 10 somewhat rapt Nevada residents in the mostly empty parking lot of a Sak ‘N Save grocery store in north Reno.

Fluke would later auction one hour of her time for an online “strategy session.” The auctioneer, a charitable website BiddingForGood, closed the auction two days early after deeming some responses to the auction as unacceptably “harassing.”

In 2014, Fluke became a wannabe politician and was pummeled in a California state Senate race, losing by a 61 percent to 31 percent margin to fellow Democrat Ben Allen, an adjunct law professor at the UCLA School of Law.

Fluke earned her B.S. in Policy Analysis and Management as well as Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies from Cornell University in 2003. She also received her J.D. with a Certificate in Refugee and Humanitarian Emergencies from Georgetown University Law Center. While at Georgetown, Fluke was the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and Vice President of the Women's Legal Alliance.

Sandra Fluke Pens Scathing Open Letter to Trump About Birth Control: You’re ‘Radicalizing Religious Liberty’ by Kylie Cheung | 2:39 pm, June 22nd, 2017

. . . . Now, in the face of challenges from the Trump administration (which run parallel to Congressional efforts to overhaul the Affordable Care Act and defund Planned Parenthood) in the name of purportedly protecting religious liberty, Fluke returns to the public eye with a scathing open letter to Trump about birth control coverage, in which Fluke tells Trump he and his administration are “radicalizing religious liberty.”

“There are legitimate religious liberty claims under our Constitution. People practicing a variety of religions in America have real reasons to be concerned about their constitutional rights and whether this administration will protect them (see: the Muslim travel ban),” Fluke writes in the letter. “Allowing Citibank or Nike or Sprint to deny birth control coverage to employees is not a valid religious liberty concern. Treating that claim as legitimate and worthy of protection cheapens our nation’s commitment to true religious liberty.”

Flukey Quotes. There are many types of preventive health care services that are covered, things like blood pressure medication, for example. And women are merely asking that their health be taken just as seriously.

In the last two years, the amount of legislation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures has been really unprecedented, that has focused on reproductive rights.

I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives - not for ideology.

We've also seen another future we could choose. First of all, we'd have the right to choose. It's an America in which no one can charge us more than men for the exact same health insurance; in which no one can deny us affordable access to the cancer screenings that could save our lives; in which we decide when to start our families.

I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

It's unfortunate that there's such a disconnect between what's happening on our legislatures and what the public knows about, the consequences what that means for ourselves, our mothers and our wives.

Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment.

I have received so many messages of support from across the country - women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Peter said:

I looked her up and now I have spent too much time on the likes of her.


That's another aspect of this process I talked about.

The people who present these triggering narratives do not have to be famous, nor do they have to have a future as famous.

The fame is in who responds. That is the payoff for the frothing-mouthed discredit, the cultural voice gets discredited, not those who do the poking. These last are ultimately expendable.

When you spend time among the pokers, you generally don't find much--unless you are digging for their handlers and mentors. Then things get a little more interesting. Their handlers and mentors are the storytellers in the story wars. The pokers are merely the actors and, by their very nature of not being famous, not A-team actors. Most will never be A-team after their 15 minutes of fame. The role of human prop doesn't call for it.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote, “When you spend time among the pokers, you generally don't find much--unless you are digging for their handlers and mentors.

Rush Limbaugh sometimes drifts back and forth between several positions 1) They all think alike on the left, and come to the same conclusions but there is no central location that tells them what to do and say that day. 2) The Deep State has a central location that all of them call at 8 in the morning that tells them what to do or say that day. He or she is their handler. and 3) They just listen to some revered yahoo on the telly or the radio that morning and parrot what they heard because it was exactly what they were thinking. That is why they repeat the same phrases over and over again. 

Michael wrote: “The fame is in who responds.”

Ah, I had a powerful vision. The fame in in who responds and who they imagine is listening to their words. When I write what I think is intelligent or funny I think of the regulars on Fox’s show “The Five,” like Greg Gutteld, Dana Perino, Jesse Watters, and the lost to love, Kimberly Guilfoyle, etc. taking heed of my words. And of course, the special microphone crew in Roswell, New Mexico, is recording everything I think. “Did they hear that zinger?” I say to myself, chuckling. Unfortunately I have never been quoted, on The Five but I will take credit where it is due. And President Trump says what I say, only he says it before I do. Maybe he is reading my thoughts, and I am really an alien  . . . . I will tell my therapist at Sunnybrook tomorrow. But, maybe not. The last time I told him what was really going on he put me in a straight jacket.

But who does the left listen to? Who is their guru? How does the left work if they are not individual thinkers? Peter

Joseph Goebbels was Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda. As any war historian knows, propaganda was hugely instrumental in pushing the Nazi agenda. A skilled public speaker, writer, and philosopher, Goebbels quickly rose through the ranks to take over the news media, arts, and all German government information.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

But who does the left listen to? Who is their guru? How does the left work if they are not individual thinkers?


You have to catch them to find out. Here is one group that got caught not too long ago:


The mistake the public makes is imagining that, once busted, these people drop the idea of belonging to a secret group to covertly influence the public. They don't drop it. Why would they in a free country?

They just create a new group, make membership harder and hide it better.

So Rush is right in all three of his suppositions.

In my mind, they might also entrap members with sexual misbehavior, embezzlement, etc., then threaten them with exposure if they don't toe the party line.

Never forget what famous NYT journalist, Glenn Thrush, said in an email to John Podesta during the last presidential campaign (see here😞


No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything.

Thrush apparently didn't learn one of his basic freshman lessons when he was at Bad Guy University: never leave a written trail.

Notice that after he got busted, not too long after he was denounced in public for sexual misconduct.

He was used as a lesson to the others out there.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The New York Times is their guru.


or that rag in DC

I used to get the Sunday issues mainly for he puzzles they raised. One liter of alcohol added to one liter of water does not equal two liters of combined substance. Know why? It has nothing to do with drinking the stuff as you pour. Got things to do so this is Rushed.

I put some stock in pollsters if they say someone or some issue will win by 30 percent but otherwise no way. And those polls that focus on California and New York? No algorithm can predict what will (or must) happen when humans are involved. Well, except in Cali-York (commie,) or Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho (patriots!), with at least a 20-point Republican advantage. Maybe Texas too? Some pollsters admitted that they thought some of their poll responders deliberately lied on the phone about who they were going to vote for, just to be ornery.


That was a very funny video Michael posted that showed one leftist political commentator after another saying Trump has zero chance of winning in 2016. “Wishing and hoping and dreaming and planning” won’t get you to be smart. Rush just said that as soon as Trump wins in 2020 the dems will raise hell and say he cheated. And he just had a caller who said, of course a sitting President who is chief executive office and law keeper Should listen if someone has dirt on a political opponent and then call the FBI. That the number one law enforcement exec is the Prez, is a brilliant thought, says Rush.

From Realclearpolitics. Democratic Presidential Nomination. Biden32.8 Sanders16.8 Warren9.8 Buttigieg6.8 Harris6.8 O'Rourke3.8 Booker2.5 Klobuchar1.0 Yang0.8 Castro0.8 Bennet0.8 Inslee0.7 Ryan0.7 Hickenlooper0.5 Gillibrand0.5 de Blasio0.3 Gabbard0.3 Delaney0.3 Bullock0.2 Williamson0.2 Biden +16.0

Republican Presidential Nomination. No candidates have announced except for our beloved President. If any others do they will be drawn and quartered. Rasmussen has Trump’s approval ratings at 51 to 47 percent. No other poll besides Rasmussen’s is anywhere near believable. Peter

From: Keyser Soze To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Determinism/adaptation Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:33:15 -0800 (PST) Gayle, Gayle's friend, and anyone else who is interested, My nit-pickerishness comes from hearing too many scientists confuse many of the issues involved in such discussions. In general usage, "chaos" means utter confusion or disorder. But it also refers to complex mathematical theories and systems which are used to predict or explain seemingly unpredictable - chaotic - events. Chaos is this sense would have the opposite meaning of its use in the first sense (shouldn't it be called Anti-Chaos Theory?). Unfortunately, I have heard many people speak as if the two meanings are interchangeable.

In this regard there is a further tendency to view the limits of our ability to measure accurately as evidence of randomness in existence. Philosophically imprecise theoreticians seem to confuse attempted explanations of reality with reality itself. The terms "chance," "random," "uncertainty," "disorder," and "unpredictable" are often implied to be metaphysical attributes of the entities being described rather than evaluations of our current epistemological (or scientific) limitations. Objects do not "possess unpredictability." The inability to predict strictly refers to our state of observation and knowledge.

Disorder means that something didn't behave in the way we expected it to, in which case there are two possible conclusions: the behavior contradicts reality, or we had imprecise expectations. I think a good example of bad philosophy is the oft cited wave/particle "duality" of light. There's nothing wrong with identifying both aspects of a photon's behavior, but to come to the conclusion that a photon exists in contradictory states is bad science based on bad philosophy. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, which may or may not be valid, is at least an original, rational approach to the problem. Rather than believing that a photon's behavior reveals metaphysical uncertainty (by traveling two different courses at the same time), Little's science starts from the assumption that the contradiction reveals an error in our understanding.

One liter of alcohol added to one liter of water does not equal two liters of combined substance. A bad philosophy of science would lead to the conclusion that one plus one does not equal two. A rational view would be that we did not first determine a molecular standard of value for the experiment, and that if we were to do so, the correct conclusion would be an understanding of how displacement was involved in the experiment.  So I'm more apt to agree with Gayle's friend's statement that, "The past contains the whole future, but hides the exact content of the future from any process smaller than the entire universe," but I have yet to be convinced that, "The past contains an inherent disorder in what the future will be, some random dispersions of events -- the fact this is all contained in the past doesn't change its consequences.   There is a mixture of order and chaos to things." Determinism is Fatalism. The Soze

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Election Central says there may be 12, count’um, 12 Democratic debates. I did not make up any of the following names including True Jersey. I am not saying some of the candy dates don’t inhabit an alternate universe. Some of them may even live inside their heads. The first two Democratic presidential debates will be on Wednesday, June 26, and Thursday, June 27, from 9-11 PM ET. Watch them on NBC, MSNBC, or Telemundo, if you can’t speak English but are still allowed to vote. Peter

From “NJ, True Jersey.” The lineup for the first two-hour session on June 26 features Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Julián Castro, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan and Jay Inslee.

The lineup for the next night features Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bennet, Marianne Williamson, Eric Swalwell, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Yang and John Hickenlooper. The Democratic National Committee says it divided the candidates at random but ensured that contenders considered front-runners would not be stacked on one night to avoid the impression that one night was more important than the other.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 10:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tim Pool discusses the Straight Pride parade [...]

Flowers and ribbons ...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one hell of a story war technique.

Override a defense mechanism in the human brain that shuts off predictions and scare the shit out of people with their own personal death. Then offer your agenda as a savior to stave off the end for a time.

This technique is as old as the hills, like stories of the apocalypse, but the left and ruling class has come up with a way to literally rob the young of their future by short-circuiting the brain's defense against depression from contemplating their own deaths. Many young people don't believe they are going to live past 30 because of manmade climate change (and other things, but climate change is the main story culprit).

And the unintended consequences?

There is a huge increase in young people suicides.

How's them apples?

Congratulations, assholes. 

Here's the transcript.

The Left Has Reprogrammed the Human Brain to Focus on Death

Read it. This is really evil.

Rush based his comments on this story:

Doubting death: how our brains shield us from mortal truth
Brain seems to categorise death as something that only befalls other people

And that is based on a study that is coming out in a few weeks. I will try to remember to post it.

In sum, if you can indoctrinate school kids with fear of their own impending doom--with no plausible escape--in order to mold them into proper little voting machines after they grow up, you also rob them of their entire meaning in life. If there is no future worth living, many of them will check out through suicide.

And that is exactly what they are doing.

I don't think the elitist ruling class gives a damn. They already send the young to fight pointless wars just so they can make money and keep power. If some legs get blown off or the caskets pile up, well, too bad. They just want power over whoever is left.



EDIT: A tangent from Rush today: Environmentalist Wackos Drop the Polar Bears

The polar bears were storytelling gold for manmade climate change. People even made commercials about polar bears showing up and hugging people who held back carbon emissions. But those suckers just won't die. What's worse, they are thriving and increasing. :) Now it's at a point where the victimhood story has collapsed. It's just too damn obvious to everybody that the polar bears live. They live! So the poor things are being fired as poster animal for the environmentalist movement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'hot political issue' is "Muh Russia."  The hero is Maria Butina ...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The 'hot political issue' is "Muh Russia."  The hero is Maria Butina ...


Just so you understand, this thread is not intended to be about specific stories unless they illustrate a story war technique.

So, big deal that Maria Butina received a hero welcome according to this imminent expert intellectual master of the universe fake news reporter. How does this event, or the reporting of it, "control the narrative"? What is the storytelling technique the reporter used?

That's the focus of this thread.

Is it a David and Goliath story? Is it a victimization story with a target for shame? Is it a story that raises moral questions to the higher ground, thus diminishing the other side? Is it a story with a mentor to stand in for the agenda? And so on.

The main discussion is not about a gotcha thing regarding a specific news story with a "nyah nyah nyah" emotional payoff. (That's a fundamental part of the main template used with the gotcha tactic.)

It's a discussion of diverse templates for persuasive stories in general.

You've made this mistake several times in this thread, which leads me to believe you don't understand story and persuasion templates, and how and when to use them.

I mean, post what you want, but the "virtuous/smart/cultured/scientific/etc. us against the evil/stupid/uncultured/primitive-thinking/etc. them" is the only story template I've seen you do so far. Still, you don't discuss how to pull this off to persuade. Instead, you tend to look down on "us against them" and only mention this when talking about others.

Here's another way to look at it. The most competent deployments of the most effective storytelling templates will win the culture wars. So which ones should be used and for which political and philosophical agendas? Which types of propaganda work the best when in story form?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the Victimization Story Right

I'm going to come back to the article below and tease out the nuances later. 

No time right now, but I have to get this on record.

Nicholas Kristof's Advice for Saving the World

The most important point re the victimization story (which is a linchpin of story wars propaganda) is there can only be one victim as the main focus, preferably a girl, for maximum emotional impact.

Also, for Objectivism-oriented folks, the following quote is fascinating (my bold).


Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon who has pioneered this field of research, notes that saving a large proportion of a group is very satisfying, while saving a small proportion seems like a failure—even if it's a high number. All this fits in with a large body of research that suggests that people do good things in part because it feels good. The irony: Altruism creates its own selfish reward. Or, to put it another way, nobody gains more selfish pleasure than those who act selflessly.

I got this article from a YouTube video by Randy Olson on his ABT story template (see here). If you want to know about the ABT structure (And, But, Therefore), you can read about it on Olson's blog, Science Needs Story.

ABT is a hell of a great system for un-boring coma-inducing text.

More later.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, for Objectivism-oriented folks, the following quote is fascinating (my bold).

"All this fits in with a large body of research that suggests that people do good things in part because it feels good. The irony: Altruism creates its own selfish reward. Or, to put it another way, nobody gains more selfish pleasure than those who act selflessly."



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the real subtle story wars techniques involves undermining a culture by satirizing a sacred story in order to replace it with a different culture that is more friendly towards new authoritarians.

A recent example is perfect. Last month Netflix presented a comedy special where Jesus turns out to be gay and Mary smokes weed. It is called The First Temptation of Christ. The comedy group, Porta dos Fundos, is Brazilian and Brazil is where the biggest dustup happened.

A judge in Rio de Janeiro banned the comedy special from being shown in Brazil on Netflix and the Brazilian Supreme Court stepped in yesterday and reversed the ban.

I agree with the legality of upholding free speech, but I, for one, don't intend on seeing this show unless this story wars element gets much stronger and I have to in order to argue points. But at this distance, on a small scale, gay Jesus going mainstream is another win for those trying to take down family-oriented Christian culture and replace it with the state. 

Do you want to know how I can tell this is a story war propaganda effort and not merely an expression of free speech through satire?

It's easy. 

The satire is politically selective. 

First, just look at the size of the kerfuffle and gloating this has caused in the leftie part of the mainstream media.

Then ask, where is the gay Mohammad comedy special on Netflix?

Or how about Porta dos Fundos coming out with a trans Mohammad talking over his woes with the Archangel Gabriel as he drops acid, or maybe a skit about an orgy in Mecca, say, in front of the Zamzam Well?

When that happens, I will start treating it as mere satire. Until then, be aware that a satirical video bashing Muhammad, even one on YouTube by a little known video creator, will be used as a story war propaganda weapon by the left to justify killing US Ambassadors and so forth. 

Even when Ayn Rand argued against Christianity, she did not mock the sense of the sacred in Christians. She argued against specific ideas promoted by the religion like altruism. But that's a different discussion.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel hypocritical when I wish someone a Merry Christmas. It just seems fitting in a cultural sense even if I am not a Christian. Oh, and happy Festivus. Remember, there is the same amount of evidence to prove the existence of all the "old gods" too, so don't mock the old Greek, Roman (or Navaho for that matter) gods either, by Jove.      

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.