Deep State Unraveling

[Jon Letendre]

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

In other words, without your permission, legally, they need a warrant.

And police sometimes lie.

So what?

A robber doesn't need to use a gun on you if you acquiesce to him taking your shit. And robbers sometimes lie. There. We have two contexts for permission and lying while taking someone's shit. Does anybody disagree with this? What's the point of discussing it as if it were controversial?

More importantly, what does this have to do with legally arresting you in your home?

I never see police presenting papers to people they pick up in the street like, say, from a bench warrant.

They just arrest the person and work out the paperwork at the police station, often in front of lawyers, then a judge if need be.

Sometimes, the police even use discretion and allow the person to turn himself or herself in down at the station.

Imagine that. Police sometimes lie and they sometimes are lenient.

Big deal.

This has nothing to do with the law.

Michael

He would arrive with force. They would cuff her the moment she opened the door. They would never let her go back into the house. He would arrest her if he was there executing a warrant to arrest, not stand cross-legged in the threshold debating with her and her family then walk back and forth. He would never plead with her to come with him, as he did 'I've been patient enough.' She would never go with a single shady cop who cannot get his story right. The husband would not acquiesce as his career anti-Deep State wife is escorted away by one shady cop who cannot get his story right. There are so many more problems I haven't listed yet. It is staged.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

He would arrive with force. They would cuff her the moment she opened the door. They would never let her go back into the house. He would arrest her if he was there executing a warrant to arrest, not stand cross-legged in the threshold debating with her and her family then walk back and forth. He would never plead with her to come with him, as he did 'I've been patient enough.' She would never go with a single shady cop who cannot get his story right. The husband would not acquiesce as his career anti-Deep State wife is escorted away by one shady cop who cannot get his story right. There are so many more problems I haven't listed yet. It is staged.

Jon,

He would... they would... he would never... they would not... she would never... etc. etc. etc.

That's enough would to build a house.  

How do you know all of this?

Are you saying cops are aggressive all the time?

That's not my experience.

I've been on the bad end of cops in my bad days.

On the good side of the bad end, one cop's concern for me touched me so much, it planted a seed in my heart that grew into me giving up crack cocaine.

On the bad end, I've also seen (right in front of me) a cop shove a person into an alley and shoot him in cold blood. (This happened at night where I used to score.)

I don't think cops act one way and one way only.

Granted, these were Brazilian cops, but the ones I've seen and interacted with here in the USA seem about the same.

As to the arrest being staged, I'm waiting to see. When I find out something, I will post it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the Shadowgate documentary, but it looks unfinished.

I deleted the first one. This looks like the finished documentary. It's at the same YouTube account, too. (This account is apparently a backup account, but, for the record, the link I posted earlier is here.) 

LATER EDIT: The video below is the one at Tore's YouTube account. Tore is one of the whistle-blowers in the documentary and coproducer. It was uploaded 12 hours ago (as of this edit) and already has over 420,000 views.

(NEW EDIT: As you can see, YT took it down. It had over 1.3 million views, if not more, when they did that.)

This YouTube link might go down before too long. I will look for one on BitChute and maybe Banned Video and add it to this post later.

LATER EDIT: Shadowgate on Brighteon. There are several other copies over there, too, under different accounts.

EVEN LATER EDIT: Shadowgate is finally on Banned Video under Millie Weaver's own account.

From a post below:

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Banned Video is Alex Jones's video platform, but both Brighteon and Banned Video give really good playback experiences.

And here are a couple more links:

A copy of Shadowgate on Millie Weaver's account at lbry.tv:

 

Here's a copy on BitChute:

That should do it for now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to the arrest being staged, I'm waiting to see. When I find out something, I will post it.

It seems like Millie Weaver is in some kind of legal trouble and really is in custody.

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media in Canada set up a GoFundMe page for her legal defense and bail.

 

Emergency legal defense fund for Millie Weaver

Quote

Millie Weaver, the popular independent journalist, was arrested today in a shocking raid. No information is publicly available, and in cell phone footage of the arrest, Millie repeatedly asks what the arrest is for, with police providing no answers. Whatever the case, we know Millie will need financial help — to pay for a lawyer and other expenses. 

I have just spoke with a work colleague of Millie, and with her friend Tore, who have given me their approval to launch this fundraiser. They confirm that it will not conflict with any other actions to help Millie. All proceeds will be transferred to Millie or her designate as soon as she’s out of custody.

. . .

Updates (1)
TODAY
by Ezra Levant, Organizer
Amazing — thank you to everyone who has been so generous. In just four hours we have reached 50% of our goal.

I have been in touch with Millie’s friend Tore about connecting with legal counsel. I won’t disclose anything confidential, but it is my goal to help support any legal effort, including (if applicable) paying bail.

Thanks again.

Ezra

This isn't 100% proof that the arrest was not staged since it is through a third party. But Ezra is quite famous and he has a reputation to lose if this turns out to be a hoax. 

Since money is involved, I imagine he would not have set this page up without verifying things.

More coming as this develops.

btw - The documentary is well-worth watching. It centers on two people who worked for outside contractors who did things with the data collected by the surveillance state (somewhat like Snowden), including how copies of that data become private (so it can be sold) in addition to being government-owned. One of the more troubling things is how, through artificial intelligence algorithms, they can target the personalities of jurors to be selected so as to practically guarantee the outcome of a jury trial.

I may see it again just to get the names (individuals and companies) and processes down.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

More coming as this develops.

Here's a copy of Millie Weaver's jail record.

Here's the image expanded.

I can't guarantee the authenticity of the image, which is why I posted the tweet where I got it from.

But it does look like a proper record check result from a smartphone.

The only fishy thing I see is the booking time. 1:55 AM seems a bit off.

 

More coming as I come across stuff.

Also, Millie's partner in the documentary, Tore, just had her Twitter account suspended.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another person who posted Millie Weaver's jail record.

It is identical except for the time at the top, which I take to mean the time the time of the request, or the phone time, or something.  In the first, it is 6:00. In this one, it's 9:50. (Sorry, I don't know if it is AM or PM.)

I seriously doubt that was Photoshopped. But it's remotely possible it was.

For now, I lean toward thinking this is a legit jail record.

Michael

 

LATER EDIT: Apparently, Millie is being held without bond. Lots of famous people have verified the arrest and are getting involved.

Here are just two examples:

and...

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alex Jones not only talked about Millie Weaver's arrest earlier today, he interviewed one of the whistle-blowers in the documentary.

A few comments for context.

Infowars

1. Millie Weaver and Tore, the producers of Shadowgate, do not work for Infowars directly. They have an independent production company that develops specific projects for Infowars and/or in partnership with Infowars, or at least Millie does. Shadowgate, which was released earlier today, was neither. It was produced independently by them and Alex had promised he would help spread it (after he screened it).

2. Alex acted a bit scared about getting involved with this particular project because he has been threatened by the people exposed in this documentary. For example, they buried child pornography in the code he uses to run Infowars. He discovered it by accident. Then they practically crucified Roger Stone. It took Trump to commute his sentence to keep him out of jail. All this (and other things) has made Alex a bit gun-shy when he ponders facing these Deep State spooks head on. That's why he did not get on board with Millie when she first asked him to help with the documentary. But now that they've arrested her, he's on the warpath.

 

Tore and Patrick Bergy

3. I don't know much about Tore. She is one of the whistle-blowers in the documentary in addition to being one of the producers. Alex interviewed her by phone and this was right before she uploaded the documentary to the Internet (at several places). She seems to exaggerate at times, but she also seems to have a handle on some deep shit, including spreading malware for intelligence purposes. Apparently she has worked inside the Deep State on the contractor side for a long time. I'm not too sure of anything about her, so, when I learn more, I will present it.

4. Alex also interviewed Patrick Bergy, who looks like he is the real deal in terms of being a whistle-blower. He worked directly with the son of General James Jones, Jim Jones for 8 years--up to 2010. Patrick went to the Infowars studio in person. Apparently. going by the way he and Alex talked, this was the first time he met Alex. As to the interview, he was EXTREMELY interesting. He has been trying to blow the whistle on what he knew for an awful long time. Alex kept interrupting him, though, and that got annoying. I think this was due to Alex being scared when Patrick tried to talk about certain things and when Patrick started getting too technical.

 

Bad guys

5. It seems like one of the real big bad guys in this chapter of exposing the Deep State is General James Jones (one of the main players in the development and use of Shadownet) and his involvement with mixing mass surveillance data and artificial intelligence (Dynology, Clearforce, Wikistrat, Atlantic Council and other stuff).

 

Interviews

Here is the video link. Click on the image and it will take you to the video on Brighteon.

If you are interested in specific segments, since it is a long video, here are some times:

21:23 - Alex discusses Millie Weaver's arrest.
28:20 - Alex interviews Tore by phone.
1:07:38 - Alex interviews Patrick Bergy in person.

After 1:37:00 Alex goes off into other topics.

I am going to watch that documentary again and parts of the Alex's interviews with Tore and Patrick Bergy.

Michael

 

EDIT: As gravy, this thing is exploding over at thedonald.win:

Millie Weaver's SHADOWGATE Documentary: The DoD built "SHADOWNET" acts as a identity tracking system for the left wing private sector who now own it. They're using it against you and anyone who opposes them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

She seems to exaggerate at times, but she also seems to have a handle on some deep shit, including spreading malware for intelligence purposes.

Tore

About Tore, the more I rewatch the videos and the implications of everything is sinking in, I no longer think she is exaggerating.

Also, I have mentioned her as coproducer of Shadowgate. I still think that is true, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

Shadownet, crowds, and stupid causes

On another point, I think these Deep State assholes have been using this Shadownet and similar to gin up crowds through artificial intelligence targeting. One of the first crowds they did (according to Patrick) was the riots at Ferguson. They gathered their data to profile poor people back then through the Obamaphones with free unlimited data usage. 

Think about today. Everybody, including pundits, have been complaining about how the country is so polarized it is impossible for one side to talk to the other without hostility. Knowing what I have learned about how core stories work in the brain, I have little doubt Shadownet and similar using mega-surveillance-data plus artificial intelligence plus schema and ideas from behavioral scientists plus just plain storytelling have ginned up some core stories that encourage people to identify the other as the enemy so much they get irrationally nasty.

They have hacked the human mind and segmented people according to a process called "localization" to encourage them to be more like each other on specific parameters. Including hating specific targets.

But instead of getting clean results, these manipulations are making people so miserable many are going back to their original core beliefs and to hell with the rest.

Also, some of the things some people are promoting are so goddam stupid, you wonder how anyone can do that. For example, defund the police. That is Shadownet and similar running the show in the background. How else to explain the surge of that particular belief in such a short amount of time?

 

Study

I'm going to be studying how all this works over the God knows how long. This to me, from what I just saw, is the tip of the right rabbit hole to go down. I just watched Shadowgate for the second time and the interviews with Alex Jones for the second time. I stopped and looked up things as I went along, too. It was well-worth the time.

Millie and Tore and Patrick have a culture-changing expose on their hands. Let's see where this goes, but if the half a million views in 12 hours on YouTube is any indication (for an hour and a half documentary at that), this just might grow legs long enough for a deep cultural shakeup.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

LATER EDIT: The video below is the one at Tore's YouTube account. Tore is one of the whistle-blowers in the documentary and coproducer. It was uploaded 12 hours ago (as of this edit) and already has over 420,000 views.

I went to sleep for a few hours.

It hasn't even been 24 hours since the video was uploaded and it already has over 730k views.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone wants to probe deeper as I am probing, Google the name:

"Patrick Bergy"

There is a lot of stuff to look at. I just went through an interview he did in December of last year with Sarah Westall on Shadownet:
Obama Shadownet, Psyop Impeachment Against Americans, Ukraine Corruption w/ Patrick Bergy (1of2)
Obama Shadownet, Psyop Impeachment Against Americans, Ukraine Corruption w/ Patrick Bergy (2of2)

I've gotten a few impressions of him.

1. He suffers from an extreme case of "curse of knowledge." This is when you are so specialized in something, you cannot imagine what the mental state of a beginner feels like. So you presume the people you are talking to know a lot more than they do. For an easy example, acronyms. The truth is, if you have not yet seen Shadowgate, which does a decent job of explaining it, you will not know what he is talking about for much of the time.

2. Politically, he is like a bull in a China shop. For example, Sarah was leading him with anti-Hillary Clinton questions and he blurted out (I paraphrase), "No. We were mostly John McCain's client. He had hired us for his presidential campaign and...  

He talks against Clinton, too. But he is not easily led in partisan directions. He's an equal opportunity basher. 

In fact, he said he became a Republican only one year ago and, even then, he was a Trump Republican--for one reason only. He said Trump is the only politician (and he included Trump's family) he has seen refuse to accept the kind of services companies like Dynology offer.

3. Part of his complaints are those of a disgruntled ex-employee who was let go. They are not a lot and they don't negate his legit stuff, but they are there. In the interview above, he said his problems started when he turned in a guy for downloading porn with minors on the company's servers. They fired the guy, but then told him to forget he ever saw that. He resisted and wanted to put in safeguards, so he was eventually let go.

4. An important point is the concept of IIA. This means Interactive Internet Activities. That is military jargon for fake news and it goes back to when he first started working (around 2006 or 2007 or thereabouts). The main job of Shadownet is to manufacture fake news (or fake information of some type) and inject it into the culture as legitimate through news outlets, social media, front companies, manufactured personas (fake and legit), source trails leading nowhere, and so on, including segmenting and targeting audiences for persuasion.

More later. I'm still digging.

Believe it or not, I think a good portion of Trump Derangement Syndrome--the kneejerk overblown hatred and nastiness--is due to bad guys using Shadownet capabilities on the public. Maybe the original repugnance of Trump was not engineered by Shadownet, but I have little doubt it was ramped up to the psychosis levels we see today by bad guys using Shadownet.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alex Jones also called the Sheriff's office and verified that Millie and her husband are in custody. They will go before a judge on Monday. Both are in jail on a secret indictment and being held without bond.

He said there was a personal angle, too. Apparently her mother is involved in trying to get custody of her kids, or something, but I don't know enough to say anything with certainty. 

This is my personal view, but this smells like the kind of crap that rat Andrew Weissman would pull, especially since his bud and partner in crime on the Mueller team, Kevin Clinesmith, is pleading guilty for the Durham investigation to falsifying FBI records. I know Millie's arrest was not an FBI thing, but the MO of her arrest sure is in the ballpark.

Well... this didn't happen in the middle of the night and there were no helicopters, swat teams, boats and a small army armed to the teeth (with CNN accidentally in the neighborhood) like with Roger Stone... but held without bond?

WTF?

Stay tuned.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's Patrick Bergy's most recent video. 

He's crapping on Alex Jones, Jeanine Pirro, Dan Bongino and others, calling them traitors.

Now we know why he's not getting his story out more.

 

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, though.

If I were going through what he's been going through, my nerves would be shot.

Since his job used to be manufacture and disseminate disinformation through AI software, and in a job like that one gets used to calling the shots, I think he's also frustrated that things are taking so long. Based on this video alone, he seems to be pretty good at pissing off people who are trying to help him.

 

EDIT: Here's another interview--about an hour and 20 minutes--from yesterday: Tore, Patrick and Pete Santilli (who was involved in the Ammon Bundy standoff against the federal government, meaning Obama and Clinton, in Oregon over grazing rights in early 2016--he served 8 months in jail awaiting trial, then the charges were dropped). I'm not embedding the video to keep the post size down, but the link goes to the interview.

Patrick Bergy opened by crapping on Roger Stone and both Tore and Pete drew him back in. So biting the hand that tries to help him because he feels slighted is a nerves thing with him. I paid attention to this aspect during the interview and Tore seems to have a rapport with him where she can keep this part tamped down. At times, he gives me the impression of a fuse about to blow.

Incidentally, this is the first time I heard Pete Santilli and I like him. So I looked up his site on YouTube (The Pete Santilli Show) and subscribed to it. Who knows? After I learn more and given the right mood and situation, I might get in touch with him. It's that damn attraction to trouble I have...  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In case anyone is interested, here is an update from yesterday by Alex Jones.

The link goes to BitChute.

SHADOW GATE/MILLIE WEAVER ARREST UPDATE

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 8/15/2020 at 1:38 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It hasn't even been 24 hours since the video was uploaded and it already has over 730k views.

The video right now has 1,372,499 views.

This is big.

I hope YouTube does not interfere with this until it is too late to delay the massive viral surge point for all over the Internet. The documentary and the information in it will still get there, but this way is much faster. After that point has been reached, it won't matter if YouTube takes it down.

But, I think it is a good possibility that YouTube will not take it down since the ones targeted are not Google and YouTube. In a weird way. Clearforce & Co. (featured in the video) is a direct competitor to social media in terms of massaging massive surveillance data with artificial intelligence. These guy are ultimately trying to cut each other's throats, so maybe competition in this instance will keep censorship away.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry to repeat part of a post I just made elsewhere, but it contains an explanation that I believe will be useful to readers who are following this thread.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It just hit me that the people using Shadownet (and similar) not only deal with the core stories and core beliefs of their targets, they also set up their communications to trigger these emotional surge payoffs. TDS actually does provide one hell of a high when a Trump hater cuts loose and blurts out venom. All he needs is the right image at the right moment.  I bet the people using Shadownet even know the best times of day to feed those images to their TDS targets.

Shadownet is an Internet program invented for, and used by the US military, but now also used by private companies. There are several types and brands these days going under different names. It employs artificial intelligence to manipulate massive surveillance and social media data. It creates personas and stories and fake news and other disinformation, and feeds all that to the different groups that it segments. It often has its different personas fight each other with totally made-up--but plausible-sounding--material to trigger the impulse of onlookers to join in on one side or the other until hostile crowds form and start breaking things. Or it can use real people personas who are coached in what to do and say. It is wickedly effective and behind a lot of the unrest in America that the media covers these days, such media coverage also being prompted and encouraged by the people using Shadownet and similar, of course.

One of the guys who invented it (Patrick Bergy) is a huge Trump supporter because he says President Trump refuses to use this technology to manipulate his supporters despite being constantly offered it. The closest he came to full on engagement was with Cambridge Analytica, which kinda botched its promises of specific outcomes through overselling (I believe, through greed of money and fame and cutting corners on scraping data from Facebook  ). In that whole Cambridge Analytica scandal, nobody ever talked about artificial intelligence manipulating the data, not even Facebook...

But it was there for whoever wanted to use it.

Granted, the following video is more recent than back then (the video is from 2019 and back then was 2016), but it gives a great cartoon-like easily understandable visual representation of what AI algorithms are capable of.

Imagine these kinds of algorithms run gazillions of times on surveillance data with the goal of, say, figuring out how to trigger a likely powerful neurochemical surge in the brains of Trump haters (and, of course, other scenarios).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The video right now has 1,372,499 views.

This is big.

I hope YouTube does not interfere with this...

Ha!

That didn't take long.

"Tory Says" still has her YouTube account, though, at least for now. YouTube merely deleted the video.

Fortunately, here are other links to the complete documentary:

On 8/14/2020 at 5:06 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Shadowgate on Brighteon. There are several other copies over there, too, under different accounts.

Shadowgate is finally on Banned Video under Millie Weaver's own account.

Banned Video is Alex Jones's video platform, but both Brighteon and Banned Video give really good playback experiences.

And here are a couple more links:

A copy of Shadowgate on Millie Weaver's account at lbry.tv:

 

Here's a copy on BitChute:

That should do it for now.

Michael

 

EDIT: Good God! As of this moment, that is Aug 17 at about 2:15 AM, Shadowgate already has 854,728 views on Banned Video. Screw YouTube. Like I said, this is big.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tore managed to talk to Millie in jail.

Here is a video of her call.

I get the feeling that when Millie comes out of this, she is going to be so hopping mad, she will throw all caution to the wind and go into "well, fuck it then" mode, starting with lawsuits and investigations and her reporter digging skills.

On the good side, she's now made her bones.

Congratulations to the people who tried to censor her. They just made her a media star--especially when a lot of famous people line up beside her. They can't see it yet, but that's exactly what they did and a big-ass whammy is coming their way.

Depending on what is involved for relevance, I can even see her case getting to AG Barr and him taking an interest in the people who orchestrated it. At least, her documentary will now be seen and studied by Barr's agents. With the media attention this whole thing is getting, he will have to. But I also think he will want to.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A note on the documentary.

There are a few things in it that are controversial in a quirky way. One is that Patrick Bergy talked about Roger Stone, along with Paul Manafort, as one of the people involved setting up a competitor to Shadownet back in the day. Man, this put a bug up Alex Jone's ass.

 

When I first saw the documentary, the part talking about Roger Stone was a clunk-thud sound in the symphony. But, propaganda-wise, I think it's good to be there. These kinds of inconsistencies create cognitive dissonance and this causes controversy, which causes the message to get spread. 

In fact, since Bergy has designed disinformation campaigns in the past, I would not put it past him to have done this on purpose. In fact, it's odd how he showed up in Alex's studio right after Millie got arrested and got interviewed before Alex was aware of this Stone business in the film, then how he immediately hit the road on his bike, stopping to crap on Alex on his smartphone. Man, does that sound like it was done on purpose.

Propaganda-wise, whether it was or not, whether Roger Stone was an early mastermind of the surveillance state or not, etc. etc. etc., the truth does not matter. So, in this case, I'm not even interested in it all that much. What matters is that people are talking about this issue and fighting over it. And we know Alex will dig into this thing like a dog with a bone and will keep at it for days if not weeks. Roger Stone is one of his stamps of credible influence with President Trump.

(Obviously, fact-wise, this stuff does matter. But facts have little to do with propaganda, so from a propaganda lens, facts don't matter. Whether a story spreads does.)

There are a few other things in the film of that are incongruent, but when you look at them, they are all inessential to the main message and they all prompt points for people to disagree over. Ultimately, I think the main value of the documentary is how Millie (and Tore and even Patrick) described the way the pieces fit together and framed it all in a way that sidestepped the engineered narratives in place in our culture. They made all this look like something new while pegging it to quite famous people in a manner the public is not used to. And the plain language and simple explanations used make it easy to understand. Without realizing the power of this, I think Millie is torpedoing a lot of bad-guy ships that she didn't even aim at. Did Patrick and Tore use her like this for this? Maybe...

But one thing is for sure. People are going to look up a lot of stuff on their own as if all this were new. And that will be a great thing, something those who engineered the narratives in place in our culture never imagined would happen. Why? Because what people are going to see will not be pretty and will create new narrative in the culture, ones the bad guys did not engineer.

I love watching this play out in real time.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I get the feeling that when Millie comes out of this

Millie has been released.

I don't know details yet. There is a livestream of it somewhere. I will try to find video later.

Also, the fake news media is now ramping up a campaign to say her arrest had nothing to do with stepping on toes of the Deep State.

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Good God! As of this moment, that is Aug 17 at about 2:15 AM, Shadowgate already has 854,728 views on Banned Video. Screw YouTube. Like I said, this is big.

It's up to 1.2 million views on Banned Video right now (about 12 hours later than in the quote).

And Alex is not even pumping it. He's pissed about the Roger Stone part.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A couple more posts from another thread to complete the idea here.

15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I've seen that - a reaction as on-trigger as Pavlov's dogs salivating and producing the TDS person's becoming all plumped up with righteous rage and presumably feeling very high, and with a lingering energizing after glow.

 

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's a very good description. And once you've seen it with that kind of clarity and in a form that makes sense to you, you will start seeing it all over the place. It's like buying a Jeep. If you have never thought of a Jeep before, you never see one on the road. But once you buy one, Jeeps are all over the place.  

On another note, if you are ever interested, the way of triggering addiction through social media (and media in general) is based on the work and theories developed by BJ Fogg. One of his students, Nir Eyal, developed a very simple algorithm to create and perpetuate addiction that is used in almost all social media apps.

Once you add that to artificial intelligence (especially the AI algorithms learning through trial and error), storytelling (with the current awareness of how--and at what points--stories release oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, etc. in audience brains), and mass surveillance data banks, it's easy to start seeing the enormous load of Pavlovian bells in our culture the gods of addiction can ding anytime they want--not just that these bells exist, but how they work.

Awareness and volition fight this, but people are distracted most of the time and in passive mode. They are especially vulnerable to the dinging when in that state. (This is not criticism, it's just the way the brain operates. Using willpower consumes calories on the level of hard exercise, so most of the time the free will part of the mind rests while the rest of the brain runs on autopilot.)

This is a part of human nature that is critical to understand if we want to keep authoritarians at bay and pursue our individual happiness based on values we choose. Unfortunately, within Objectivism, there is a lot of resistance to the very notion that this stuff exists. Many Objectivists will tell you right out, and in an aggressive tone, "Nobody manipulates me."

They tend to get that TDS look you just described when they say it, too.

I suspect this sudden neurochemical boost is due to a process called "imprinting."

I've discussed this on OL earlier.

On 5/27/2020 at 1:08 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have been mulling over the idea of ideological imprinting. Take a look at this article:

Konrad Lorenz's Imprinting Theory

Quote

Lorenz (1935) investigated the mechanisms of imprinting, where some species of animals form an attachment to the first large moving object that they meet.

This process suggests that attachment is innate and programmed genetically.

He took a large clutch of goose eggs and kept them until they were about to hatch out.  Half of the eggs were then placed under a goose mother, while Lorenz kept the other half hatched in an incubator, with Lorenz making sure he was the first moving object the newly hatched goslings encountered

The naturally hatched baby goslings followed their mother, while the incubator hatched ones follow Lorenz.

To ensure imprinting had occurred Lorenz put all the goslings together under an upturned box and allowed them to mix.  When the box was removed the two groups separated to go to their respective 'mothers' - half to the goose, and half to Lorenz.

. . .

Hess (1958) showed that although the imprinting process could occur as early as one hour after hatching, the strongest responses occurred between 12 and 17 hours after hatching, and that after 32 hours the response was unlikely to occur at all.

. . .

Lorenz and Hess believe that once imprinting has occurred, it cannot be reversed, nor can a gosling imprint on anything else.

Here's a video from that article:

 

And imprinting in humans? Rand covered this in "The Comprachicos," albeit she did not use the term "imprinting." She mentioned a Catholic group that said, "Give us a boy until 7 years old and you can do what you like with the man," or something to that effect.

We know that the brains of young people don't stop developing until they are in their 20s. So I wonder if there is a time stretch in their school years where they are susceptible to ideological imprinting. Instead of following a parent, like the geese, they follow a core set of ideas and a core set of storylines that frame their perception of reality and social interactions.

An entire generation of Americans has been indoctrinated by leftwing propaganda in schools and universities--probably imprinted. In the last 20 years we have seen them come into adulthood. Ergo the mess you have observed.

And notice how hard it is to reason with them.

Imprinting isn't the whole story for something as complex as the human mind, but based on what I have seen, it sure explains a lot.

I am almost certain that Trump Derangement Syndrome is based on imprinting for many people. Their hatred of him is visceral. I think it might go back to them being bullied when their brains were susceptible to being imprinted (or a process similar to that), or they took to heart stories where the bad guy or monster did similar things (like bragging, calling people names, etc., in a gruff voice) and this scared the hell out of them. 

If these young people were taught--at an imprinting stage of their brains--that stuff and human progress came from their surrogate "parents" and not from the human mind, that would explain why they take stuff and human progress for granted. In the abundance we live in today compared to previous centuries, what do they have to compare their imprints against? In their brains, so long as they follow their surrogate parents (the state or group or whatever), they will always have stuff and progress. And they always do. In reality, it's not because their surrogate parents provided it, but it sure as hell looks like that to them.

I have done a lot of thought about why elitists feel deep down that they are superior to the rest of mankind, they are the slavemasters by right and birth, so to speak. Some are highly intelligent people who should know better. I wonder if they were imprinted that way in their families or social environments right around the time their brains were susceptible to this process.

If so, that's why no amount of reasoning works with them and, even today, many still believe President Trump was elected by Russian meddling. The people they follow say so, thus that is what they believe sight unseen. They have been imprinted to believe what they are told by people in certain roles.

And that is probably why the people who snap out of this talk about how difficult and painful it was to do that. 

Imagine artificial intelligence learning through trial and error what is a main emotional imprinting point for a type of person and segments him or her into a group characterized by that only. Then imagine doing this with a ton of other characteristics that cause strong reactions in humans through millions and missions of iterations.

After all that, how easy would it be to come up with situations and storylines that push all of someone's buttons?

I think this is what is going on in our culture.

Michael

[william.scherk]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And imprinting in humans? Rand covered this in "The Comprachicos," albeit she did not use the term "imprinting." She mentioned a Catholic group that said, "Give us a boy until 7 years old and you can do what you like with the man," or something to that effect.

Stephen Hicks has a full-text PDF of "The Comprachicos" available at his website/blog: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 8/17/2020 at 2:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's up to 1.2 million views on Banned Video right now (about 12 hours later than in the quote).

It's very close to 2 million views now.

And for those who like a little bitchy inhouse gossip, the full Shadowgate documentary is now hard to find on the Banned Video site. Why? Because someone over there changed the release date from August 15 to July 15. 

Like I said, Alex is pissed that in the film, Patrick Bergy said bad things about Roger Stone. Then showed up in person to be interviewed before Alex had time to see the film, did a full interview, and not once mentioned that. Then, later and elsewhere, Patrick said some bad things about Alex being squishy and so on.

Tore is not amused by what Banned Video did.

Even among the good guys, humans will be humans.

Michael

[Peter]

I went looking for that odd word “comprachicos” and found some letters with the word, or in the case of Barbara Branden’s letter it was from a thread “IQ” where the word was mentioned. Peter

 . . . . Starting to get the point now about modern symbolic logic? It's not just nonsense or shoddy reasoning hidden behind obfuscatory symbolisms. It's deadly, because its chief practitioners are dedicated to wiping out objectivity and man's ability to grasp the facts of reality. They're just another bunch of Comprachicos, hiding out in the universities, laying in wait for innocent victims whose minds haven't yet been completely wrecked by their public school "educations."

Now, it may be possible that some brilliant Objectivists are able to seize control of the machinery of modern logic and avoid the all-too-easy equivocations fostered by its obfuscatory symbolism, and to do battle against the enemies of objectivity and reason. If so, more "power" to them! But my mind doesn't work that way. I have to translate their symbolisms into ordinary language – and even ~then~ it's a job! Best 2 all, Roger Bissell

 

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: RB's Response, and then to Reason Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:13:51 -0600. Roger Bissell has not yet declared whether he believes that Reason is Metaphysical.   He evidently believes Peikoff said it was.  At least this is what Roger implies Peikoff meant by quoting the statements from his lecture on reason prior to his lecture on volition.  If the question of which lecture topic was set up first is crucial to the issue, then we noted in his book, OPAR, Peikoff wrote about "Volition as Axiomatic" prior to his Chapter 5, where he briefly described Reason, and where he most definitely did not state or even imply that reason is metaphysical, but is epistemological.  Roger's attempt to verify his belief was because Ayn Rand was there to hear and authorize Peikoff's lectures, and she did not repudiate it later.  I did not think that Peikoff was claiming reason is metaphysical (and evidently neither did Rand)

I contend that Rand would not take the same meaning from Peikoff's words that Roger did.   I contend that Roger misinterpreted the meaning and intention of Peikoff's wording.  It did not mean that "Reason is Metaphysical".  Roger is mistaken because his belief contradicts the other fundamental tenets of Objectivism, and all other descriptions about the faculty of reason, stated by Rand in so many different essays.  It contradicts N. Branden's authorized essay explaining the nature of volition as actions distinct from contents of consciousness - volition as primary actions of raising or lowering awareness.

Volitional Consciousness is the primary metaphysical attribute of human nature.  Reason is a faculty of human consciousness, but reason is a volitional, epistemological faculty, and a method of human cognition.

In "The metaphysical Versus the Man-Made", Rand wrote of Volition, "by its metaphysically given nature."  Peikoff named it as "axiomatic". Volition is a FACULTY of human consciousness.  Reason is a FACULTY of human consciousness, i.e., "of man's metaphysical nature".  But a FACULTY can be either physical or mental,  innate and automatic OR chosen and acquired by experience and learning.  This means that volition is metaphysical, but reason is a volitional faculty that must be acquired by choice, and its usage must be learned.  Rand said this in many ways over and over in her essays - Read Page 20-22 in VOS, '61; in "The Comprachicos", '70, in The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made", '73; "The Missing Link", '73, in ITOE, '66.  Consider her descriptions about the Anti-Conceptual Mentality - the product of a volitional, self-created, non-reasoning, mind.  Or peruse the "AR Lexicon" for topic details

Rand wrote in ITOE that, "reason is not axiomatic, but a complex derivative concept".  The very notion that "reason is metaphysical" contradicts everything pertinent to Rand's premises and her discussions of human life.  Can anyone offer any evidence or proof that reason exists in the brain at, or before, birth, or that reason reigns fully conceptually formed with only the first few automatic perceptual awareness?  No, it's not true. This is one clue as to why Rand removed the term "perceives" from her earlier definition of the faculty of reason . . . .

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Normal Distributions and Human Differences Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:16:15 EDT David Bozzini wrote: << I am often amused to find the following attitude, even among presumably educated persons: "There just can't be any differences between races or ethnic groups when it comes to IQ, or any other ability that might matter in the real world."  >>

I don't think anyone has been arguing that there are no differences among races or ethnic groups in their IQ's. The argument is about what – if anything -- follows from that. Some say that because of differences in IQ, the lower IQ groups should be seen as inferiors and refused admittance to the United States, and that those already here should be repatriated. Others insist that people should be judged as individuals, and that the average IQ of their group is irrelevant to any judgment of the individual. The argument is about individualism versus collectivism. Barbara

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Peter Taylor asks me about volition and IQ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:43:02 -0600. Peter questions,  "What is the difference between people and animals? Do we have innate intelligence or is it entirely volitional?  Would Ellen Moore please address the issue of IQ?"

Peter, it is my judgment humans do not have innate intelligence. Intelligence is entirely acquired by means of volitional actions directed to conceptual reasoning about one's perceptions of reality. Rand maintained that "intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions".  Since she also stated "man is a being of volitional consciousness," that means intelligence is volitionally derived by abstraction and conceptualization by means of reasoning.

There is a sense in which perception could be viewed as a sign of intelligence but that means only that perceptual acuity can be evaluated as keen or less-clear from a conceptual perspective of knowledge. E.g., we all know that observers "see" different things and often are in error about what they think they "saw".  This is a clear incidence that some people have trained their degree of perceptual ability to be more or less accurate.  In the Comprachicos, Rand wrote about the fact that, for instance, visual focus is an acquired skill.  The thing is, from birth one volitionally trains one's self, one's body, one's mind, and one's intelligence to deal with accurate observation of reality. One develops these skills in the context of the individual's physical and mental effort of input and output.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a quick groaner for the smile of the day.

According to recent texts released, it looks like Strzok and McCabe were on the same Page.

 

Michael

 

EDIT: I wanted to credit that, but I couldn't find it for the life of me. But I just did, so here goes:

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 8/17/2020 at 2:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... the fake news media is now ramping up a campaign to say her arrest had nothing to do with stepping on toes of the Deep State.

For those still interested in this, here is a guy who got his hands on the secret indictment and read and analyzed parts of it on video.

It's one of those technically correct things that stinks of corruption.

On another point, the incorrect date on Shadowgate has been restored to the correct date of August 15. So that catfight has calmed down.

Michael