Michael Stuart Kelly

Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally Madness

Recommended Posts

Way to go Rushbo. Well said. Two hate groups with no ties to Trump, no ties to the Republican Party or Conservatism . . . but the “drive by media” will try to link him to it. All the groups involved are “to the left of center,” and mostly male, fringe groups.  

Michael wrote: I do not support these guys, but I do support their right to free assembly and free speech . . . It looks like they followed government rules, but those in power gave orders to sabotage law enforcement security and even default on permissions granted by the local government for this particular event. end quote

Brant responded: The President should have told them to go back into the holes they crawled out of. The communists too . . . This has nothing to do with the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to petition. It has everything to do with moral suasion. end quote

Excellent topic and I don’t want to badly repeat whatever has already been said, but I don’t agree with Brant. I have visited much of America and I lived just off the quadrangle in Charlottesville, but I honestly don’t remember being upset about seeing a statue of a historical figure. I'm white, but I now see a disgusting mess. Today, I would not tolerate statues being erected that honor reprehensible human beings. However like President Trump, I think the largest portion of the so called alt right went to Charlottesville to protest in the free, American way for a historical cause even though they were wrong to glorify the Confederacy (or as our President called it, the "covfefe." joke) Some of the people on the left who went to Charlottesville, went to violently stop other Americans from exercising their First Amendment right.       

In a way, totalitarianism in all its forms including National Socialism (Nazism,) and Communism were as bad or worse than the more primitive forms of slavery, chattel, spoils of war, and indenturing, (unless it was a free contract between a master and the person becoming an indentured servant.) So, the question raised is, “Should American statues honoring the American Confederacy and other slave owners be taken down?” That is a tough one. Historically, slavery (and species subservience and dependence) has been around since our Paleolithic, cave man days when lone or needy humans were allowed to share food and shelter with strangers or physically superior humans and groups.

But as a “thought out policy” from Greek and Roman times until the founding of our nation, the institution of slavery is bad. We were civilized enough to reject slavery but *WE* did not choose to. Should statures of Julius Caesar who had slaves and prisoners of war, be demolished too? No one is calling for that though some people seem to want to forget history. Was slavery as immoral as Nazism? In some cases such as with Thomas Jefferson who treated his slaves as lesser human beings but still family, perhaps not. Other white Americans with power over black people, definitely treated them very badly, but I won’t chronicle those abuses here.

Is a compromise possible? I think statues honoring the Confederacy should be placed at historical sites but not in town centers. Should people who take the law into their own hands and demolish statues, be punished? Yes. Should people who deny freedom of speech be punished? Yes. Should protesters who wore protective clothing and carried sticks as a means of self-defense be punished” No. Not unless they initiated violence.  

“We are all Americans first.” as President Trump said, so honor The Constitution.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet Aristotle owned slaves.

:evil: 

Michael

 

EDIT: Here we go.

I found one source: Aristotle by Christopher Shields. Quote:

Quote

... Aristotle was indeed indulgent towards his own slaves, freeing them in his will after his death.

Now... about that business of Aristotle being taught in higher education... :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested in a factual analysis from the pro-Trump side, read the following article. It is by Ann Coulter and, granted, she is a polemicist. But, as the saying goes, facts are stubborn things.

I won't quote from it right now due to time. But, regardless, if you are interested, you will want to read the whole thing. It's very good--like a cool drink on a scorching afternoon. If you are caught up in emotions about racism and hate Ann Coulter to boot, you will not believe a word she says including "the" and "and." So why bother to extract quotes?

Ann Coulter: When Liberals Club People, It’s with Love in Their Hearts

Well... I can't resist one quote--her last sentence:

Quote

Thank God Donald J. Trump is our president, and not Mitt Romney, not Marco Rubio, and not that nasty woman.

The nasty woman, of course, is Hillary Clinton.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Tracinski wrote: No, I don’t think Donald Trump is going to resign any time soon. If he were capable of setting aside his personal vanity to do the right thing, we wouldn’t be in this situation. But he needs to be left hanging out there all on his own without support from anyone in his party (or from anyone in the right-leaning media). He is a vortex of destruction, and the only way to survive is to get everything we love as far away from him as possible. end quote

Hey, my name is Jerry Seinfeld and I voted for Trump, so quit spouting off, Robert. And hello to the babe in the front row. Good evening to the rest of ‘ya. Are you white guys having a good time? Hey, no booing. What baffles me is the fact that some alt right types don’t see European Jews the same as they see white Protestants. Hey, we’re as white as you. Just look at my belly. If you were to look at Jew’s education levels, incomes, accomplishments and IQ scores, well those benchmarks should put Jews in the same genus and phylum as white Protestants. Or maybe we are at the top of your hypothetical pile of privilege. What do you White Supremacists want already? Want us to wear “white face” makeup? Aren’t we as tough as you? I would want to see you try and kick the ass of an Israeli soldier, even an Israeli women soldier. Those Sabras are tough. Just ask anybody who’s messed with them. On the other side of the issue, what’s with the removal of all those Confederate statues? Are Washington and Jefferson next? What? Same to you Robert! Do I have to buy property in Israel, you schmuck?

Peter    

From Wikipedia: . . . . In academic usage, particularly in usage drawing on critical race theory, the term "white supremacy" can also refer to a political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy a structural advantage ( privilege) over other ethnic groups, both at a collective and an individual level . . . . Academic use of the term. The term white supremacy is used in academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred. White racial advantages occur at both a collective and an individual level ( ceteris paribus,) i. e., when individuals are compared that do not relevantly differ except in ethnicity).

Legal scholar Frances Lee Ansley explains this definition as follows: By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings . . . . The term expresses historic continuities between a pre-Civil Rights Movement era of open white supremacism and the current racial power structure of the United States. It also expresses the visceral impact of structural racism through "provocative and brutal" language that characterizes racism as "nefarious, global, systemic, and constant."  Academic users of the term sometimes prefer it to racism because it allows for a disconnection between racist feelings and white racial advantage or privilege. End quote

Sabra (Hebrew: צבר ‎, pronounced tzabar) is an informal slang term that refers to Israeli Jews born in Israel. The term first appeared in the 1930s to refer to a Jew who had been born in Mandatory Palestine or in Ottoman Palestine (cf. Old Yishuv).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the real problems with propaganda wars when they are successful. The different sides don't track what each other are doing and saying.

I like Jimmy Dore (who is progressive left, a Bernie guy), but his perplexity about the police standing down in Charlottesville is a sign of a big-ass bubble. This question has been in headlines ever since the event, but on the right. Not in the left bubble. Also, notice that he blasts the neo-Nazis coming armed, but says the Antifa dudes went their armed to "protect the innocent." Why would he say that when he's normally saying nobody should be armed? 

The thing is, this is what he and his folks believe. And he's just now finding out the police stood down. He smells a rat, but can't quite put his finger on what it is. He's trying to make it seem like the police were in collusion with the neo-Nazis, but it just doesn't sound right to him. It's off. The problem is he won't look outside his bubble until the dead rat starts smelling. (To his credit, once he sees the dead rat, he goes after it irrespective of who it belonged to.)

I feel for this guy. I like him. I hate his ideology, but I think he would be horrified if he ever found out what his side would do with absolute power.

Just look at how much he blasts the establishment Democrats right now. As time unfolds, I fear he is going to be in for greater disillusionment.

Michael

Share this post


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

Robert Tracinski wrote: No, I don’t think Donald Trump is going to resign any time soon. If he were capable of setting aside his personal vanity to do the right thing, we wouldn’t be in this situation. But he needs to be left hanging out there all on his own without support from anyone in his party (or from anyone in the right-leaning media). He is a vortex of destruction, and the only way to survive is to get everything we love as far away from him as possible. end quote

Can you quote more to provide some specifics of what Tracinski means by "the right thing" and "this situation"?  Sounds like Tracinski is joining the outrage over Trump's not jumping through PC hoops.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Sounds like Tracinski is joining the outrage over Trump's not jumping through PC hoops.

Ellen,

I stopped paying attention to Tracinski on Trump a long time ago--after the election got underway--for this very point.

He's not alone, either. Roberto Bidinotto and he walk practically in lockstep on their Trump-bashing. I had to stop posting on Robert's Facebook stuff because he was getting impossible. And he's much worse now. In a recent post about the impact of President Trump's statements about Charlottesville on the trade councils he ended up dissolving, Robert went on and on saying (my paraphrase), "I told you so, Trump supporters. I told you so. I told you that you were going to be disappointed." yada yada yada... He's totally clueless that Trump supporters saw the dissolution of councils of crony corporatists as a good thing. :) 

I have seen Tracinski post on Bibbibob's Facebook posts. They tend to tut-tut-tut together about President Trump destroying his presidency due to his boorishness (blah blah blah), and they often high-five each other for making a salient point about it. :) 

You and I talked about my view of elitism elsewhere. More and more I'm beginning to discern this as a deeply ingrained quality of character, but only among certain people. I am probing this idea (and I'm nowhere beyond scratching the surface--I only see a glimmer of something for now) because I think it's one of the reasons religions and ideologies of all kinds (including Objectivism) end up being distorted and turning into a weapon to maintain hierarchies of dominance over their members and, ultimately, other places. And it causes blindness of all sorts (intellectual and otherwise), or at least an internal intellectual cybernetic correction mechanism to eventually ignore facts.

I don't know what causes this metaphysical conceit, though. I do know that once a person has it, he or she tends to keep it. That's what I've seen. And it's more than snootiness. It's a deep-held belief--one that that feels like fact to them--that they are a life form that is superior to the rest of humanity and they were basically born that way--that there are others like them, but not the majority. They may feel they have to live up to their superior state of being by effort, but they will never lose it due to lack of merit--it's metaphysical. I'm basing this on observing what people say and do. Only now am I starting to look for research about it. 

I believe both Tracinski and Bidinotto are touched by this. That's why their negative reactions to Trump are so visceral. Notice they don't have the same visceral reactions to, say, CNN when CNN pumps out one whopper after another (although they will complain). The CNN folks act the way club members are supposed to act, speaking soft-to middle volume and politely most of the time, affecting a posture of owning their superiority without trying to show it, etc. President Trump doesn't act like that and, to them, he's a pig. He's like a guest on the Jerry Springer show invading a fine arts museum and he does not belong among them. Period. So no matter what he says or does, he's wrong.

The few times I have seen either of them say something good about President Trump, it is generally qualified by some phrase that he's finally "acting presidential" and don't hold your breath for this to last. :) 

To give an example for comparison, Charles Krauthammer has turned into almost a caricature of what I am talking about. He has this form of metaphysical conceit on steroids. Whenever I see him speak, I always get the feeling he is constantly making a conscious effort to tilt his forehead forward a little because looking down his nose is ugly on camera. 

08.19.2017-10.40.png

Neither Tracinski or Bidinotto have achieved that level, but, in my view, they are well on their way. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an elitist, but I don't combine it with egoism. Neither did Nathaniel Branden. We both once did. When he got blown out of the Objectivism he had lived in for nearly two decades he left that crap behind; so did I a few years later. (No point in trying to figure out Ayn Rand here.) For me an elitist is a thinker who goes below the surface to see what's really going on.

The irony of Donald Trump is his very queerness: he's an elitist looking down on the elitists running/ruining this country, but not people generally. He points to his head and says it's the brains. It's true blue collar elitism. He's ripping the blue collars right out of the Democrat Party and into the Republican. His greatest foes are the Republican elite who are attacking, not supporting, him. They have to go.

--Brant

standing on Michael's shoulders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 0:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I bet Aristotle owned slaves.

:evil: 

Michael

 

EDIT: Here we go.

I found one source: Aristotle by Christopher Shields. Quote:

Now... about that business of Aristotle being taught in higher education... :) 

I wish I had owned slaves--way back then.

I'd probably have hundreds of thousands of descendants now.

--Brant

it would have been one big party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Can you quote more to provide some specifics of what Tracinski means by "the right thing" and "this situation"?  Sounds like Tracinski is joining the outrage over Trump's not jumping through PC hoops.

Ellen

The Tracinski LetterNews and Analysis from an Individualist Perspective

  •  

Donald Trump Needs Not to Be President Yesterday

Feature Article by Robert Tracinski, August 16, 2017

We’re done with the “Well, maybe it won’t be so bad and we should take what we can get” phase of this administration. It’s time for the “he’s a disaster and needs to go” phase. For everybody’s good, Donald Trump needs to not be president, and he needs to not be president yesterday.

I say “yesterday,” not just as an exaggerated form of “as soon as possible,” but referring literally to his disastrous press Q&A yesterday, in which he whitewashed (no pun intended) the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville by claiming that it included plenty of “very fine” people who were just protesting the removal of a statue.

No, really. He repeated that point at length. Here is what he said.

But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.

So—excuse me—and you take a look at some of the groups and you see and you would know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases, you are not. But, many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee…. But they were there to protest—excuse me—you take a look, the night before, they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

And:

But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group—excuse me, excuse me—I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name…. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

And since the hole wasn’t deep enough yet, he had to keep digging:

There were people in that rally. I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I am sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest.

The important thing about this is that there is not a scrap of evidence that any of it is true. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. The rally in Charlottesville was called “Unite the Right,” which despite its name made no real attempt to bring together any recognizable strains from the mainstream American political right. Instead, it drew from a spectrum ranging from the Neo-Confederates to the Neo-Nazis to the White Nationalists to the White Supremacists—various ideological shades so indistinguishable from each other that you don’t need a special dispensation from Mike Godwin to just call them all Nazis.

If you’re in any doubt about this, here’s the poster for the event.

Aside from the blatant Nazi style of the imagery, it includes a roster of headliners chosen from various white nationalist groups. So this was a Nazi march from the beginning, planned by Nazis, for Nazis. As to whether any hapless moderates strolled in there thinking this was just about the statue—well, I live in this area and used to be active in the local Tea Party group. I know people who are not white nationalists who oppose the removal of the statues based on high-minded ideas about preserving history. None of them were there, and if they had been there, they would have bolted the moment they saw a bunch of guys with torches chanting “Blood and Soil.”

What’s truly shocking is that Trump refers twice to “the night before,” that is, to the rally Friday night, before the deadly clash on Saturday, as evidence that some of the protesters weren’t white nationalists. But Friday night was the notorious Citronellanacht, the march with all those tiki-torch-wielding marchers yelling “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us.”

It looked like this:

Who told Donald Trump these weren’t Nazis?

No, seriously, who told him? Before leaping to the defense of all of the “fine people” marching shoulder to shoulder with Nazis, Trump made a big production over the fact that he waiting to speak until he had painstakingly gathered the facts. He used the word “facts” about fifteen times in the minute prior to this statement. So from what reliable report, or from which of his advisors, did he get the talking point about how these were just ordinary, upstanding citizens concerned about a statue? What was his source for this “fact”?

The only people I’ve heard trying to make that claim are—you guessed it—the white nationalists who organized the rally. We’ve had inklings before that Trump picks up fake news and conspiracy theories from the Internet and retweets rumors in his Twitter feed, and also that he and his people pick up memes that come through the pipeline of the racist alt-right. (Remember the “sheriff’s star”?) It looks like that’s happening again, while he is president, and in response to a case in which he is specifically called upon to show that this odious faction does not have his ear.

So we can only conclude that they do have his ear.

Trump did say a few things that were true in his Q&A—that “antifa” thugs among the counter-protesters came spoiling for a fight and share responsibility for the violent brawls (as described by multiple reporters and witnesses), or that there is a serious logical question about where you draw the line in tearing down monuments to historical figures. But that just makes it worse. By mixing genuine truths in with an odious lie, Trump merely works to discredit the truth.

He is also working to destroy and discredit the American right, pitting us against one another in vicious internecine arguments. Right now there are otherwise good people who, out of partisan habits or long-borne outrage at biased media, are trying to concoct excuses for why Trump’s Q&A wasn’t so bad and all of the criticisms of it are just fake news.

It’s time for that to stop. It’s time to stop looking at the latest Trump statement in relation to how bad you think the alternative is on the left, or how biased the media is, and instead to compare it to what we should actually expect from a president. In a country where 99% of the population is opposed to Nazis, it should be the easiest thing in the world for an American president to unite the country by appealing to our shared values. Only Donald Trump could take one of the most uncontroversial ideas in American politics, the Indiana Jones Rule, and turn it into a wrenching national argument.

I don’t believe in the supernatural, but if there were a devil, he would be laughing his head off right now as we all whip ourselves into a murderous frenzy against each other.

No, I don’t think Donald Trump is going to resign any time soon. If he were capable of setting aside his personal vanity to do the right thing, we wouldn’t be in this situation. But he needs to be left hanging out there all on his own without support from anyone in his party (or from anyone in the right-leaning media). He is a vortex of destruction, and the only way to survive is to get everything we love as far away from him as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

[....]

You and I talked about my view of elitism elsewhere. More and more I'm beginning to discern this as a deeply ingrained quality of character, but only among certain people. [....]

[....] Only now am I starting to look for research about it. 

I've been looking into it too, in interstices around climate issues.  Not researches as such, some historical material I'm reading.

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I believe both Tracinski and Bidinotto are touched by this. That's why their negative reactions to Trump are so visceral. Notice they don't have the same visceral reactions to, say, CNN when CNN pumps out one whopper after another (although they will complain). The CNN folks act the way club members are supposed to act, speaking soft-to middle volume and politely most of the time, affecting a posture of owning their superiority without trying to show it, etc. President Trump doesn't act like that and, to them, he's a pig. He's like a guest on the Jerry Springer show invading a fine arts museum and he does not belong among them. Period. So no matter what he says or does, he's wrong.

Yes, the style thing.  Trump doesn't act right, he "isn't presidential," etc.  And I think that much of the time, the people who react with visceral negativity don't hear what Trump says.  They can't get past the style of the saying it.

One person I know at UHa, after a discussion with Larry in which Larry was countering the guy's claims about Trump with actual things Trump had said, after awhile admitted, "But I just can't stand listening to him."

Ellen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's a deep-held belief--one that that feels like fact to them--that they are a life form that is superior to the rest of humanity and they were basically born that way--that there are others like them, but not the majority.

William contested this in a gotcha kind of way elsewhere on OL by posting the following video, so I will explain more below. First the video:

Donald Trump is talking about individuals. His whole approach is individual, not class, and he's always talking about people who compete in the same ring irrespective of their differences. He believes genes can be one of the reasons a person is smarter, more talented, more prone to persevere, etc., and he's awfully glad he was favorably endowed, but he never says he is innately morally superior and more deserving of life than others. That is the exact opposite of what he believes. His thing is competitive individuals within the same species, not a metaphysical class like a different life form. He may have a little too much of the "I'm special and unique" flavor to his exuberance about genes, but it's not a drive to eliminate or use the rest of humanity for his own pleasure as a metaphysical class right, as a different species. (Take a look at how well his family turned out to see what I mean. This came from decency and love, not genes, and especially not competition with others.)

The elitist attitude sees the rest of humanity (the part that they believe is not like them) as lab rats, barnyard livestock and permanently indentured servants. So this is more of a religious attitude than scientific. And it's emotional, not cognitive. It's a belief without words--a belief before words. There is no way to gotcha this emotion because this emotion is not subject to proof for them, nor is it a proposition. It IS the standard of proof. If something shows their superiority, that is truth for them. If something contradicts it, that is false. The end. :) 

The following two quotes from Genesis sums this attitude and belief up perfectly.

Note first, I only mention the Bible because it is one of the social roots of Western civilization, one of the main sets of ideas that emotionally shaped our society. I also hold that one does not have to believe in the Bible (or in God, for that matter) to be socially formed by its influence. One can even repudiate it, but one still grew up in a culture shaped by it and ended up accepting many of the attitudes in it by default--that is, without choosing them. (Ayn Rand certainly did. :) )

The first quote is Genesis 1:26-28. I'm using the New International Version, but any of the translations make my point.

Quote

1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

1:27 - So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

1:28 - God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

But there is one addition the elitists make and they include it subconsciously. They include humans who, they believe, are not like them as part of "every living creature that moves on the ground." The people they believe are inferior are literally subhuman to them. These subhumans were not made in the image of God, so to speak. Only the elitists were.

(Apropos, this is sooooooooo not President Trump. :) He does see some people as evil, though, like the ISIS barbarians. But that is completely different than believing he deserves life over them, or at least to rule over them, just because he was born to a better species than they were. He calls them evil for the choices they made and the acts they do.)

The second quote is an essential component of the elitist attitude (Genesis 3:22, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit):

Quote

3:22 - And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Elitists are not only seeking this "tree of life" so to speak, they metaphorically believe they are equal to God and can take the tree from Him, either by force or by outsmarting Him. And what's more, after they do, they will be the ones to decree who will and will not partake of said tree, including God himself. They will rule.

Since I'm discussing emotion and myth, let me be clear I am not talking about fundamentalist Christian belief, but, instead, using this example metaphorically. I'm talking about a metaphysical attitude--a sense of innate entitlement to treat other human beings (ones the elitists consider inferior) without human rights if they can get away with it, or exclude them to the max if they can't, and eventually eliminate the subhumans after technology frees the elitists from the need of such inferior stock labor to feed and house them.

Some elitists have this bug more than others. At one end, you have outright monsters and I don't believe people in our subcommunity ever get to that point. This is one place where Objectivist philosophy holds potential monsters in check since a fundamental plank of Objectivism is individual rights as the social good. This conflicts the hell out of them, though. :) 

On a far less intense end, say an intellectual entitlement class thingie, you have intellectual people who only get excited when they can show they are right and everyone else is wrong, thus they prove they are innately superior. Or that they have secret understanding or secret knowledge others don't, and the fact they can grasp it proves they are innately superior. (Once again, I'm speaking of a feeling, so finding words for this is hard.)

This is not a monopoly of our subcommunity. It's all over the place. The attempt to establish a dictatorship by technocrats is shot through and through with these kinds of people. What's worse, when they get power, over time they can actually turn into monsters who kill people they consider inferior just for the hell of it (like, say, for an experiment).

So what I am discussing is a religious-based attitude in the strictest practical sense and on a precognitive level. I'm not discussing a proposition or a word game.

Michael
Expert on Elitism
:) 

 

(PS - My quip under my name is a poke in the ribs at William. I'm not an expert on elitism yet. I'm merely detecting it and starting to dig into it. I'm at the beginning. I will be an expert on elitism over time, though. :) This is even forming an archetype in my mind for my fiction-writing. The kind of elitism I am looking at is perfect human stock for villains. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An aside about Trump and "mak[ing] America great again."

I sometimes buy packs of pre-sliced singles fat-free cheese.  The pre-sliced form is handy for a quick snack if I'm working in the yard or whatever.

I bought a new pack of Borden's singles a couple days ago and noticed that the package design had been changed.  On examining details, I discovered that probably the reason for the change was to provide room for an expanded statement about the proceeds going to American dairy farmers.

Here's the old statement:

Quote

100% of our proceeds go back to American dairy farm families because Borden Cheese is made by a 100% farmer-owned cooperative.

The new statement says:

Quote

ENJOY GOODNESS

What goes into making something great?  Hard work.  Quality.  Care.  Every slice, shred and chunk of Borden Cheese is crafted with these values.  Borden Cheese is brought to you by a cooperative of 100% family-owned American dairy farms.  Farms run by people of character, who work with integrity and take pride in what they do.  So much pride that you can almost taste the love that goes into every bite.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there's the Boston free speech rally.

A few hundred white folks (presumably white power, although I'm not sure) showed up in Boston to do a free speech rally. About 20,000 leftists (or more) mobilized via live protest to shut them down and they did. 

I could go into all the pros and cons of defending the right of everyone to have a say, even those who preach vile things--I'm on the side of free speech--but I saw a tweet that is the best comment I've heard all day. It's from Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

Just like Ayn Rand said, don't try to analyze a folly, ask only what it accomplishes. (If those are not her exact words, they are close enough for an identical meaning.)

In this light, President Trump praised the Boston protesters today, meaning the lefties who shut down the free speech. When a target person who is despised by a vicious group praises them, does that seem normal?

Or a folly?

So if you favor what the 20,000 did, why do you think President Trump praised them, hmmmmmm? :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

Here's a direct link to the article "Some Initial Thoughts on Charlottesville" by Keith Preston:

https://attackthesystem.com/2017/08/14/some-initial-thoughts-on-charlottesville/

The article is long, but it gives meticulous details of the event sequence and includes breakdown analyses of the composition of the conglomerates on both sides.

It concludes with psychological observations about leftist and rightist characteristics.  Michael, I think you'd find those interesting.

Preston calls Trump's response "the most reasonable response thus far":

Quote

The response by public figures to this event, including politicians, media personalities, celebrities and other assorted douchebags has been lame and predictable. The near universal chorus has been one of “Official Bad People marched in Charlottesville! Eww, bad!” in a manner akin to school children pointing to a kid picking his nose in the cafeteria.


The most reasonable response thus far has come from, ironically, President Trump himself for daring to point out that violent street fighting involving “hatred, bigotry and violence” actually occurred on “many sides” during the course of this disaster, rather than merely taking one side as if violent Communists and other left-wing extremists are not dangerous and undesirable in a manner that parallels their fascist/Nazi rivals [Update: Trump has since given a press conference on this event. While he has been criticized for not criticizing the neo-Nazis harshly enough, he clearly criticized racism and violence, and fixating on these elements would have been redundant given the already universal unpopularity of neo-Nazis. Trump appeared to be trying to deescalate the tension rather than fan the flames which is appropriate. I’m not personally a Trump supporter, and I’m sure I’ll get plenty of hate mail from Trump-haters for these comments, but too bad.]

Ellen

Share this post


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

 

22 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

Here's a direct link to the article "Some Initial Thoughts on Charlottesville" by Keith Preston:

https://attackthesystem.com/2017/08/14/some-initial-thoughts-on-charlottesville/

The article is long, but it gives meticulous details of the event sequence and includes breakdown analyses of the composition of the conglomerates on both sides.

It concludes with psychological observations about leftist and rightist characteristics.  Michael, I think you'd find those interesting.

Preston calls Trump's response "the most reasonable response thus far"

Ellen,

I listened to the podcast (thanks, Neil) and read the full article. I agree with Keith Preston's approach in just about everything he said in both places.

I don't know enough about him yet to know his ideology, but as a journalist reporting facts, he's one of the best who have reported on this event. Reading his account and listening to the podcast were like a breath of stench-removing fresh air at a garbage dump.

In the fake news environment of the mainstream these days, it felt good to witness a reporter say things like he heard X, Y or Z, but so far, he has not been able to find video evidence of it--and all without creative omissions or slants. Or that according to the historical patterns of behavior of A, B or C, they exhibited similar behavior at the event. As a reporter on this event, he connected his ideas to what he could see with his own eyes, or what he has seen over time, not what he can connect to a pre-digested narrative fed by a hysterical mainstream press.

One of his funniest lines was in the podcast. He was talking about the Alt Right being a collection of ragtag losers rather than the monstrous social threat of Hitler's movement (although he did say there were individuals and a couple of small groups that were more into violent Nazi stuff for real). But for the most part, especially among the younger Alt Right leaders, he said instead of seeing Triumph of the Will, he saw something more like Revenge of the Nerds. :) These are the guys I have been calling knuckleheads and they are in the majority of the hardcore white power folks.

I did like his psychological impressions of both Alt Right folks and Antifa. Even the Ted Kaczynski's psychological impressions of the  hard left folks in America was interesting. God knows, I would have never looked at something like that on my own unless I wanted to research the Unabomber affair in general. (I'm not sure I would use Kaczynski as a source in my own stuff, though. :)  There have to be better folks out there who see the same thing he did on this point...)

This thread has been getting a good discussion and good ideas up to now--especially showing how hard it is to stand on principle in the midst of mass hysteria.

Now real unbiased facts are coming in and it is getting some really good stuff.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's incredible how biased the media is.  I was listening to CNN yesterday and their four guests were a member of the $outhern Poverty Law Center, a former neo-Nazi turned leftist, "anti racist" activist Tim Wise and their "justice reporter."

I hadn't heard of Preston before but he said that Antifa is a terrorist organization akin to the Klan.  He knows leaders of the Alt Right and Antifa so he seems to know what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Keith Preston's blog, he just made the following comment on a different thread called "Who Was Really at Fault in Charlottesville?" by a different person (Conrad Black):

Quote

Here’s what I’ve noticed about these situations. These brawls seem to occur more in left-leaning college towns like Berkeley and Charlottesville. These events are usually more restrained in other places where extremist groups demonstrate. It could be that in localities that are havens for the left you simply get larger crowds of counterprotestors, or more militant protestors, and that leads to more problems. But in both Berkeley and Charlottesville there were policemen claiming they had been ordered to stand down. If that’s true, the question is why? Is it so the left-wingers can have free reign to attack the right-wingers? Is it because the local government is trying to protect the left-wingers from police brutality? Is it because liberal politicians just don’t take law and order seriously (for instance, I’ve noticed the Antifa never rioted in Joe Arpaio’s Phoenix, lol)? Is it because the city government or police department don’t have the manpower to control such situations? Is it out of fear the police will be injured?It seems like something is going on.

Having tried to look at Charlottesville from as many different angles as possible, I have come to the tentative view that the city administration of Charlottesville, in conclusion [MSK: sic--he means in collusion] with the state administration of Gov. McAuliffe ordered the police to stand down in order to ensure that a riot would take place. Their likely hope was that this would give the press the opportunity to obtain all kinds of photo ops that could be splattered across the media with the intention of ultimately blaming the riot on Donald Trump: “Neo-Nazis terrorize innocent civil rights protestors in Charlottesville! This what Donald Trump’s America looks like!” In other words, the state and local government, both controlled by Democrats, allowed a full blown riot with lethal consequences to happen simply for the purpose of scoring some partisan points. The same thing likely happened in Berkeley. I’m not a fan of Trump or the Republicans. Just saying.

Yup.

This is exactly as I see it, except I am a huuuuge fan of President Trump. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism at work and the left is not amused.

Spurned by Major Companies, The Daily Stormer Returns to the Web With Help From a Startup

The gist is that Google, GoDaddy, Cloudflare and probably others have shut down The Daily Stormer site due to its vile content. Done. They own the Internet and goddamit, they will not allow space for racists. Beware the wrath of the Owners of the Internet!

Then a 20 year old entrepreneur who doesn't even care about white power and all that, Nick Lim, reached out to The Daily Stormer and told them to come right on over and set yourself up on BitMitigate (Lim's startup). Lim was interested in one thing only: free publicity. And he'd getting tons of it. And he's laughing as his company grows as a result. :) 

As to the content itself, here are a few cute Lim quotes:

"People should be given the right to express their ideas. I thought it would really get my service out there.” ...

"This whole thing is really entertaining." ...

“I think there’s a lot of stupid ideas here, but frankly it’s not my decision or something I really want to get involved in.” ...

"It’s actually quite ironic the decision made by Cloudflare. It’s not like they really care about the people they protect — they protect several ISIS websites." ...

“People think they are doing good by silencing white supremacists but in reality they are chipping away at constitutional rights. Is the left evil or just stupid-evil?”

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made it to Real Clear Politics Video. It's a YouTube video by one Ms. Candace Owens (who goes by "Red Pill Black").

The media "muh racists" narrative is not penetrating the heartland among any of the demographic elitist "divide and conquer" divisions.

Ms. Owens said the same thing most people outside the media bubble think: those who physically fight in demonstrations are losers who are not worth thinking about, black, white, it doesn't matter. And she, like me, believes that the media doesn't give a shit about normal people and the problems of normal people (the, to them, livestock of America). The media sure as hell don't give a shit about black people. Not really.

Ms. Owens said the media is creating a reality show out of race while ignoring actual reality.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 20, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

One of his funniest lines was in the podcast. He was talking about the Alt Right being a collection of ragtag losers rather than the monstrous social threat of Hitler's movement (although he did say there were individuals and a couple of small groups that were more into violent Nazi stuff for real). But for the most part, especially among the younger Alt Right leaders, he said instead of seeing Triumph of the Will, he saw something more like Revenge of the Nerds. :) These are the guys I have been calling knuckleheads and they are in the majority of the hardcore white power folks.

I, too, like Preston's approach very much.

I didn't listen to the podcast, however.  I only listen to podcasts if I think they're something of extreme importance.

Thanks for relaying that line about "Revenge of the Nerds."  Spot on.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now