Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Peter]

Were the Sea People mermaids? Sounds like a Walt Disney myth to me. I will bet they live in Orlando and pretend to be expatriate Cubans, but when they dive into the water, gills and fins appear. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bilderberg Blues

After all the abuse Alex Jones suffered over his investigations into the Bilderberg meetings over years, he's entitled to crow a little.

Many people today either never saw it or don't remember it. But I remember back when he started. There was a press campaign to deny the Bilderberg group even existed. That's hard to believe right now, but that's the way it was. And people were in full peer-pressure attack mode when this topic came up.

For example, when people wanted to shut down a discussion back then about covert war mongering, the CIA's mind control programs, etc., all they would do is look at you mockingly, twirl their finger around their temple, sing the opening motive of The Twilight Zone, and taunt with, "Woo woo woo, Bilderberg, tin foil hats, (yada yada yada)."

I wish Alex would not interrupt others the way he does, but at least he's earned it the hard way.

According to them, President Trump kicked the Bilderberg members in the teeth real real hard by withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement (getting rid of Trump apparently was high on their topics of discussion) and right now they are in damage control.

Those who go to Bilderberg meetings are extremely powerful people, so they are not going to simply take their toys and go home.

But it is good to see them smarting after so many decades of creating messes in the world on purpose--all those friggin' dead bodies--so they could get more and more power.

Michael

[Peter]

Astounding Science Fiction by Paul Greenberg Posted in Townhall: Jun 06, 2017 12:00 AM: In 1944, as the Second World War was about to enter its last year though no one could be sure of that or how it would turn out, a squad of zealous FBI agents stormed into the offices of a pulp magazine called Astounding Science Fiction, which had just published a piece of supposed fantasy by Cleve Cartmill about a super weapon -- an atomic bomb.

And the government of the United States wanted to find out who had leaked this state secret. The answer: Nobody had. Science, after all, wasn't classified as Top Secret, and the writer had simply put two and two together. And physics bats last in this great contest to see which world powers would conquer and which would be conquered.

But the question to be decided wasn't just scientific but geopolitical, economic and in the end decisive. There was more than one route to The Bomb, as we know now, when we can enjoy the privilege of looking back on the history of that terrible war. Would this country opt for a uranium bomb or a plutonium bomb? Characteristically, the United States went all-out and chose both routes to victory. One strategy was followed at Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the other at Los Alamos, N.M. -- and both were successful, though not immediately. What the scientists in both places had to work out laboriously, the writers and editors at little Astounding Science Fiction had intuited years before. Since at least the time of Jules Verne, the literary imagination has anticipated the scientific one.

The big problem and puzzle was how to separate an isotope known as U-235 from the larger commodity known as U-238. Of the four different solutions to this problem, the team at Oak Ridge chose to mix three of them. The one they decided to skip, using centrifuges to separate these pieces of the atomic puzzle, was eliminated because the scientists at Oak Ridge couldn't get the less sophisticated centrifuges back then to spin fast enough. And money is always a problem, even in wartime, and the government drew the line at budgeting enough to make the centrifuges spin faster.

According to the story, there were some skeptics back then who preferred to raise money on their own to finance better and faster centrifuges -- like Karl Cohen, who got enough support from scientific eminences like Albert Einstein to persuade the government to concentrate on the centrifuge problem. The result was that The Bomb came earlier than expected, with our German scientists beating the enemy's in this race to a terrible victory and a world haunted by the vision of mushroom clouds ever since.

The more knowledgeable scientists on the other side, like Wernher von Braun, the genius behind the Nazis' V2 rocket before he was recruited by American intelligence with the collapse of the Third Reich, wasn't touchy about where he could get ideas, even from a cheap sci-fi mag, so long as the ideas worked. Nor was an atomic bomb the only history-changing weapon Astounding Science Fiction previewed in its time. Though there's no need to go into details, another one had been anticipated by that master of this fictional craft, Robert Heinlein, as early as 1941.

No wonder Wernher von Braun took pains to see that he got his copy of Astounding Science Fiction as soon as it appeared, even if he had to get his copy via the German embassy in neutral Sweden. To quote Tom Shippey's uniformly delightful and informative column about science fiction in the Wall Street Journal the other day: "Physics and politics, engineering and imagination, (this story) has them all. Nobody has ever been better than (Gregory Benford, who's just written a book on the subject) at expressing the excitement of new science, yes, on which the future of the world depends. Let's not think that there aren't other decisions being made now, or not being made now, on which our future depends. The answers depend on the science, yes, but also on the salesmanship. You have to sell the moon and Mars and the stars to the politicians and the public. And if you don't get it right ... there will be consequences. That's why sci-fi is not just for fans."

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Astounding Science Fiction by Paul Greenberg Posted in Townhall: Jun 06, 2017 12:00 AM: In 1944, as the Second World War was about to enter its last year though no one could be sure of that or how it would turn out, a squad of zealous FBI agents stormed into the offices of a pulp magazine called Astounding Science Fiction, which had just published a piece of supposed fantasy by Cleve Cartmill about a super weapon -- an atomic bomb.

And the government of the United States wanted to find out who had leaked this state secret. The answer: Nobody had. Science, after all, wasn't classified as Top Secret, and the writer had simply put two and two together. And physics bats last in this great contest to see which world powers would conquer and which would be conquered.

But the question to be decided wasn't just scientific but geopolitical, economic and in the end decisive. There was more than one route to The Bomb, as we know now, when we can enjoy the privilege of looking back on the history of that terrible war. Would this country opt for a uranium bomb or a plutonium bomb? Characteristically, the United States went all-out and chose both routes to victory. One strategy was followed at Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the other at Los Alamos, N.M. -- and both were successful, though not immediately. What the scientists in both places had to work out laboriously, the writers and editors at little Astounding Science Fiction had intuited years before. Since at least the time of Jules Verne, the literary imagination has anticipated the scientific one.

The big problem and puzzle was how to separate an isotope known as U-235 from the larger commodity known as U-238. Of the four different solutions to this problem, the team at Oak Ridge chose to mix three of them. The one they decided to skip, using centrifuges to separate these pieces of the atomic puzzle, was eliminated because the scientists at Oak Ridge couldn't get the less sophisticated centrifuges back then to spin fast enough. And money is always a problem, even in wartime, and the government drew the line at budgeting enough to make the centrifuges spin faster.

According to the story, there were some skeptics back then who preferred to raise money on their own to finance better and faster centrifuges -- like Karl Cohen, who got enough support from scientific eminences like Albert Einstein to persuade the government to concentrate on the centrifuge problem. The result was that The Bomb came earlier than expected, with our German scientists beating the enemy's in this race to a terrible victory and a world haunted by the vision of mushroom clouds ever since.

The more knowledgeable scientists on the other side, like Wernher von Braun, the genius behind the Nazis' V2 rocket before he was recruited by American intelligence with the collapse of the Third Reich, wasn't touchy about where he could get ideas, even from a cheap sci-fi mag, so long as the ideas worked. Nor was an atomic bomb the only history-changing weapon Astounding Science Fiction previewed in its time. Though there's no need to go into details, another one had been anticipated by that master of this fictional craft, Robert Heinlein, as early as 1941.

No wonder Wernher von Braun took pains to see that he got his copy of Astounding Science Fiction as soon as it appeared, even if he had to get his copy via the German embassy in neutral Sweden. To quote Tom Shippey's uniformly delightful and informative column about science fiction in the Wall Street Journal the other day: "Physics and politics, engineering and imagination, (this story) has them all. Nobody has ever been better than (Gregory Benford, who's just written a book on the subject) at expressing the excitement of new science, yes, on which the future of the world depends. Let's not think that there aren't other decisions being made now, or not being made now, on which our future depends. The answers depend on the science, yes, but also on the salesmanship. You have to sell the moon and Mars and the stars to the politicians and the public. And if you don't get it right ... there will be consequences. That's why sci-fi is not just for fans."

We got the bomb first because our Jewish physicists were better than Hitler's Jewish physicists. 

Your essay was excellent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a preview and some comments by Alex on his upcoming segment in Megyn Kelly's show on Sunday.

He really got on a magnificent Southern preacher rant at the beginning. It's near the beginning and you just have to see it to know.

Interestingly enough, Alex said he does his crusades because he is selfish. Does that sound familiar? Hmmmmm... ?  

(Right after he said that, he said he believes in God, but who cares? His meaning of selfish in this context was the just about same as Rand's for the same kind of context.)

Man does he bash Megyn, though. He considers her as a mouthpiece for the evil globalist powers that be.

After going on and on about the atrocities of war, pedophilia, dead children (500,000), etc. etc. etc. perpetrated by the globalists (or establishment), Alex said (starting at 12:58 and pretending he's talking to the globalists, yelling, actually):

Quote

No, you did all of that!

You did more than that! 

And you look at me who's never killed anybody. You come after me... [switching to the public] and the entire interview was unbelievable.

It went on and on and on and on and on and on asking the same questions on Pizzagate, Sandy Hook, Chobani Yogurt, the bombing in Manchester... and when they didn't get the answer they wanted, they would just throw it out again and again. And then she would just sit there out of the blue and say a gotcha question... that wasn't even (I knew) a response to anything I said. They just had notes she was going off of of how they were going to edit this together. And she would ask it over and over again.

And some would say, why did you do the interview then? (Well, I turn most of them down.) Because I knew in my gut this was going to blow up in their face. And I knew in my gut I wanted to see evil, I wanted to see sociopathic behavior, I wanted to see The Fembot, I wanted to witness it for myself and watch the producer fawn (a sweet little Southern belle): "I promise it's not going to be mean. It's going to be a nice profile. You're famous now."

And I'd say, "No. No it's not. It's going to be a hit piece off the talking points, my little darlin'."

 

The Fembot?

Elsewhere Alex has said of Megyn she's "Not feminine. Cold. Robotic. Dead."

I'm not sure, but I believe Alex will have the right to use all of the material recorded, which is why he agreed to the interview. I believe I heard that somewhere.

So the backfire he is referring to is that, incredible as it may sound, his audience is far, far bigger than hers (it's true). If she does monkeybusiness in the edits (does anyone think she won't?), he will be all over them. And instead of her getting a message into the culture that Alex is a nut job who no one should take seriously, he will get a message into a far greater audience that she is just as much fake news as the rest--and he will have proof recorded by her crew.

Ironically, he will give her show a boost. If she plays fair on the edits, that boost will last. If not, I don't expect the results to be good for her show. With one caveat. If she goes full on against Trump, the alt right, etc., the way Rachel Maddow is doing, she will get that audience. But I predict she will not go that route because she wants her own image too much.

Right now the news lackeys are saying folks are trying to stage a boycott of Megyn's advertisers for doing this show with Alex Jones and giving him legitimacy. This is so obviously a PR stunt, it's painful to watch. Does anyone really believe this is not at the behest of Megyn's producers (and who knows who else at NBC)? 

If anyone truly believes they will boycott Megyn's advertisers for real--at NBC, I know a cult with a creed worth dying for you might be interested in joining. You passed prequalification.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is simply beautiful.

To some, it's a conspiracy theory.

But to me, it's the beauty underlying the people who propelled President Trump to power.

Michael

[Peter]

Where will America be in 2018?

Michael wrote responding to William: I can't stand the fake news media, which commits suicide thereby and empowers the alt media (which I like). And, if this continues, it will be a loooooong time before the Democrats see power control again. end quote

I am hopeful. On MSN online today they were continuing the Russia fake news story, and then they started analyzing President Trump’s tweets and detected a decline in his mental health and hinted at encroaching senility. These stories have convinced me Bill Gates is a committed leftist who is happy to turn his “news wing” into an instrument of propaganda.   

Peter

You Can't Buy an Election. Democrats Fall for Their Own Hype on Money in Politics by Robert Tracinski, June 21, 2017: Of course Jon Ossoff didn't win yesterday's special election in Georgia's 6th district. Heck, it wasn't even all that close. Karen Handel beat him 52% to 48%, a few points better than Donald Trump did in the same district. This was predictable. Ossoff was born in the sixth district, but he had lived an awful lot of his life outside it and couldn't even vote for himself because he lives in Georgia's more urban fourth district. And he was definitely out of line with the district politically and culturally. GA-6 includes the prosperous and staunchly conservative northern suburbs of Atlanta, while he was campaigning by appealing to the self-styled "resistance" on the left.

All Ossoff had going for him was a bunch of exaggerated national press from reporters outside the district, a bunch of endorsements from Hollywood types outside the district, a bunch of eager volunteers flooding into GA-6 from outside the district, and above all else, a giant pile of money raised from people outside the district--Ossoff donors from California outnumbered donors from Georgia by almost ten to one. Notice a pattern here? You can have a lot of support outside the district, but the votes are cast by people inside the district. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. The winner in each congressional district is supposed to be the one who most accurately reflects the political preferences of the people who live there.

So why did anyone think it was going to turn out differently? Well, the Democrats hoped the "resistance" to Donald Trump would "nationalize" the GA-6 contest and give Democrats across the country the leverage to overwhelm the normal leanings of the district. In thinking they could do this, the Democrats were believing their own hype about the power of money in politics . . . .

Heck, the 2016 election is a giant monument to the failure of money in politics. If Charles and David Koch really used their money to control politics, the famously libertarian brothers would have pulled the strings in the primaries for somebody other than Donald Trump. And in the general election, Hillary Clinton outspent Trump by almost two to one. But the left has so talked itself into believing in the power of big money in politics that they keep trying to make it happen by dumping a ton of money into doomed races like the one in GA-6. end quote 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some more conspiracy stuff from David Seaman.

In short, here are the items according to Seaman.

Bernie Sanders's wife is under an FBI investigation. (Not conspiracy. Fact.)

George Soros might be next. (Conspiracy.)

India might adopt Bitcoin according to a Bitcoin foundation. (Rumor, but he hopes it happens.)

Comey may have some covert involvement in human trafficking. If that turns out to be true, the American people will eat him alive. (Conspiracy.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have moved this forum into a new section I just set up called "Persuasion Techniques."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 6/24/2017 at 7:55 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's some more conspiracy stuff from David Seaman.

It's been some time since I have posted something by David Seaman or Pedogate.

The arrests of high-level government people are starting to happen.

This time it's the Deputy Attorney General of California, Raymond Liddy.

Here's a Reuters article giving a little more information than David since this video is little more than saying, "I told you so."

California deputy attorney general charged with child porn

The blanket critics of conspiracy theories take another hit.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/27/2017 at 0:49 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's been some time since I have posted something by David Seaman or Pedogate.

And, there must be a reason David can do videos like the following and not be shut down.

Both the Brock and Podesta left are full of Internet bots, they play dirty enough to get Bill O'Reilly taken off Fox, they have mountains of cash to play with, so taking a guy like this off YouTube should be a breeze.

But he's still around.

Not even a lawsuit...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some interesting information about Alex Jones and Infowars.

Alex used to run third-party ads on his site. During that ad purge that David Brock & Co. did to knock Bill O'Reilly off of Fox, they went hard after all companies who had ads on Infowars. (They essentially threatened the companies with swarms of bad press and social media.)

The last big one for Infowars was AdRoll (connected with Google ads).

They have knocked Infowars stories off of organic search results at Google, Facebook and Twitter, too.

What did Alex do? Did he plead for donations? No. Did he sue the ad companies? No. Granted, he bitched some. But in practical terms, he simply set up a venture to sell nutraceuticals and other niche products to his public (which is huge). And he's quite successful at it, so much so that his press and opinion venture is expanding.

This has irritated the left to no end. They can't shut him down through their normal sleaze and fake news. Nothing seems to work. They can't manipulate the public like they normally do. So now they are trying to do it openly.

See, for example, John Oliver pretending that Alex set up Infowars for the sole purpose of fleecing his public through infomercials.

In Oliver's world, selling your own products to your own public--unless blessed by the masters he serves--is a sin. 

(Full disclosure, I only watched about 6 minutes of the video below. It's a hit piece pure and simple and not all that funny.)

But there is a funny part. From Breitbart a few days ago:

LOL: Late-Night Comedy Writers Frustrated They Aren’t Persuading Voters to Hate Trump

They won't, either. And their current assault on Alex Jones will fare no better.

In fact, the press sent out one of their best to smear Infowars.

Here's what happened. Alex grew. As to the journalist:

Disaster: Megyn’s Sunday Show’s ‘Initial Run’ Pulled After Just Eight Episodes

Life for them was so much easier when they ruling class they toady up to was ruling...

Freedom for them is supposed to be for them, not for people like Alex Jones. Hell, not even for you and me.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seymour Hersh weighs in on Muh Russians, Seth Rich, Wikileaks, Brennan, etc.

I don't know when or where this audio is from (it sounds like it might be from a few months ago), but I am almost 100% sure he did not want it played on Infowars.

According to him, Rich was the leaker to WikiLeaks of the DNC emails, he was killed in a robbery by local thugs gone bad, and the top intelligence folks were misleading President Trump and making up stuff (especially because they hate the idea of living off their pensions only).

Direct quote from Hersh at the end:

Quote

Trump's not wrong to think they fucking lied about him.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This will probably get some news coverage, but you never know in today's fake news environment.

If corroborated (and I suspect it will be), this will not be the first time the Democrats will be undone by Microsoft Word (are you listening, Dan Rather?  ).

In the case below, it appears that Guccifer 2.0 (the so-called "Romanian hacker" who released the DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the election last year) was actually a couple of Democrat techies since they are listed as authors in the metadata of the Word documents.

Oops...

 

And Seth Rich is rolling in his grave...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the young dude I kinda like, David Seaman, once again. I resonate with him and root for him because he appears to be so damn vulnerable, yet refuses to give up.  

He is being driven into Infowars by Google's new policies. Ditto for Mike Cernovich, who was there already.

Social media moguls think they can engineer behavior and make their users not like what they do simply by being a gatekeeper to exposure. So just like what happened with elitists during the Trump election, , I predict they will get a rude awakening one day. This user manipulation is a great opportunity for new platforms.

Oh yeah, and the video's topic. The Dumbo thing leaked by WikiLeaks that David covered sounds creepy as all hell. Basically, the CIA developed tools to mess with security video cams and respective audio of individuals and businesses in entire neighborhoods. They can deactivate the devices, feed altered footage into them. or even alter footage already recorded. So far, it seems like this is limited to devices run on Windows, but you can bet they are working on the rest.

This is a dream tool for framing the innocent and covering up the guilty.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's see what unfolds.

Here are the tweets David is referring to:

Gen Flynn has a list of high level pedophiles the release of which will decimate the Deep State dons #Netherlands

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) August 5, 2017

and 

McMaster must go - Statement of support put out by WH was never seen or approved by @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/lJZA4KAncL

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) August 5, 2017

I sincerely hope all hell breaks loose over this. And it just might. Roger Stone has a damn good track record on political predictions and excellent sources. Not perfect, but pretty damn good.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For people who don't understand how to grok sites like Infowars, here is an excellent interview between Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones a few days ago. 

Milo bills it: "The interview Megyn Kelly should have done."

And it is. Had she done something like this instead of a blatant hit job, I believe she would not be tanking.

This is not a typical Alex Jones or Milo thing. It is a high-level emotionally toned-down interview in the vein of Barbara Walters, Larry King and Charlie Rose (and what Megyn Kelly is unsuccessfully trying to be).

Honestly, I wish these two would do more of this stuff. Not always, because without polemics, you don't get a voice in the media these days. But more stuff like this a little more often would be nice.

Milo made a huge distinction between what he calls "process journalism" and outright lying. The person doing process journalism might be overly-hyperbolic and jump to wrong conclusions at times, but he is sincere and corrects himself as he goes along. He reports what he sees at the time he sees it, which is why it is called "process." He reports processes as they unfold rather than wait for further corroboration. Both he and his audience know his information is incomplete a lot of the time and his conclusions about the meaning of the information are not written in stone, although the underlying moral values are. This is someone like Alex.

Mainstream fake news sites lie to you on purpose, keep hammering that they are trusted and have tradition, and only correct themselves when their lie is so egregiously phony, they would lose credibility even with low information viewers. And they are amoral at root, not even immoral. To them, audience and audience manipulation inform their presentation of news as primary value, not morality or objectivity.

So the normal consumer is left with a choice. Ignore all the news. Or consume different sources from different points of view and try to frame each according to its nature.

I personally do the latter. When I go to mainstream news, I automatically assume it will be templated according to agenda-driven talking points that may or may not reflect reality, but usually not when the issue is politics. And these places have no restrictions against bald-faced lying to their viewers on purpose.

When I go to places like Infowars (on the right) and The Young Turks (on the left), among many others, I already know the agenda will be front and center, but most of them are sincere in what they are doing and have more respect for facts than the mainstream media. They also cover a lot more issues than the mainstream media does. These people are more prone to correct themselves when they perceive they are wrong--but the problem is sometimes they don't perceive it from their agenda-blindness. They all tend to be process journalists.

There are reasons for these distinctions, but essentially, it boils down to the ruling class elite owning the mainstream media outlets and using them to manipulate "the narrative" (i.e. pissing on their audience) and the process journalists being hungry and vision-driven (a characteristic of successful upstarts). Both are prone to misinformation, but both cover issues that interest me.

This is how I consume news. I wish there were an easier way, but most of the stuff in public these days is likely contaminated in one form or another. So I filter for the contamination the best I can.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Our old pal, Alex Jones, is back with some good conspiracy news.

Regarding what Alex laid out, this is not what everybody is saying President Trump wants to do in Afghanistan, but it is the most plausible thing I have seen to date.

It makes perfect sense with how the President is and how he has done things in the private sector, that is make a project look like one thing to the sharks while something really good and common sense is what is really going on. Once the sharks wake up, the deed is done.

 

Michael

 

[william.scherk]

Misposted

Edited September 3, 2017 by william.scherk
Mispost ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/29/2017 at 12:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... there must be a reason David can do videos like the following and not be shut down.

Both the Brock and Podesta left are full of Internet bots, they play dirty enough to get Bill O'Reilly taken off Fox, they have mountains of cash to play with, so taking a guy like this off YouTube should be a breeze.

But he's still around.

David Seaman is still around and still making videos about Pedogate. Alex Jones is making more videos about Pedogate. Lots of people are making more videos about Pedogate than ever these days.

(I can hear the tut-tut-tutters heads explode: Oh my God! The conspiracy theorists are turning out to be right and that's sooooooo not OK, goddamit!  )

Pedogate is going mainstream, too, thanks to Harvey Weinstein. See here:

29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The pedophilia police are coming to a theater near you.

We can thank Harvey for getting this into the mainstream.

Go get 'em, Judge!

If the establishment (Dem and Rep) wants to spend all its media capital on Muh Russians! and try to ram that down everyone's throat, imagine what is going to happen now that everybody else wants to spend THEIR media capital on pedophilia among the elites, starting with rape culture in Hollywood and progressing on from there.

(bum bum bum buuuuuuuuuh... ominous chords...)

For those who still don't know how to process conspiracy theorists, I left the following comment over at William's blog the other day (see here). He didn't agree that it was a valid approach (it's hard to let go of a prejudice once ingrained  ), but that is the way listening to conspiracy theorists works with people like me. And from the looks of things, it works that way with a shit-ton of people all over America.

Quote

Value comes from use.

People like me value folks like Seaman because they serve as guard dogs to uncover the shenanigans of elitists, governments, crony old-boys clubs, etc. And often some real danger (like massive surveillance state stuff and so on). 

People like you value like Seaman (or so it appears to me) because they serve as examples of the intellectual dreck people like me watch, which implies your mental capacities are superior to mine. And that feels awfully damn good.

Different uses lead to different valuations.

I'm open to changing guard dogs, which is why I run hot and cold on them, and I don't mind when they are wrong. I keep them around for their bark and I love it when they shake up the ruling class when it has self-serving dishonest stuff to hide. When they get too far out there, I move on to other more interesting things and look in later.

I doubt you would ever be open to abandoning the thrill calling them and their audiences doofuses, though. Unless maybe you can display some magnanimous virtue in public and show that you truly pity them, poor things...

Once again, different uses and all...

Well, the guard dogs have been barking about a real wolf this go around. Yes, Virginia, there is sexual abuse in Hollywood. And there is pedophilia. And this extends to other elitists. In other words, more news is coming...

Surprise surprise!

 

The great thing about guard dogs is they don't mind being mocked. They keep on barking. It's up to people like me who pay attention to them to look and see whether they are barking at predators or rabbits. 

Now that the pedophilia thing is going mainstream, more people will start looking because their own guard dogs are barking. Even the goddam mainstream fake news is making a ruckus.

And man, all that barking is drowning out everything else at times.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More on pedophilia among the elites.

This time from a director who has been nominated for Academy Award, Amy Berg. She is the one who helped expose pedophilia in the Catholic Church. Her movie on Hollywood pedophilia is called An Open Secret.

You can get information and links about this film on Infowars:

See The Groundbreaking Film That Exposes Hollywood Pedophilia

This documentary was made in 2014, not now. It should have become more popular, but it suffered a lot from an unspoken boycott coming down from on high. The few critics that did see it generally praised it. And they should. I just saw it and it is not hysterical or salacious. It's a very sensitive look at what pedophilia did to screw up the lives of five male child actors using the Digital Entertainment Network pedophilia scandal in the late 90's as backdrop. Incredibly, convicted pedophiles are still hired to this day by Hollywood to work on kid shows and movies--and this documentary names some names.

Because of the current Harvey Weinstein scandal, the producer (and funder) Gabe Hoffman decided to use the opportunity to take the documentary off the shelf and get exposure for it. Now some of the damage from the boycott can be undone. One of the ways Hoffman is doing this is posting it on Vimeo for free viewing until Halloween. Here's the link (which will probably no longer work after Oct. 31):

AN OPEN SECRET. Official PG-13 version

I saw the whole thing today and it is very, very good. It's not anything like you imagine a film covering pedophilia among elites would be.

In fact, because of the more intimate, low key and personal nature of the storytelling, the evil is quietly amplified in the viewer's mind. 

I recommend you see it while it lasts. You can't beat the price.  

Other information is in the Infowars link above, including interviews with Hoffman.

Pedogate gets another reality vote of confidence, despite being a conspiracy theory.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 10/15/2017 at 3:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David Seaman is still around and still making videos about Pedogate.

You know, this has created some cognitive dissonance in my mind. YouTube is very strict about restricting content these days, especially content from Trump supporters. Yet David Seaman kept posting "John Podesta is a pedophile" videos over and over and YouTube left them up.

In a few of his earlier videos, David said he had visited Google to talk about this. And I always wondered what they talked about.

Now I think I know. It's a thing called ElsaGate. (See Wikipedia's article on ElsaGate, too.) People have been complaining to YouTube for several years about pedophile-oriented videos that YouTube was monetizing, yet they have stayed in place garnering millions of view. Now that the mainstream press has started reporting on them, YouTube found a conscience. The ElsaGate videos are animations, stop motion or people in costumes, but involve popular characters (like Disney characters) doing weird things, often involving children. Apparently the income from YouTube monetizing these videos was through the roof.

I think this is what David had over Google and why they let him keep doing videos.

Now Mike Cernovich is moving in for the kill. He did a David Brock move and started contacting major corporate YouTube advertisers, many of whom have now pulled their ads from Google's platform.

Cernovich has been in touch with a member of Congress and is pushing for Congressional hearings into this matter.

So for as loopy as David may seem at times, it looks like he has had more depth than appears on the surface.

I knew there was a reason I liked him.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then again, the biggest conspiracy the left has been cooking up (pun intended  ) is that Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not really cook the chocolate pecan pie she posted on Twitter.

They are demanding proof.

Seriously...

#PieGate Trending After Sarah Sanders Tweets a Pecan Pie

Michael

[Peter]

“Back Off Boogaloo” by Ringo Starr from 1972 A.D. is playing, as I listen to a retro Mediacom TV classic songs station. I thought the song was “Back Off Bugaboo,” but after two choruses I realized I was singing “boogaloo.”

Michael wrote: Then again, the biggest conspiracy the left has been cooking up (pun intended  ) is that Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not really cook the chocolate pecan pie she posted on Twitter. They are demanding proof. Seriously... end quote

I like her. She could cook me a pie. Back to “serious” conspiracy theories. Genetic engineering is a reality. What would you do to improve our human lineage? One thought I have, is that it would be advantageous to wipe out the portion of human brains that “believes” the incredible without proof, like unjustified faith, bugaboos and ghosts. However this might interfere with accepting parental guidance or accepted societal norms, but if those dictates or norms are wrong what is wrong with your mental revisions, especially if some form of counter proof is discovered or if your reasoning guides you to a different conclusion?

An edited human race could still be born with the ability to aspire to discover the currently unknown but without the ability to believe in goblins, Zeus, or any of the gods. That would be a good thing. But fictional characters like “Harry Potter,” or fantastic fantasies would still be fun to fabricate. There would be no more bombings or murders in the name of “your demons.” There would be no more religious wars. And in general, just imagine how much human time and wealth are destroyed by religion.

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with improving the human race? Or is it too dangerous?

Peter