Recommended Posts

We are odd creatures. Even after we have found “mates” people still dress or wear makeup to attract the opposite sex. Those new shades of bright red lipstick are like a female baboon’s butt when she is “in heat.” When I think about being a single teenager, whoa, was I an inept dork, constantly attracted to women and I had a difficult time not gawking at them. Yet as Michael observed, Harvey did not look at women’s bodies, just their faces . . . on camera.

Later in life I think it is better to ignore the “attributes” of women and just make eye contact which is what I do. Though if I see a fine pair of knockers on display I just have to look. Or an hourglass figure. Or a prominent behind with that slant from the waist to the crest of the butt. Then I just look at their faces. Unless, it is a TV show or movie, and then I gawk all I want. I guess I am still a jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, people want to keep their mates too. Nor do they want to stink in public. We're social beings, after all.

Sometimes we think too much about too little--also, too much about too much.

--Brant

then there's the not thinking about what needs to be thought about

Share this post


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

Question

Have you ever walked into a situation, not known much about it, asked a question or two, then had people take your head off? And then a group piles on you if you don't immediately capitulate in shame?

I can think of a lot of issues I have dealt with over the years like that.

The Iraq war is a good one. Back when it happened, you couldn't question the wisdom of it without someone coming down on you hard and questioning your motivations. And God forbid if you asked if it was about control of rich oil fields...

Nowadays, nobody thinks it was wise to go into war and almost everybody agrees it was all about the oil.

Other issues have come up over the years, some on the left, some on the right. One of the most recent ones was asking innocent questions about Donald Trump during the primaries. Fortunately, I stood firm and look where that went. :) 

On the left, there is climate change. The nastiness has mellowed a little because the bullies saw that they were not gaining ground with the public through intimidation. But there are lots and lots of other issues.

For example, Harvey Weinstein. How many people have real life experience in show business? But everybody knows--hell, they are more certain than certain--that all women in Hollywood are saints and victims of powerful man-monsters, right? So if anyone were to dare ask in public if there were women who tried to seduce Weinstein or set him up with sex in public, they would get their head bit off.

But that nastiness is covering something deeper. Why did the elite left turn en masse on Weinstein? What in hell did he do to piss them off that badly? No one, and that means no one, goes from having the entire elite cover for them and kill stories, to suddenly pile on and trash their history over that same time period without a coordinated attack ordered from on high.

 

Conspiracy Theory Setup

And here we come to a conspiracy theory I have been bouncing around in my head. Please be advised, this is only a conspiracy theory for now. A speculation.

Let's start with another issue that you cannot ask questions about: the connection between vaccines and autism. All you have to do is ask about why there are so many stories where a person takes a child to get vaccinated, then the child comes home immediately altered. "Experts" will crawl out of the woodwork to scream at you that the science has been settled on that. There is no connection. This has been disproved. Disprooooooooved, did you hear? There never can be a connection. It's simply not possible. Never, ever ever, under any circumstance. Not even if something new gets discovered. Science has that one sewn up for all eternity, baby. So quit talking crap and acting like an ignorant yahoo. Or worse... Are you anti-science? Hmmmm?...

:) 

You can get away with this on normal people, but when the child of a rich and famous person comes back weird from a vaccination, it's stickier. A rich and famous person like, say, Robert De Niro, who founded the Tribeca film festival. Last year he wanted to exhibit a documentary on autism and vaccines called Vaxxed. And he was talking about another called Trace Amounts. The sheer nastiness of the outrage he faced led him to cancel the screening, but he was awfully perplexed. He said even if only 20% were factual, it was worth looking at, but the powers that be behind the scenes did not want to hear about it. No way, José. No tin foil hat shit. Cut it out or we will do BAD THINGS. (You can read about this here.)

So he announced he and Harvey Weinstein were going to do a documentary on it, but he didn't want to discuss it further. His words, not mind. As he said in the article: "I don’t what to talk much about it, because when I talk about it, something happens."

Nobody can deny how much money is involved in the vaccination industry (and, yes, it's so big we can call it a separate industry). Big pharma, baby.

Has anybody asked about legal opioids? I mean, if I were a manufacturer of a synthetic opiod and selling, say, $10 million a year in supplying doctors and hospitals, and suddenly my sales skyrocketed to, say, half a billion dollars a year within a short term, don't you think someone in my company would be curious when they read an article talking about the opioid epidemic in America and a staggering number of overdoses--all from drugs ultimately obtained by someone with a legal prescription?

Jeez... This isn't brain science...

I believe the pharmaceutical companies have done wonders for human health, but they also have this drug pusher side. And they can get worse than Columbian drug cartels. Their most lucrative business model is serving a nation of addicts who must buy over and over and never get enough, not a nation of healthy people who use drugs to heal from actual sickness.

So what would happen if someone were to make a serious challenge to their bottom line? Imagine this. If the public ever believed for real that vaccines cause autism, the stampede would be disastrous for the pharmaceutical industry. The sheer size of the losses would probably make some companies go out of business. 

And on another point, has anyone turned on TV recently? Or opened a newspaper? Or looked at online ads? There are drug ads everywhere. One after another after another. Every goddam one of them comes with a big fat paycheck to the media outlet and big pharma doesn't mind paying top dollar. 

 

What If?

So I find it reasonable--as speculation--to imagine Weinstein went forth on the De Niro project. When he started getting the standard push back, he reveled in it, thinking he had Obama and Clinton in his hip pocket for protection.

And I can imagines the owners of the pharmaceutical companies met the owners of the media--all behind closed doors--to figure out what to do about Harvey. As negotiations came and went, Harvey dug in his heels, the pharmaceutical companies said they didn't see any point in advertising anymore to media outlets that covered his efforts, and the media folks, starting with the funds-starved New York Times, said, no problem. We can fix this. We have a decade old story to start the ball rolling and we will get permission from the establishment top for a pile-on. Feminism and campus rape are recent mainstream narratives, so moving it over to Harvey, who is an asshole to women by nature, became a piece of cake.

Why not do that with De Niro? Well, he's loved. He's admired. He's a movie hero. An icon. Think of this like bear baiting of old. People used to chain up a bear in a public square and the public would stand around and pick at it with sharpened sticks, throw stones at it, etc., to watch the bear get pissed and growl. People would laugh at that. And they could come in droves to see it. After all, the bear is big, ugly and dangerous. But try doing that with a puppy dog. It just wouldn't work. (OK, OK, puppy dog as a metaphor for De Niro is a stretch :) , but you see what I mean.) Harvey makes a great bear for this process.

So they trashed Weinstein and thus nixed the high-powered documentary on an autism-vaccine theme. God knows what famous movie stars Weinstein had lined up for that damn thing. But now Harvey is no more and the pharmaceutical industry kept the money flowing to the media. Oh yeah... and there's this. If anyone else who wants to make such a film, that person needs to take a long hard look at what they did to Harvey... (add ominous music...)

I don't know if this is true, but it has all the ingredients to make sense. At least it's something to alleviate the cognitive dissonance. And that's a hell of a lot better than believing Hollywood grew a conscience all of a sudden. :) 

Maybe time will tell whether this is in the ball park. Maybe not...

Michael

Sounds like the history of Citizen Kane on steroids.

--Brant

Orson Wells started on top but immediately got knocked down--and down, down, down into the Hollywood ground

Howard Hughes was too big to fuck with--short and intermediate term--(then he got vaccinated:evil:?)

the old Hollywood is done for because of technology--and there will go all that old power

so that stupid de Niro anti-Trump commercial was a terrified and appeasing de Niro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of this doesn't seem to be actual pedophilia, but adults having sex with adolescents. (I hope to God but there is real pedophilia there too.) It's a semantical club to hit these bad guys over the head with with no objection from me.

--Brant

"Hit him again! The son-of-a-bitch is from New Jersey!" (New York and New Jersey union gangs fighting each other in the 1930s)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in interesting times. Apparently even one unverified instance of loutish behavior can cost you your livelihood, not that I am sticking up for the bad guys. When I was single I did ask female coworkers out. I don't think I was too overbearing but I might have asked them out more than once after a solid no was heard the first time, and when I became management I stopped myself from thinking about female coworkers. I wonder if teenage boys have learned a lesson about groping and if there is a new sensibility at the high school level?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 8:47 AM, Jon Letendre said:

There is no way that some plain harassment is all there is here. That's the first telling, by NYT, so that when the truth comes out they can all deny it, saying the right wing is crazy and exaggerating, "we already heard this story - he only traded some sexual favors for starring roles." Hollywood is controlled by Luciferian cults and this monster is at the top of them - he's guilty of life-in-prison crimes, just keep watching. Half the board quit. The remaining board fired him and they are already talking about renaming the company. No way is this just about some plain harassment, Hollywood is offering him up in hopes they can stop the coming avalanche, NYT obliged. It won't work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5063683/Former-Smallville-actress-second-command-sex-cult.html

Last month, the New York Times broke the story about a secret sorority that brands women, puts them on starvation diets and beats them if they don't recruit enough 'slaves'”

4626510D00000578-5063683-image-a-4_15101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hollywood is controlled by Luciferian cults." Roy 'Hollywood' Moore accused ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

It hasn’t even started yet.

Jon,

You can say that again.

Harvey was the tip of the iceberg and it's all interconnected with the ruling class elites--not as one formal organization, but more or less as a culture.

Check this out from Liz Crokin:

How Mueller & President Trump are Pulling the Biggest Sting in History

Granted, Liz is a conspiracy theory person, so this is merely speculation, but it sure as hell closes many of the gaps I have had re cognitive dissonance. Let's see if it comes out as she speculates.

At any rate, I bet sex scandals, pedophilia, Uranium One, and God knows what else end up connected at the hip when all is said and done. The corrupt elitists do like their toys and they do like to play. :) 

Over in Saudi Arabia, they have already started to clean house on corruption (over 200 so far, see here) and--since their government was not constituted to protect individual rights at the core--they are a little more efficient at clean-up than we are. Wait and see what sex gets mixed in. I bet even Russia will be found with its pants down in this somewhere. :)  Word has it that President Trump nudged this crackdown along when he was over there and met privately with King Salman, maybe even suggested it and provided some evidence...

At lease we know why John McCain has been having a shit-fit about President Trump recently. His Middle East deep state network is being dismantled.

Wouldn't it be kinda funny if some people who were in bed with the corrupt Saudis--the ones now going to jail--are the same people being involved in scandals over here?

Oh wait... I think I recognize a few...

:) 

Michael

 

EDIT: btw - Word has it they sent out Donna Brazile to trash Hillary Clinton to try to get the Democratic Party away from all this crap and clear the way for a run by Michelle Obama in 2020. I don't think anyone could accuse Michelle of sex scandals or corruption other than, maybe, spending a little too many tax-payer dollars on vacations and shopping. And that's chicken feed. Nasty tongues say the Obamas already miss the trappings of power. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell, McCain, the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas and many thousands more will be rounded up very soon.

Trump has befriended Russia, is being treated like a King in China, and he has flipped Saudi Arabia.

An international alliance is protecting Trump and they are taking it all down together.

The cabal’s days are numbered.

Every face on tv will be new one morning soon and the world will never be the same, thank god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's OK if you're a Republican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like there's a tape of a Wapo reporter offering a woman in Alabama $1,000 to say she was sexually abused by Moore. According to the alt media grapevine (see here), this tape is already in the hands of the DA and FBI.

Let's see what comes out in the mainstream press since lots of people think only fake news legacy outlets are credible.

If it gets so obvious the MSM will have to report it as the grapevine says, I wonder if the pundits will howl at the sky like the snowflakes just did (see video here)...

btw - Rush Limbaugh publicly advised Judge Roy Moore (see here), as he did earlier with with Weinstein, to hire Hillary Clinton for public image crisis management. He said she, as CEO of Bimbo Eruptions, Inc., can shut down and ruin the lives of female accusers better than anyone--and intimidate the press to boot. Just look what she did for her hubby both as guv and prez. However, Rush thinks the Judge may not be able to afford her fee because she's very, very, very expensive. 

:)

Michael

Share this post


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

Looks like there's a tape of a Wapo reporter offering a woman in Alabama $1,000 to say she was sexually abused by Moore. According to the alt media grapevine (see here), this tape is already in the hands of the DA and FBI.

Want some Breitbart fries with that hamburger?

Alabama Accuser Deletes Anti-Moore Postings from Facebook, Rants About Removing Trump from Office

The lady wouldn't be a political animal, now would she?

Noooooooooooo... Never in a million years...

But lookee what I found in the fries...

IMG_1855.jpg

(There's plenty more where that came from, too. :) )

And how about a shake with those fries?

Alabama ABC Affiliate Can’t Find One Voter Who Believes WaPo Report About Roy Moore in Man-on-the-Street Segment

A persuasion story is supposed to reflect reality to some extent or, maybe, embellish it. Modern persuaders prefer to make shit up, but they have been taking it too far these days. Now they wonder why it doesn't work anymore.

And the sloppiness. Gawd... In Moore's case, they even got pedophiles wrong. Once a pedophile starts, he doesn't stop. Everybody knows that. And he certainly doesn't like 18 year olds. So how come they put both together as happening around the same time decades ago--and not one rumor about nowadays? Not one rumor about rumors over the years? How come? Don't they know how to smear a dude as a pedophile anymore? Friggin' amateurs... :) 

The fake news folks forgot that credibility is something you earn, not something that stays automatic because of tradition. Nobody believes them anymore. 

Michael

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 7:27 PM, Jon Letendre said:

The cabal’s days are numbered.

Every face on tv will be new one morning soon and the world will never be the same, thank god.

Jon,

There's an interesting theory I read somewhere. It goes like this:

The reason Hillary Clinton was so popular among those elitists and elitist darlings who are now falling due to sexual scandals is that she is the wife and protector of a pervert who got away with it. Who better to protect the pervert class than the wife protector of a pervert who got away with it?

:)

Michael

Share this post


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

The lady wouldn't be a political animal, now would she?

Noooooooooooo... Never in a million years...

That was Gibson. 

How about this Corfman lady, the one who said she was 14 when Moore hit on her for the nasty? This poor soul can't seem to catch a break with devout Christians.

She says she has been sexually hounded by several Christian preachers over the years--pastors at various churches at that.

Big questions are now arising about Roy Moore’s main accuser Leigh Corfman

This lady can't walk into a church without a perverted sex-fiend pastor attacking her.

And all those damn bills and divorces. She declared bankruptcy 3 times...

So it's a good thing The Washington Post dug her up, huh?

It's time somebody told the real truthy truth about this lady's sexual oppression by devout Christians. Never fear, WaPo is here. WaPo to the rescue.

:evil:  :)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been touched by the integrity of Louis CK in owning up to the truth of the stories about him.

It's a good thing he's a man of integrity, huh?

Louis CK ended up apologizing to Sarah Palin. His liberal friends have been basking in the glow of his integrity ever since...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hammering this Moore issue a bit, not because the left is promoting it or because I think Christians are high and mighty, but because this is one more effort by the ruling class elitists on both sides to deny voters.

Even Mitt Romney is saying "proven until innocent" does not apply in Moore's case because, well, it's an election and Mitt baby wants a different outcome than what the people of Alabama want.

And here is what I say to all those elitist ruling class Republicans who are sanctimoniously wagging the finger at Moore and telling him to step aside:

I hope their own sexual conduct has been pristine over the years. I don't expect the Mitwit to have dirty laundry of this nature since a Presidential run is brutal in bringing that stuff out, but I would be careful if I were other "old boy club" members.

The last I heard, James O'Keefe is still around and Steve Bannon likes him...

I don't think they are very happy about a cheap incompetent smear of the candidate they like right before an election. They might get ideas about looking into the sanctimonious denouncers... And they tend to produce video proof and stuff...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Takei Accused of Bill Cosby-ing a young man!

takeiAccused.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been having an exchange with William on his OL blog about an uneasiness I have with this whole sudden streak of Puritanism in our culture and a bit about perspective when using certain words like "pedophile."

First, my uneasiness:

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - I am eventually going to make a statement on the Harvey thread because many OL visitors don't come to OL blogs, but I am bothered by the intensity of the current mob mentality in taking out high-profile lefties for sexual deviation. All you need is an accusation and the mainstream press goes apeshit trying to destroy celebrity careers. (Incidentally, that's a monetary issue. This topic generates eyeballs and that generates income. Fake news outlets are smarting in the money department so they're taking what they can get, even if it means barbecuing former sacred cows.)

Since the left itself recently engineered and sustained high-profile smears using a "bombardment of accusers without proof" technique, and it worked a few times, I'm getting a kick out of watching it backfire on them. Look at all those lefties caught in this trap. Look at how many. Wow... that's a lot. It's not even a fair fight anymore. :) 

But underneath, this is sheer cultural poison. Our times are going to enter an oppressive prudish phase after the dust settles and that does not please me. I certainly don't expect human nature to change re mixing power and sex, but I do expect the power people to develop expertise in sexual accusatory skills for taking out enemies (all sides, including Social Justice Warriors as they age), so some darkness is coming.

Now about perspective:

We were talking about the term "pedophile," and here he came with a discussion of who is and who is not really a pedophile, ephebophilia, glorp glorp glorp blah blah blah. (He even referred to me as a "Notable Pedophilia/Ephebophilia Expert." :) Nice try, but no cigar. :) )

I had never even heard of the word "ephebophilia" until now. It means adults who are attracted to mid-to-late teenagers. 

Regardless of psychological urges, the main discussion re Judge Roy Moore is legality. And, possibly the preposterousness of calling him a pedophile.

And here's the rub. His accusers tend to say he is not a pedophile. He simply molested a young girl.

And that is where the propagandists and smear merchants went off the rails. Like it or not, the public has an image of what pedophile means based on popular TV shows like "To Catch a Predator," "Law an Order: SVU" and so on. (Those are just two examples. There are plenty more in all kinds of forms, not just TV.) And this image is that a pedophile is someone who does--or wants to do--the nasty with kiddies. And once he starts, he doesn't stop. He can't stop feeling the urges.

Whether that understanding is scientifically accurate or not, it is what the public understands. And that leads to the question: If someone is going to try to nail Moore for being a pedophile and expect this to result in votes, isn't it a good idea to use the term in the same manner that voters understand the term?

The fact that they are not doing this shows their sheer incompetence.

But there is an underlying contempt these folks have for the general public. Just because people don't like to bicker to death over their boneheaded claims, that doesn't mean the public is so stupid that they actually believe the spin. I'm specifically talking about propositions like the following:

So he had sex with some kids. That doesn't make him a pedophile.

So he took some stuff that didn't belong to him. That doesn't make him a thief.

So she said something untrue because [fill in the blank]. That doesn't make her a liar.

They merely facilitated access to a few government policy makers and were rewarded for it. That doesn't make them corrupt.

And so on...

The odd thing is, the general public is not the one harmed. Not really and not where it counts. The poor souls who practice this and get away with it (usually because the public doesn't want the hassle of bickering) start believing their own bullshit over time. And that ruins their spiritual life and makes them horribly unhappy.

Michael

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...