Michael Stuart Kelly

Creepy in Politics

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Peter said:

Arrgh! I don't know Ellen. When you are the recipient of trash talk, foul language and nasty names, it raises the blood pressure  . . . since Jon used it on me I wonder why I stick around and why I am allowed to be defamed, which is against the site policy?

I don't follow William Shrek much unless he is off his blog. If Michael does have concerns about William I wonder why he allows him to hitch a ride on OL? I suppose I should ask that of Michael in private but what the heck. No need to be private here on a public site.

Since I will apparently still be defamed with impunity whenever Jon wills, I will take a vacation . . . . at least from contributing in any way. I can still poke around without signing on, I guess.  Peter 

Peter, I mean it 110% when I say I will leave you alone, with no exceptions, not even hitting laugh button to your posts.

All you have to do is the same.

We don’t get along. This solution is rational, mutual, easy, etc. Why the resistance? Why the obsession? 

Share this post


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

No need to be private here on a public site.

Peter,

We can go all the way in public the other way, too.

Would a group hug help?

:) 

You rock. I mean it.

I love your happy-go-lucky manner Your postings of old archives are treasures you keep serving up. They are like special unexpected presents from the past, a pure delight.

If you and Jon were in the military, I would see you in provisioning and Jon as a front-line warrior. To do both jobs well, different temperaments are needed. I doubt many people in these two positions in actual military situations find the same jokes funny, get angry about the same things, hang out, get drunk together, etc. But they all fight for the same side.

When he trash-talks you, I see it mostly as misunderstanding where you are coming from, what you have actually read, etc. Sometimes I see him attribute you with positions I know are not yours. But you've been pretty good at clarifying over time.

I don't know if the following will help, but here goes. I'm reading a fascinating book right now called The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom. Here is a quote I find pertinent.

Quote

Researcher Richard Savin-Williams spent a season watching summer campers interact. In June, the bunk-mates met for the first time. For roughly an hour, the campers felt each other out, probing each other’s strengths and weaknesses, deciding who would be friends with whom. Then they quickly sorted themselves into a superorganism with a head, limbs, and a tail. One camper became the “alpha male,” the dominant individual, the group leader. Another became the “bully,” a big, strong brute nobody particularly liked. A third became the “joker,” everybody’s good-natured sidekick. And one became the “nerd,” the unathletic, overly eager sort that everyone else felt free to kick around. Like the ants and the embryonic cells, each boy had taken his place in a kind of preordained social blueprint.

Just how preordained that blueprirt was and how much of his potential each boy had to sacrifice to assume his role became clear when another researcher tried an experiment. The scientist assembled a cabin composed entirely of “leaders,” boys who had been dominant, “alpha males” in their old groups. Very quickly, the new cluster sorted itself out according to the familiar pattern. One of the leaders took charge. Another became the bully. A third became the group joker. And one of the formerly commanding lads even became the new group’s nerd.

When the researchers went through the scientific literature to find other data related to their work, they discovered that studies of Chicago gangs in the 1920s had shown these long-gone groups arranging themselves according to an almost identical unconscious plan. The gang members of a bygone era also had their leaders, bullies, jokers, and nerds. Each individual had taken up a position in the superorganism’s unfolding structure. And each had shaped his personality to fit the spot in which he landed.

If we understand these four archetypes, alpha male, bully, joker and nerd to be tendencies that can mix and match with each other and can mix with other archetypes, meaning they are not all-encompassing delimiters, we can see them in almost all ensemble stories from TV shows like NCIS on up to superhero movies, soap operas, even love stories.

Your tendency on OL is to be a good-natured joker sidekick who provides a ton of value. Jon's tendency is to be a fiercely loyal bully--and his greatest loyalty is to his principles. William went from joker keeping people honest to nerd. Everybody kicks him around nowadays. :)  And he earned it. As to Ellen, oddly enough, I see a dose of alpha male as her animus mixed with some archetypes that are not in these four like rebel and, believe it or not, mother-figure. :) 

I'm not going to keep going, though, because I'm going to end up pissing off everybody.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

We can go all the way in public the other way, too.

Would a group hug help?

:) 

You rock. I mean it.

I love your happy-go-lucky manner Your postings of old archives are treasures you keep serving up. They are like special unexpected presents from the past, a pure delight.

If you and Jon were in the military, I would see you in provisioning and Jon as a front-line warrior. To do both jobs well, different temperaments are needed. I doubt many people in these two positions in actual military situations find the same jokes funny, get angry about the same things, hang out, get drunk together, etc. But they all fight for the same side.

When he trash-talks you, I see it mostly as misunderstanding where you are coming from, what you have actually read, etc. Sometimes I see him attribute you with positions I know are not yours. But you've been pretty good at clarifying over time.

I don't know if the following will help, but here goes. I'm reading a fascinating book right now called The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom. Here is a quote I find pertinent.

If we understand these four archetypes, alpha male, bully, joker and nerd to be tendencies that can mix and match with each other and can mix with other archetypes, meaning they are not all-encompassing delimiters, we can see them in almost all ensemble stories from TV shows like NCIS on up to superhero movies, soap operas, even love stories.

Your tendency on OL is to be a good-natured joker sidekick who provides a ton of value. Jon's tendency is to be a fiercely loyal bully--and his greatest loyalty is to his principles. William went from joker keeping people honest to nerd. Everybody kicks him around nowadays. :)  And he earned it. As to Ellen, oddly enough, I see a dose of alpha male as her animus mixed with some archetypes that are not in these four like rebel and, believe it or not, mother-figure. :) 

I'm not going to keep going, though, because I'm going to end up pissing off everybody.

:) 

Michael

I’m not mad, keep going.

Ellen does have a wonderful force. I would back down to Ellen. (And then try to get her drunk.)

Share this post


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

I’m not mad, keep going.

Ellen does have a wonderful force. I would back down to Ellen. (And then try to get her drunk.)

I don't get drunk in company - or precisely "drunk," period.  But once or twice a week I have two or three beers over the course of a few hours while pacing and thinking and listening to an overnight classical music program I like.  My thoughts make phantasmic shapes somewhat like a dream tapestry but with more coherence.

Where the "force" thing comes from, I don't know.  I've had it since I was a young child.

(And, yes, Michael, I do have a mothering thing, too, but not so strongly as some women.  It tends to be more situational, activated in some circumstances.)

Ellen

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just three. My comparable experience is riding a moto full–out at the track. The hyper–focus brings me to an altered, hypnotic state.

I am the most motherly person at OL, hands down. I was an at–home parent, I raised two daughters from infancy. Their mother went back to work after 12 weeks break. She pumped breast milk and brought it home for the freezer and I would organize it and use it during the day, first–in first. I substitute taught at their elementary school and many others, as well. I got asked back routinely, especially for special ed positions. “They hate everyone, including me, and they liked you. Please.”  My haters are flat, undynamic personalities who no doubt think I fabricate the above, because from their severely limited perspective, they simply cannot imagine it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I am the most motherly person at OL, hands down.

That's why people's predating on children incenses you.

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

That's why people's predating in children incenses you.

Ellen

Yes, and especially when people refuse to see the role it plays in the power systems that rule the world. It’s all coming out and people are going to be shocked to their core at what has been done to us and to our children. I wish you would share more about what you are learning, I know it is dangerous, but we all have to be brave or the public never wakes up and nothing ever changes.

Share this post


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

Arrgh! I don't know Ellen. When you are the recipient of trash talk, foul language and nasty names, it raises the blood pressure...

Peter,

Actually I agree with this description of what happens.

Ellen's reaction, though, should show you that, when people (not just me) see Jon trash-talking you, they attribute it to his excess, not to any lack of character in you. Notice that she didn't even mention his interactions with you. So the idea of you being defamed is nonexistent in the strictest sense of the term. Defamation would exist if anyone actually believed you were one of the bad guys.

And why do people give him a pass? Because he's wound up for the right reasons.

While the world sleeps, kids keep getting mutilated, both physically and psychologically, the perpetrators get stuck in malevolent power games through blackmail, and some really nasty people are trying to rot our society at the root. But what do people care about most when this pedophilia stuff comes up, especially when it involves the ruling class? Generally they care most about changing the subject. I think this drives Jon crazy. I know it does me. And I am sure, over time, if you get real familiar with what actually exists, the damage it is doing and realize the extent of it, and fully grok that this evil is right under your nose, you will not only agree with the need to do something, the world's complacency will likewise drive you crazy.

However, I realize being on the receiving end is a pisser. Emotions are blunt instruments, not precision attempts at communicating important ideas. And strong emotions are blunter still. That's why people give Jon a pass in his overreactions to you. They know you are far different than his interrupting the toxic drip drip drip patterns William exudes (which he does on purpose).

So, to be fair, but also try to allow the fire in Jon's belly stay alive and have a place to burn (which, when you think about all those kids being sacrificed to the destruction going on under the surface of our respectable society, is a precious blaze), I will try to keep an eye on things when you two go at it. Then I will try to steer it in the direction of good guyness.

Imagine what would have happened if Trump had not gone full in on his beliefs against McCain and Bush and others who were helping keep people asleep. And against the original 17 in the primaries. Even with all he has done, he almost lost the chance to build the wall with Flake and his crowd, Romney and his crowd, etc. Did he catch a few good guys in his barrages? Yup. But people know who the good guys are. And did Trump make a few mistakes along the way? Yup. That's the way blunt instruments work. 

I am convinced that your differences with Jon are matters of momentary perspective, not character. Not anywhere near character.

Like I said, you are one of the good guys.

I want to tell Jon to knock it off with you, but if he doesn't see his error, he will neither change nor keep the blaze burning in the way it needs to burn. In the beginning you were basically anti-Trump. Now you love the guy and like what you are seeing. I saw that in you way back when because you are a man of principle.

Jon, in his fury against the bad guys, hasn't put this need in you to stay true to your own perspective into his computations and realized that you need to see more to fully understand the magnitude of the evil that is going on. Then you will go to the side of the angels under your own steam. (And I fully support you being honest enough to say when you don't see it. We all need to think with our own minds, not with peer pressure.)

But, if I understand anything about human nature, once he does see his error, he will be one of the nicest people to you that you will ever want to know. Colorful, but nice.

Even George came around to you when he was posting regularly here. That was not by accident. :)  He finally had a place to observe you outside of his own perspective and, I am sure, he saw a good guy. Just look at the way you guys talked to each other as compared to before.

(I think George drifted because Trump was a bridge too far--much worse than you :) --for everything he has built as his intellectual frame. And I was not going to back off on my support for Trump. Not in the context the world was in at the time. But George is one of the good guys, too. And he's recently done magnificent work in the scholarly world. When I want to talk to him, which is rare these days given our different interests, we talk. I like him. :) )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, like a porcupine you only engage Jon one way.

I love the way you keep bringing back the old Atlantis (destroyed by Jimmy Wales) stuff.

--Brant

Share this post


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

Yes, and especially when people refuse to see the role it plays in the power systems that rule the world. It’s all coming out and people are going to be shocked to their core at what has been done to us and to our children. I wish you would share more about what you are learning, I know it is dangerous, but we all have to be brave or the public never wakes up and nothing ever changes.

Jon,

It isn't an issue of brave.  It's an issue of strategy. Stealth tactics don't work if those being stealthed against know there are people onto them.

Ellen

PS:  I'm rushed, didn't have time to do more than glance at Michael's long post.  Later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Peter, like a porcupine you only engage Jon one way.

--Brant

Or just don’t. Look at the genuine feelings about me he has expressed above. So, why does he want to engage me? Why is staying at OL but without engaging me so unthinkable? He expressly rejects it. I don’t get it.

When I see a porcupine, I keep walking. I don’t stop, fuck with the porcupine, and later bitch to my friends about the social aptitude of porcupines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

It isn't an issue of brave.  It's an issue of strategy. Stealth tactics don't work if those being stealthed against know there are people onto them.

Ellen

I understand. And I don’t want you to blow it, but I  know that some indirect indication of what you are onto will go a long way to waking people up to the extensiveness of what is being done to us and what we are up against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

William sent your private messages between you and him to Kat. I didn't ask for a copy and won't read them since I understand private to mean private.

At any rate, I've made my case for how much you rock. :) And it's sincere. But, ultimately, you do what's best for Peter.

William,

I've asked once before and this is the second time. Please do not send stuff to Kat, especially not stuff complaining about me.

She does not like you. You are one of the main reasons she stopped posting on OL. She wants me to ban you. I have denied her wish up to now, but if it comes down to a choice between trouble with her because you won't leave her alone or adhering to her wish, it's a no-brainer for me. 

 So keep pushing your horseshit to damage things and play your little games. Just keep pushing...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they redirected half their censorship and control cravings into researching the truth, then they would know now that Michael and I are correct in everything we say about the state of the world. What a shit show by these pathetic twats.

Share this post


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

[..,.]

OK, a few things.

About - and to - Peter.

Michael's correct regarding my not mentioning Peter.  I wasn't thinking about the exchanges between him and Jon.  I'm sure that Peter wouldn't insidiously support the stuff going on re children if he were better aware of it.  He'd be vomiting.

[Edit:  The third sentence in the above paragraph didn't come out right.  What I meant is that I'm sure that Peter wouldn't be like William in attitude.  William's insidiously supporting of the stuff going on with his slurs about conspiratorial thinking, etc.]

Peter, a suggestion:  Don't burble into this stuff the way you do, all oblivious.  Think and do some research first.

I don't have anything to add to Michael's long post.

One phrase, part of a parenthetical, leapt out at me bringing a horrible image from religious history.

This phrase:

"when you think about all those kids being sacrificed to the destruction going on under the surface of our respectable society"

The image that brought to my mind was of infants being thrown into the flames, sacrificial offerings to the god Moloch.

---

About William:  So he's trying some of his slithering again with Kat?

Repellant.

Ellen

Share this post


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

I understand. And I don’t want you to blow it, but I  know that some indirect indication of what you are onto will go a long way to waking people up to the extensiveness of what is being done to us and what we are up against. 

The stuff I'm investigating isn't at this time geared against "us," by which I take you to mean Americans.  The locus is Europe, with a current scope of Europe and south and east.  None of the conspirers I'm aware of is American.  There would be big repercussions for the U.S., but we don't want those.

The idea is to try to close the barn door before the horses escape.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The stuff I'm investigating isn't at this time geared against "us," by which I take you to mean Americans.  The locus is Europe, with a current scope of Europe and south and east.  None of the conspirers I'm aware of is American.  There would be big repercussions for the U.S., but we don't want those.

The idea is to try to close the barn door before the horses escape.

Ellen

Thanks. Nail them to the wall.

Share this post


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

 

"when you think about all those kids being sacrificed to the destruction going on under the surface of our respectable society"

The image that brought to my mind was of infants being thrown into the flames, sacrificial offerings to the god Moloch.

 

Ellen

Ellen, when you named what gets me incensed, I knew immediately you missed the mark. But I couldn’t figure out why it was a miss. I thought to myself: of course it is exactly what gets me incensed, people should help and nurture the helpless, not exploit them like some fucking reptile would. But it doesn’t get me incensed when I think about it. They’re monsters, I’ve always known those are everywhere. Just facts, total calm, it doesn’t get me incensed.

Michael’s line and your reaction brought it together for me. I know what gets me incensed. It is when people value decorum and appearances more than truth or justice. When they get angry, not at our abusers and destroyers, but at me, for upsetting their rosy imaginations about the world they live in. Toss in ignorance and some superior being attitude, and I want to throttle them on the spot.

Share this post


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

I know what gets me incensed. It is when people value decorum and appearances more than truth or justice. When they get angry, not at our abusers and destroyers, but at me, for upsetting their rosy imaginations about the world they live in. Toss in ignorance and some superior being attitude, and I want to throttle them on the spot.

Jon,

One thing that gets you incensed. Not the only thing.

I doubt this is the main thing that gets you wound up about William, except maybe the smug superior posture.

I, too, get frustrated by what you said. I've often expressed it as words as opposed to deeds. Some people will overlook the most vile deeds so long as good manners and decorum are obeyed. And then they have the gall to correct others about their manners.

This was my entire problem convincing people about President Trump's virtues. I've had people even tell me he didn't really build his hotels, golf course, etc., because they didn't like the way he spoke. Yet they didn't seem mind endless-war-for-profit neocons and the piles of dead bodies and hordes of maimed people they produced.

I don't believe this is Peter's soul. I see him more as old school where manners are concerned. He's from a generation like mine where manners were learned by a whipping. I bet he even opens doors for women. (I do.) :) 

He takes a long time to see evil because he's a good soul with a good heart. But he eventually sees it. This is a pattern I've detected over time. I recommend taking this into account, mostly because it's real.

But this brought something else to mind. A singer I once produced in Brazil was overly macho. (He was from the desert in Northeastern Brazil where conditions were harsh.) He had a thing about men not using cuss words in front of women and he was half crazy. He was always getting in trouble because he would get up in a restaurant where some dude or other at a neighboring table was talking loudly in foul language with women present. He would stomp to the guy's table, tell him to shut his filthy mouth, and put his cigarette out on the guy's cheek. Or when he was more rational, he would throw a glass of beer in the guy's face. :) 

I had to get him out of several scrapes like that.

(Man, did that take me back. I'm starting to drift in my mind to those former days... Time to stop that shit and get producing something good right now. :) )

Michael

Share this post


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

I, too, get frustrated by what you said. I've often expressed it as words as opposed to deeds. Some people will overlook the most vile deeds so long as good manners and decorum are obeyed. And then they have the gall to correct others about their manners.

This was my entire problem convincing people about President Trump's virtues. I've had people even tell me he didn't really build his hotels, golf course, etc., because they didn't like the way he spoke. Yet they didn't seem mind endless-war-for-profit neocons and the piles of dead bodies and hordes of maimed people they produced.

On the other hand, there are people - I'm one of them - who have liked the brash from the start as a welcome change from the pompous-stuffed-shirt charade of standard political style.

The standard political style has been like the reverse of the Wizard of Oz - suave behavior out front and monstrousness behind the curtain.

Ellen

Share this post


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

My beef with OL and Michael is that I simply asked Michael to moderate Jon's abusive language towards me, which IS in the OL policy and he will not.

Peter,

No I will not. I will never be told who to moderate, who to ban, etc. Even Barbara understood that with a crazy dude named Victor Pross way back when. She trusted me to resolve the issue (which I did) and I have the emails to prove it. (But man did she bitch about him at the time. :) )

The best I can do is work on the problem until it is resolved to the satisfaction of all. But obey orders about who to allow here or not, who to moderate or not, ain't going to happen. Ever. Lots of people have learned this over the years.

As to the rest, you are always welcome here. And it's always a joy to have you around and you have a special place in my heart. But you run your own life. I respect that. When you do what is best for Peter, you actually do what is best for OL.

So it's all good.

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...