The Story Wars of Hot Political Issues

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

For God's sake, will you please quote me correctly?

I mean, come on. Do you really have to distort my meaning so you can try to look intelligent?

You said I wrote this: "Predator Class can control the Story Wars."

Here is what I wrote.

On 12/11/2022 at 12:28 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now let's see if the Predator Class can control the Story Wars without being able to control all of the physical components of the mainstream fake news media and social media. Without being able to censor.

I want to comment on your use of ChatGPT, which I found super-interesting in one direction and had serious limitations in another (and I am going to use it in the manner you posted in other things of my own), but if you are going post with bad faith on such an elementary level that you purposely give meaning that is not there to my words so you can argue about them, what is there to talk about? 

You are not talking to me. You're taking to some imaginary person you say is me and taking about shit coming out of your own head. What's worse, you're disrespecting OL readers by trying to fool them on such an in-your-face level.

 

I don't claim that the Predator Class can control the Story Wars as if it were merely something they choose to do or not. In fact, I mean the opposite. The Predator Class DOESN'T control the Story Wars. And it can't because its propaganda stories suck.

It controls the physical outlets where the Story Wars unfold. They try to control the narrative by allowing only one side--a bigoted side at that--to have physical presence, and they try to shut down the others--physically. I could go into this, but why bother?

 

I've seen you commit blunders before, and God knows you are slanted worse than the Leaning Tower of Pizza toward authoritarianism, but I have never seen you stoop to this level.

What happened? You used to have some minimum standards.

You don't have to agree with me, you can correct me all you want, even if we agree or don't agree on the corrections, but it's a pisser for you to agree/disagree with shit I don't mean that you come up with and attribute to me, using the quote function and everything to try to make it look legitimate.

 

I can't discuss anything so long as that crap is going on.

Fix it and I will continue. Don't fix it and enjoy the sound of one hand clapping...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just had a Story Wars insight, or maybe half an insight.

Today Trump launched his NFTs showing him as a superhero. He knew this would prompt hooting and hollering and mockery from his enemies, and maybe a moment of pause or indigestion from his supporters for being so campy in the context of the world going to hell.

Here is the sales image so later readers can see what I am referring to.

A couple of hours later, he released one of the most principled statements defending the First Amendment I have read from any President during the last 200 years or more.

He did a Hollywood buildup to create suspense, too. But then he threw those damn superhero cards at everyone.

 

I get it that you create buzz, then communicate the message to the eyeballs looking at you.

But why superhero in Spandex and a Cape?

 

Then it dawned on my. Trump's background includes involvement with Professional Wrestling. Good Guys, Bad Guys and a lot of sadism from the Bad Guys.

Just look at that image above and see if it doesn't look a Professional Wrestling ring. Not Boxing. Professional Wrestling. Just look at the gaudiness of it all, including the lighting.

 

And that led me to think about archetypes.

Trump's main archetype image up to now has been Strong Boss, and Street Scrapper when needed. 

I think he wants to change the archetype for the 2024 election. In Professional Wrestling, your main two archetypes are Heel and Babyface.

I think Trump is going for Babyface in Spandex and a Cape.

 

Seriously.

With all of the superhero movies, superhero TV shows, superhero comic books, superhero merch and so on, the superhero image is a normal part of everyone's existence--much like seeing a McDonald's on the side of the road.

It's just there.

So he taps into that familiarity and comes down the ramp like a Babyface, without the babyish face, of course. He's the hero of the story in the Story War coming to save the day and have it out with the villain.

Dramatic pause for that to sink in.

Then he comes out swinging about free speech.

 

After getting over the shock of the NFTs and seeing Trump himself adopt Spandex, I think he might be onto something.

I think this hero image is going to stick in the public mind after the mockery from the Bad Guys dies down.

That mockery will later be seen and remembered as the trash talk fighters do in Professional Wresting before a match.

 

And here's an even deeper Story Wars point.

Who does that leave as Heel?

Hmmmmm?...

 

 

This is one hell of a great way to fight a Story War. Rather than being covert, it's in-your-face vulgar, but based on images already in the heads of people--and widely so.

I like it.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you want to know how to lose the Story Wars faster than anything?

It's easy.

1. Present the story, the surprising hidden element, the agenda, the victim, the holy as hell righteous outrage, all of it. And do it perfectly.

2. Then screw it up at the end by being as bad as what you were criticizing.

 

Andrew Tate has been in the news recently and he likes to push buttons. I didn't pay much attention to him until he pushed Greta's buttons, you know, the climate change angry girl. I thought their back-and-forth was funny. But then Tate got arrested right after. And I thought, sigh... Here we go again trying to use guns to silence speech.

So what about Owen Benjamin? Well, he came out with both barrels blasting against Tate if full Avenging Angel feather. And I was right there with him thinking he is making me take a hard look at this Tate dude.

But then kersplash.

He fucked it.

Watch for yourself. It's a short video.

i warned people

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

 

This is a short masterclass in how to lose any Story War no matter how right you are. And it's not about the substance.

I'm talking about the form. The bad part can be any number of things.

Ye just experimented with this using a different bad part and it is not working out well for him.

 

Free speech-wise, I'm OK with this crap. But not for persuading.

This is anti-persuasion.

The bad guys just love it when this shit happens.

 

Do not... do not... DO NOT... tell stories in a Story War this way.

Talk about stepping on the punch line.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This meme that is going around is extra-clever and super-toxic in a story wars way.

Why?

 

It mischaracterizes the vast center by mixing the good with the awful.

The covert part is that people on one side will say to themselves, "Nah, that is not me. They are exaggerating." But when they look at the other side, they swallow the whole package as the truth.

If you are into propaganda for the predator class--how to keep the unwashed masses at each others throats while these masses ignore that the predators on both sides all go to the same restaurants and clubs--this one is hard to beat.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stories about blue or stories about red?

You choose.

Or so you think...

 

This demonstration is breathtaking in its simplicity.

btw - 5GW means fifth-generation warfare (non-kinetic).

 

Beliefs are transmitted by stories.

Michael

[tmj]

Re Mattias Desmet and mass formation psychosis,  a different frame from Peter Breggin and his evaluation of Desmet's theory and Dr Robert Malone's promotion of it. For which Malone is suing the Breggins for $25 million dollars for defamation. 

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/mh1FFYtWZac8/

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, tmj said:

Re Mattias Desmet and mass formation psychosis,  a different frame from Peter Breggin and his evaluation of Desmet's theory and Dr Robert Malone's promotion of it. For which Malone is suing the Breggins for $25 million dollars for defamation. 

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/mh1FFYtWZac8/

 

T,

I just did a look under the hood about this (more a scan than a look, but I believe I got a handle on it).

Frankly, I was unfamiliar with Dr. Breggin. So the video you posted was my introduction to his direct speaking. I loved what Breggin said about the Predator Class (he just used the word "predators"), but I winced every time I saw him mischaracterize the ideas of Desmet and Malone so he could attack them. He claims Desmet and Malone blame the victims for monstrous events and excuse the monsters. And then at the end, it got worse. Breggin said that Desmet and Malone often say that evil people exist, but they don't mean it. They really want to excuse the monsters.

What?!!!

Like it or not, I have read Desmet's book The Psychology of Totalitarianism, and I have watched many videos by Dr. Malone. I disagree with several things in Desmet's book, but to be honest, I read it when it came out and I don't even remember my disagreements. I would have to refresh my memory. But I do know if they were as Dr. Breggin said, I would remember it for being so outrageous.

Not once do I remember either of these men blaming the victims to excuse the monsters. Discussing subconscious processes is not an all-or-nothing stand against moral culpability. Both exist. But apparently not for Dr. Breggin, at least not in this case.

However, I liked so much the good part of Breggin's video, I thought I would watch the video at another link posted here on OL in the Coronavirus section (see here). Yup. Good stuff. Even more, the Pentagon owns the vials in which the jabs come. Dayaamm!

So what the hell is going on with this fight?

 

I did some searching and came across this page that has a comment by Catherine Austin Fitts (who I love) and Jon Rappaport (who I also love). Catherine Austin Fitts: Malone vs. Breggin Lawsuit

Both Catherine and Jon sidestepped Breggin's mischaracterizations of Desmet and Malone. Catherine said she does not find Desmet's idea of mass formation psychosis useful, but not why, and Jon said he wasn't going to go into what the kerfuffle is all about. Both bashed Malone for the lawsuit. And Catherine discussed a concept called "Refiner's Fire," which basically means the public bickering that goes on before a policy is finalized. She sees Breggin's views as part of the "Refiner's Fire" process.

Maybe.

And I looked a bit further and saw that I will probably love Dr. Breggin for the work he has done.

But that, to me does not excuse him making strawman assertions based on mischaracterizing the work of others. Especially when he and his target on the same goddam side. 

On the other end, a $25 million lawsuit? Really. Come on, Dr. Malone. What the hell are you doing?

 

To me, that's as far as I want to wade into this bullshit.  

 

To keep in line with the theme of this thread, if you want to lose a story war, this is how you lose it. Get the best people on your side to trash each other in public. And keep trashing each other so the real enemy gets forgotten.

As I have said several times here on OL, during my bad phase in Brazil, there was a popular saying on the dark side: When one bandit fights another bandit, which one wins? Neither. The police win.

That works on the side of the angels, too. When men of such distinction as Dr. Malone and Dr. Breggin fight each other in public, which one wins? That's easy. The Predator Class. That's who wins.

They need to knock it off, but knowing human vanity as well as I know it, I am certain they will not.

sigh...

Michael

[tmj]

I saw the story about the suit and the kerfuffle when I watched the video from the link in the Coronavirus thread. I had never heard of Breggin prior and being more a story war casualty as opposed to warrior , for the moment I am on team "mass atrocity" and attacking the Predators and less on the 'sanction of the victims' coloring that Desmet's thesis promotes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

Almost all of the people who took the jab voluntarily took it. 

Did you try to argue with anyone under the spell during the propaganda phase? They scoffed and cussed at you. They tried to shame you into getting the jab yourself. They snitched on you when relevant.

What do you call it when a majority of the population turns off reason and submits to fear in order to do voluntary destruction and self-destruction? Mass hysteria or mass psychosis seem like good terms to me.

As for the monsters who served up the poison? Hell yes, they did a mass atrocity.

Instead of one or the other, why can't it be both?

As the saying goes, Hitler was elected to power. Without that election, no war.

 

This is why I think the fighting between Breggin and Malone is bullshit. They are fighting over a false dichotomy at root.

It's like one is saying the heart is more important to the human body than the liver, and the other is saying the liver is more important. The truth is, if you amputate either the body dies.

Without mass acquiescence, the atrocity would have never happened. But an atrocity is still an atrocity and the people who did it are guilty as hell.

So instead of seeing this as brought about by an instance of a single static cause, seeing it as a process helps. First comes the planning of the atrocity and implementation of a structure to carry it out. Then comes the propaganda and mass formation psychosis. Then comes the atrocity. Remove any one of these steps and the mass atrocity does not happen.

The "one thing" is not one of the steps of the process. It is the process itself. It's one process. And the process unfolds in several stages.

Human nature allows for people to choose evil (the monsters). And it allows for people to get caught up in mass hysteria. If you want a single cause for placing blame, it has to be human nature.

Fortunately human nature also includes reason and ethics and people can choose to use them. They can use reason and ethics to not choose evil, and they can use reason and ethics to resist the Siren's call of the crowd when it goes crazy.

If you don't identify a problem correctly, you will never be able to fix it.

Michael

[tmj]

MSK

 Breggin's point is that promotion of the thesis, which he claims is bad science, makes the case the 'first steps' are irrelevant and that Desmet explicitly said and says there was no conspiracy, and then says the raison d'etre of the thesis is to obfuscate the culpability of the Predators.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, tmj said:

MSK

 Breggin's point is that promotion of the thesis, which he claims is bad science, makes the case the 'first steps' are irrelevant and that Desmet explicitly said and says there was no conspiracy, and then says the raison d'etre of the thesis is to obfuscate the culpability of the Predators.

T,

I don't remember that being Desmet's point. I do remember a few things I disagreed with him on, for instance, in my memory there is an irritation of him making certain presuppositions with nothing other than "I said do" as his premise (Rand does this at times, too.)

But I can't imagine Desmet saying there is no conspiracy--unless Breggin has an example where Desmet's words are taken out of context and assigned a meaning he does not hold and has stated differently elsewhere.

It's a nice strawman to argue against, but true understanding demands adherence to reality, not piling on rationalizations to elevate a person to scapegoat level.

Breggin and Desmet and Malone are all awesome. 

That's the truth.

And it's OK if each makes mistakes. Everybody does. (Even I do once in a while.  )

If Breggin wants a scapegoat as bad as he seems in the videos I saw, he needs to point at the enemy, not stage purification rituals within his own side and demand people throw stones at the unclean. Nor do I think a $25 million lawsuit is anywhere within reality. that's friggin' nuts. I do not like that kind of thinking on either side. It's all vanity with no substance.

 

If you want to see an example of how much I don't like it, look at my post about Jim Peron when, over in New Zealand, the idiots there tried to scapegoat him as a pedophile. To my shame, I participated in that. Then I looked at the facts myself and openly apologized to Jim when the entire O-Land world was trashing him. He even told me not to do that at the time.

We barely knew each other when he said that. I had consulted him to get clear on some details I was looking at and told him if I was wrong, I was going to make a public apology. That's when he said for me not to do that. Well, I saw the facts. The scapegoating did not align with them and it was a smear job pure and simple. And I decide how to atone for my own moral failing, not him or anyone else. So I set up that thread.

(btw - Jim was grateful I did that in the end.  )

Now, does this means the idiots who scapegoated Jim have nothing useful and good to say about a whole slew of things? Nope. I agree with a lot of what they say. And does this mean I agree with Jim's take on philosophy applied to current issues? Nope, we are so different we rarely communicate (especially about Trump and Christianity  ). What's more, I like Jim and I believe he likes me. Everything we have ever said to each other has been cordial and even fun. Also, he is gracious about keeping me in the loop with news about Barbara Branden, whom we both loved and still love.

 

This is the lens I use when looking at the Breggin and Malone and Desmet mess. Take the good (the real) and leave the bad (the unreal). Note that they all have a lot of good to offer. 

Besides, I hate public lynchings. They usually involve mass formation psychosis... oops... there I go... 

 

Michael

[tmj]

All I know so far is what I read here :

https://breggin.com/article-detail/post_detail/Mattias-Desmet-Mass-Hypnosis-Expert-or-Trojan-Horse-The-Full-Story

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

All I know so far is what I read here :

https://breggin.com/article-detail/post_detail/Mattias-Desmet-Mass-Hypnosis-Expert-or-Trojan-Horse-The-Full-Story

T,

That's pretty long for such small stakes.

This reminds me of those idiot discussions and controversies over Thomas Szasz, who was a psychiatrist in academia. His schtick was that mental illness was a myth and he tried to get his point across with belligerence.

He was right that a lot of mental illness was a myth. I'm not sure he ever got it about how much Big Pharma was behind many crazy diagnoses. But he shot himself in the foot by being too broad and, frankly, craving too much attention through outrageous positions.

He was right to criticize scientism and his core intentions were sound (and, btw, he did a lot of great work), but his work got buried over time because he tried to fight one lie with a different lie.

That only works up to a point, specifically for calling attention to yourself, but over time, without a massive propaganda machine, you can't keep the lie going

 

The reason I am saying this is because you would not believe the long-ass posts and articles that went on here in O-Land and l-land over Szasz. Most of that passion and effort is now bye-bye. I read a lot of that stuff attentively at the time and I will never get that time and effort back. The issue always revolved around who was right and who was wrong over details and rationalizations, and if you chose the wrong side, you were a dummy and trash to the other side.

I see this Breggin thing in this light and I don't feel like repeating the Szasz mess with a Breggin mess.

If there were some great insights at root, something I could use in my own life to make my life better, or some great truth that is being stifled by society that needs to be unleashed, I would be all over this. But what these guys are doing is not that.

 

Besides, I myself used to create mass hysteria on purpose (behind the scenes as a producer). And I was pretty good at it. I have managed to create such hysteria the crowd started trashing things and I have made mistakes where the crowd dispersed from one minute to the next.

I used to produce pop music shows.

 

Michael

[Mark]

5 hours ago, tmj said:

... breggin.com/article-detail/post_detail/Mattias-Desmet-Mass-Hypnosis-Expert-or-Trojan-Horse-The-Full-Story

Excellent article, tmj, thanks for posting the link.  Since Breggin trashes Desmet it’s doubtful they are both awesome. 

To learn more about Breggin see these two videos, abridged for busy people:

COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey

Robert Malone’s & Mattias Desmet’s “Mass Formation Psychosis”

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This last post is a great example of how to NOT win a story war.

Try to convince by decree, opinion and snark.

Yeah, that's a winner.

Go out SAVE THE WORLD doing that.

I can just see the hoards of hungry disciples gathering trying to touch the hem of the robe of such wisdom. And touch it in ecstasy.

Right?

Winning by story war, right?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Part of the trouble of running a discussion forum is what to do with the people who show up and don't want to discuss anything at root.

 

In fact, this is a great example of the story war principle.

Win by negative.  Make it a story of destruction.

In other words, don't erect anything. Tear down what exists so the new, the really real truthy truth new can emerge.

Over in the James Lindsay thread, he mentioned the rhetorical method used by gnostic thinkers all the way from ancient times up to Marxists. In modern times, they use a construction from Hegel. Most people think it is thesis, anthesis and synthesis. But Hegel's form was Abstract, Negative, and Concrete.

What many people do on discussion forums is try to launch a negative wherever they can. The purpose of a negative in this sense is not to disagree and arrive at rational conclusions. It is to weaken the credibility of a person or idea or institution or position and only that. If the target to be weakened goes in the opposite direction, the negative launcher launches the exact opposite as a negative.

I don't know what kind of architype this could be called in storytelling, but out here in reality, especially where a gnostic kind of thinking and rhetoric prevails, this role can be seen in abundance.

I think I am going to coin a term for this rhetorical role.

Rand portrayed one to perfection: Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead. Look at all his writings in that story. You will see a string of negatives...

Storywise, negatves are great. Who doesn't like to see a trainwreck qua trainwreck?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The reason I am harping on this is look what happened with the "shoot prominent people on your own side" strategy in the case of Szasz.

He fought against the Health and Big Pharma industrial complex by attacking prominent people on his own side with snark and arguments over nonessentials. 

Guess who won?

Hmmmm?...

We ended up with a holy nightmare.

 

It always works out that way when people erect hatred of a scapegoat as their banner instead of intention to defeat the enemy.

(The enemy loves it, though.  )

In today's case of the COVID bioweapon and the jab, the enemy is not made up of psychological facts and the people who talk about them. A vulnerability is not an enemy. The enemy is the Health and Big Pharma industrial complex allied to The Deep State and hostile world governments like Communist China. 

Storytelling-wise, the hater is actually a great foil for a character who sees the big picture. In a story, a foil is a similar character who deals with the same things as a different character, but in a different manner. A foil usually exists to highlight characteristics of the other character. The foil wants in general what the other character wants, but does it wrong and almost always loses.

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The reason I am harping on this is look what happened with the "shoot prominent people on your own side" strategy in the case of Szasz.

He fought against the Health and Big Pharma industrial complex by attacking prominent people on his own side with snark and arguments over nonessentials. 

Guess who won?

Hmmmm?...

We ended up with a holy nightmare.

 

It always works out that way when people erect hatred of a scapegoat as their banner instead of intention to defeat the enemy.

(The enemy loves it, though.  )

In today's case of the COVID bioweapon and the jab, the enemy is not made up of psychological facts and the people who talk about them. A vulnerability is not an enemy. The enemy is the Health and Big Pharma industrial complex allied to The Deep State and hostile world governments like Communist China. 

Storytelling-wise, the hater is actually a great foil for a character who sees the big picture. In a story, a foil is a similar character who deals with the same things as a different character, but in a different manner. A foil usually exists to highlight characteristics of the other character. The foil wants in general what the other character wants, but does it wrong and almost always loses.

Michael

I don't know if I want to get into it too much...

on the surface (summary) it seems to me like the Breggins are advocating for moral responsibility and free will in their critique of the book, accusing Desmet and Malone of ignoring such, and hence are victim blaming.  The implication by Breggins is Desmet and Malone are (knowingly or not) working for the predator class to excuse the atrocities thereof.

Is this a fair summary?

Oddly enough both sides seem to be raising awareness, however only one seems more concerned with fighting the black tide of death and the other merely with explaining it (and accidentally excusing it)?

For O'ists Freewill exists and is the only basis for moral responsibility and evil...

if Malone and Desmet do not believe in free will, that would be a big reason why moral responsibility and evil would be mostly absent from their works.

 

 

[tmj]

My initial interest in the topic was that happening upon it made me question my original and some what uncritical evaluation of what Desmet was saying re his thesis. It seemed like an important avenue to look at in view of properly identifying the thesis itself.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

S,

I read half of that article. And I had enough.

What I read is an exercise in negative opinions about what someone else says and mind reading, the kind where someone tells you what another person "really thinks."

And talk about unrelated topics. Breggin even brings Freud's couch into the issue and why he himself refused to lie on it when he was studying. Even if that was only a metaphor, what does that have to do with mass formation psychosis or mass hysteria? There are several irrelevant stories like that in Breggin's article--stories that are irrelevant to the issue of mass formation psychosis and why that idea is supposedly the most evil thing that has ever appeared in the culture and the people who came up with it are scum.

 

Let's just say this is exactly what happened with the Szasz stuff. I waded into that mess back then. It was pure bullshit and time has proven that out. I am not going to wade into this one. Why? Because it is pure bullshit of the same kind. And I am certain that it will meet the same fate timewise.

But, there is something worth discussing here without getting baited into a vanity war.

In other words, I am only making this post because you and T are interested in the ideas involved (and maybe some of the readers are, too). I don't sense any mind games.

Since this is a Story Wars thread, it is useful to delve into smear persuasion a bit.

 

2 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

if Malone and Desmet do not believe in free will...

See how that works?

Breggin said that Malone and Desmet do not believe in free will. Those guys didn't say that. And now you are taking that this is what they believe as a likely fact. (Granted, I am sure you are doing this in good faith, but look at the source. Is the source their words or the words of someone who hates them?)

The ripples from this kind of bullshit keep going out into the public. That's how smears work.

Maybe there are places where Desmet and Malone said free will does not exist. I am not aware of any. None. Breggin says that's what they think and that's what they mean even when they say otherwise. If you think his opinion is a good source for what others think, go for it.

What I see with his form of argument is how critics of Ayn Rand do when they get her wrong, assign to her thoughts and intentions that did not belong to her and are not in her works, and just keep haranguing on and on about how evil she is. 

Breggin's logic is something like this. When people say hypnosis exists, or crowd behavior exists and this reflects on the lives of the individuals in the crowd, they really mean free will does not exist and that the victims are to blame. Therefore they are evil.

I don't like that he is using this form of logic, I am sure he is better than that, but that's what I see in that particular article.

 

As a complete aside, if you want to see what it looks like when someone on the science side argues that free will does not exist, here is a book and neuroscience author that do precisely that: How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain by Lisa Feldman Barrett (referral). I read that thing, learned a lot about brain processes, but got weary of the constant drumbeat that free will does not exist. I never saw anything like this in Malone and Desmet.

 

2 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

Oddly enough both sides seem to be raising awareness, however only one seems more concerned with fighting the black tide of death and the other merely with explaining it (and accidentally excusing it)?

I don't know where you got this conclusion from, but I expect it was only from Breggin. I have been following Malone in particular and he has been outspoken on fighting "the black tide of death" for years. Over and over and over. On TV, in audio, and in writings and even in his organizing. I know. I've observed it with my own eyes and ears. Read Desmet and you will see he is trying to stop it, too.

 

Think about this. Huge brains like Catherine Austin Fitts and Jon Rappaport, both of who are champions of Breggin, refused to discuss the substance of his attacks on Desmet and Malone in the very articles where they wrote about it. Why? Catherine just talked about "Refiner's Fire" and how Breggin constantly wades into it. In other words, he's a hothead but he does a lot of good. Jon focused on the evil of excessive lawsuits. I agree with both positions, but they did not address the issues Berggin talks about in his attacks.

You know why? I believe it is because they know Breggin is not presenting a rational argument. He is just attacking. They don't know what ideas to discuss in that regard, so they discuss the context. "Refiner's Fire" and lawsuits. At least that's something...

Mark, however, finds epistemological value in Breggin's smear logic. He says Breggin attacks Desmet and Malone, and that means Desmet and Malone are not awesome. (And if I don't slam on the brakes by calling it out as the bullshit it is, this will go on and on and on and never get better. It's a negative qua negative... This isn't my first rodeo with this guy. On the other side, Mark is highly intelligent, so it is a mistake to dismiss him outright. There is good value there, but it often comes with this kind of bullshit as a side dish.)

 

My vote is for people to use their own minds and not just the opinions of others. That starts with doing their own observations and looking at--and identifying and evaluating--where they are getting their information.

My vote is don't just evaluate the information. Evaluate where it came from and what form it came in, too. Opinions are important, but they are not facts. Hell, they are not even good stories most of the time.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

My initial interest in the topic was that happening upon it made me question my original and some what uncritical evaluation of what Desmet was saying re his thesis. It seemed like an important avenue to look at in view of properly identifying the thesis itself.

T,

You are absolutely correct to do this.

Think it through with your own mind.

Don't even go by what I say.

Do your own observing and evaluating.

You have a good mind...

 

Michael

 

EDIT: That applies to S, too.  
In fact, it applies to everyone who reads OL.
And anyone else who will listen.   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is the most effective story war of all: indoctrinate the kids.

Look at this garbage.

Evanston Township High School Alters Course Description After Being Caught Pushing Segregated AP Classes

Evanston Township High School Alters Course Description After Being Caught Pushing Segregated AP Classes | The Gateway Pundit | by Margaret Flavin

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

Evanston, Illinois, a northern suburb of Chicago, is a we utopia.

My 2 stepkids went to this goddam school.

I kept telling them they were getting indoctrinated.

I got to see all this crap grow up close and personal.

Hell and damnation...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those interested in substance instead of pissing contests, the following Jimmy Dore interview just now did with Mattias Desmet is far better than I imagined when I first started to watch it.

Rather than criticize what someone says someone says, go see what Desmet says with his own mouth.  

 

It's in interview form, so it is entertaining, not dense like a book or lecture

What you are going to find in this interview is a lot of stuff--points and issues that are critical to story wars as propaganda--but were not discussed in the recent discussion of Desmet in this thread.

What you will not find are the main points recently discussed about Desmet in this thread.

Which shows to go ya', an idea can't be presented correctly in pissing contests.

 

If you want to know what Desmet thinks, go to Desmet.

What an idea!

 

Michael

 

EDIT: I posted that video before I finished it. So to be clear, at the end they talk about how the essence of life cannot be understood rationally and blah blah blah. They used language that Rand debunked a long time ago. But notice that they did not put one mode of thinking over the other. They said both are necessary. Instead of "faith," Desmet said "resonate with life."

There's another issue, too. When they discuss rational thought, they do not mean the same thing that Rand means. To be honest, her fight against the kind of jargon they used was needed because that shit can grow into something monstrous over time.

For example, Desmet talked most of the interview saying how the individual was important for thinking and the collective an abuser of the individual. But if that discussion on rationality goes on long enough and the jargon keeps getting sappier and sappier, it turns into an attack on rational thought. (To be clear, neither Jimmy nor Mattias attacked rational thought in that interview. they merely went to the soap opera level of profundity.  )

But once a discussion of rationality turns into an attack on it, just look at history. The individual becomes nothing and the collective all. And that leads to piles of corpses.

I call that sappy form of talking before it turns into an attack "sweet poison."

Incidentally, there is deep, important--and more reality-connected--form of understanding rationality, faith, esoteric certainty and all the rest now unfolding in the world. I found two people who shed a lot of light on it: James Lindsay and Angus Fletcher. I won't go into this here, but it is a super-important discussion.

 

At any rate, if you watch that interview, you will get the feeling that you are seeing something far different than was discussed in the recent pissing context about Desmet on this thread. And that feeling will be justified. Why? Because you are seeing something different.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In terms of story wars as persuasion, I want to discuss an important part about what Desmet says. It concerns priming.

Basic human nature: If people are miserable, they will try to make it stop.
More basic human nature: Loneliness is misery for most humans.

In Desmet's idea, when a society reaches a stage where most people feel lonely and isolated and miserable and fearful and do not see a way out, this is the soil where mass formation occurs. This is the priming.

Once their misery is so acute they can't stand it any longer, they latch onto a story that seems plausible enough at the moment, then discover that their adherence to that story gives them meaning and connection with other humans again. And it grows inside them. 

In light of their recent misery, they protect that story and go overboard scapegoating. They turn into busybodies and snitches and all kinds of weird stuff, even executioners over time.

 

If you ever want to win at story war propaganda, you have to start with stories that get accepted, but make people miserable and lonely.

btw - Victimization stories aimed at shaming this class or that do exactly that. 

I used to think shaming was their purpose, but shaming is only part. Priming a large number of people for mass formation psychosis is their purpose.

 

Also, I believe social media has been used by companies to create the anxiety needed for a mass formation to occur. People don't talk to each other live anymore. They use an electronic screen that manipulates them as they manipulate others. They are told, and they think, this is about improving human connection. But their bullshit meter knows something is off because they feel so damn lonely...

Enter the Big Bad Wolf telling them he can make it all go away. Just hand over a little more freedom. Take another jab, do another war, snitch one more time. Then off it goes...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm putting this here as a placeholder since the book Naomi Wolf reviewed will only be released later next month. But this one is important.

And I respect Naomi, so I am taking what she says far more seriously than I would reviews by mainstream press people.

Has Neuroscience Found the Key to What Caused Zombie Nation? My Foreword to Bombshell New Book, ‘The Indoctrinated Brain’

NAOMIWOLF.SUBSTACK.COM

---

The Science of Brainwashing

 

The gist, from what I gather so far, follows. I paraphrase and add in some of my own conclusions. These are not Naomi's exact words, although what she said is a different form of saying what I do.

So what have we got?

1. Neuroplasticity exists. This means the mind can alter the physical brain by what it focuses on. (Especially when the mind keeps certain neurochemicals flooding the brain when they otherwise would dissipate. But there is more: neural networks, myelination, and so on.)

2. The hippocampus is where our autobiographical memory is processed and started. Autobiographical memory is fundamental to individualism. Without an individual's memories of himself or herself, no individual grows and develops in an independent manner. Instead, you get "blind follower" kinds of human species members.

3. A strong overdose of fear (and likely other elements of propaganda) physically alter the hippocampus to the extent that it slows down the processing of autobiographical memory. This makes the brain more receptive to external group signals about what to think. 

 

btw - This can be selective, too. A blind follower in one area can be a critical thinker in other areas.

In short, when you see super-intelligent people blindly following a false agenda and there is no way to get through to them, it's probable that a good portion of this is physical, not just chosen values.

From what little I have seen so far, this stuff is the worst form of collectivism I have ever encountered. It is a literal attempt to physically alter the brains of individual humans so they think collectively, not as independent individuals. 

It's not that reason is rejected. It's that reason is excluded to the point it is not even a factor.

 

In the Obama years, he put a lot of government money behind studying and mapping the brain. I bet the rise we see in rigid polarization these days is directly linked through the propaganda the Predator Class has devised based on findings from that initiative.

What's worse, if I understood correctly, the flooding of spike proteins in the body from mRNA jabs is also a culprit. I think I got this right: excessive spike proteins interfere with the processing of autobiographical memory at the hippocampus level. So if you get people's very organism producing this huge increase in spike proteins, you create a collectivist thinking brain by default, not an individual thinking one.

Son of a bitch...

 

I will be getting Nehls's book by hook or by crook when it comes out.

The neuroscience of propaganda.

Dayaamm! That is right up my ally.

And guess what is going to follow? For instance, how do you spread fear in the most effective manner?

Easy.

Stories.

Which is why the story wars are critical...

 

Michael