anthony Posted December 8, 2024 Posted December 8, 2024 On 12/7/2024 at 2:47 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Integrity? What integrity? Here is a take on the MAGA character that is not talked about enough. Ditto for Trump and his insiders. And ditto for the huge majority of MAGA people. They do not seek power in order to rule over others. When power is needed for system hierarchy, they obtain it and use it to produce good and beautiful things. People who seek power (and money) as an end itself do not have a clue about how MAGA people think and believe. They have an inner name for MAGA people: suckers. But they also fear this kind of sucker as the biggest threat to their own existence. I am proud to be MAGA. And have been since the beginning. Michael What those critics inside Objectivism are missing - the full picture. They observe a superficial authoritarian "image" produced by media, and helpfully promoted by Trump himself, btw, and run with that surface image. (Mixing up the distinct fields, aesthetics and politics, one might imagine). One has to also distinguish personality from character. And motives from methods. His support understands "Trump authoritarianism" has one purpose, handing proper authority back to them, the people. i.e. it is essentially ANTI-authoritarian. In short, getting government out of their way. What President Trump knows better he's up against this time: he needs to bully the bullies out of office (- and power) - not to mention taming the bully-enemies outside. It seemed to me puzzling 8 years ago that Trump clearly set himself up to be the single target of the vicious attacks - exposing the rot (in e.g the media), while protective of the American people, I later understood. (How does that ideal of "a limited gvt." even begin to take root, I guess O'ists do consider? Why and how would any entrenched, massive and self-serving bureaucracy 'commit suicide', so to speak? By a single decree? By this philosophy soon coming into wide acceptance? Doubtful. Or by a president with vision, and others after, gradually (and otherwise) using their power and authority to dissolve the Big State, with most citizens fully behind this drive to self-sovereignty/responsibility, and any others will have to get used to it. This, by far the most realistic route. The first moves will be called "dictatorial" - to the minor despots in Gvt. and academia who are running scared right now. He's hated since he's not ~their~ "dictator". Michael: Big businessmen over here and quietly everywhere, I'm hearing, are ecstatic at the direction change in the US.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12 Author Posted April 12 On 4/20/2023 at 2:03 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Snoots gonna snoot. That's just the way of the world. I did not know anything about neoconservative British author, Douglas Murray, before yesterday. Now, after skimming over his writing and his recent interview with Joe Rogan and Dave Smith, I can say, with 100% certainty, that he is an example of what I despise, the elitism I despise. This has nothing to do with the Israel question (I am pro-Israel and so is he, so my aversion to him is not because I am an antisemite, as he paints those who disagree with him.) He's a snoot who thinks others have no business talking about things experts should be left to talk about, left in peace and agreed with. Sit down and shut up is the subtext. Let experts handle it. You don't have the brains. I don't mind experts giving factual information, but when it comes to things like war, morality, patriotism, etc. etc. etc., especially when sums of money that can land in the experts' pockets are involved, I find that experts sell their souls in a heartbeat. They (not all) tend to be the most immoral people on the planet. They will lie to you in your face and demand you recognize them as superior. And Douglas Murray? He defends that vision while denying it at the same time. That's what Douglas Murray does in an irritating smug sanctimonious way. I can't stand him. I don't want him near MAGA ideas. He's a friggin' advertisement to become woke just so you don't be that. See for yourself. British Author Tries to Shame Joe Rogan Into Deplatforming Anti-War Voices | The Gateway Pundit | by Assistant Editor WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM British author Douglas Murray's critique of Joe Rogan's platforming of anti-war voices raises urgent questions about acceptable discourse and the influence of dissenting perspectives on mainstream narratives in today's political climate. What a jackass trying to be a mule... Michael
anthony Posted April 12 Posted April 12 Murray is no "neoconservative", especially in the specific American sense. An "elitist", only so much as he has the educated accent - while outspokenly anti- "Woke". From many hearings I'd say he's a bright and courageously blunt British patriot-conservative and journalist, and USA admirer, who knows more about the history and conflicts of Palestine, Gaza and Israel than remote podcasters who've picked up the propagandized "Narrative" from the security of their armchairs, not actually venturing into the war zones as he often has. Dave Smith, a libertarian and Jewish, I notice, seems quite Leftist. i.e. Oct 7 was bad, but is Israel in its "brutal campaign", not as bad? How could those poor people confined in a "concentration camp" not react as they have? Like lefties, he has their distorted view of any 'dynamic', between "the oppressed" (lacking free will and individualism) and "the oppressor" (Israel) who want to hold the power. He does at least admit to some oppression from Hamas on its people. The normal presumption remains, on the utter falsehood that the Israeli 'masters' would not have gladly welcomed Gaza to become a proper, lawful, peaceful state after every Israeli left and "the occupation" ended. Naturally, as long as Hamas declared and violently acted several times out their Islamist hatred of Jews, sure, they had to be blockaded at Israel's expense, and sometimes, lives. I find Smith a dubious and limited spokesman - e.g. he never once below mentions "Muslim", only referring to "Arabs", as if religious intolerance (far greater traditionally and presently from the Muslims to the Jews, and baked into Islamic teachings, than the reverse) is not pivotal to this war. There are many "Jews" worse than him populating the internet and invited guests onto anti-semitic shows because they say they despise Israel/Zionism- "as Jews", they are called, which supposedly gives them superior credibility for other Israel haters. Really, from Ukraine to Gaza I find incredible ignorance of the terrible nature of warfare by westerners -- of the absolute moral necessity for a devastating self-defensive war - to end war -- contra -- how and when to diplomatically avoid inessential and sacrificial wars where one can. Or, ignorance of the planned North-South simultaneous terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas. Or, of the conditions of fighting in densely populated areas with a concealed enemy who never wears uniforms. Or, of the fact that Hamas, like all its earlier attacks on Israel designed to pull in the IDF, deliberately plans to expose and get their own women and children killed, casualties kept to the minimum by unprecedented IDF tactics, at high risk to the soldiers, while numbers are falsified by Hamas for sympathetic public consumption.. But too late, "the genocide" lie has been (too readily) believed by the gullible and bigoted and established as fact. The 15-16 million Jews around the world are always "behind everything". More so, the portion, about half of that number living in Israel for their safety(!) and self-determination. E.g. Netanyahu, refusing a 2 -state solution? No, the Palestinians take the major blame for that "rejectionism" going back to Oslo and Arafat - they want it all, a one state solution, a Jewish expulsion/genocide. Many in the West are too keen to hand it to them. Then, we will have a peaceful Middle East and "they will stop hating us". Right... E.g. The Houthis attacking ships "in solidarity" with Hamas? The USA taking the initiative in ending the menace as they and other countries should, in self-interest, to protect international shipping? E.g. the "Israel Lobby" (I oppose too) which is supposed to rule the USA. Etc, etc.: These amazing Jews control everyone. All this - also shows Israel's perfidy trying to "drag America in", like the prejudiced Glenn Greenwald has falsely claimed, when trapped in a desperate, multi-front defensive war for the small country's survival which they are stoically fighting alone with civilian soldiers/reservists--undemanding, that I've heard, of US military involvement (in Gaza or Lebanon). But a national war against Iran, is another matter. *The* enemy of America; with Israel as its closest, convenient target, is a conflict aimed at the US, toward Iran's domination of the ME (and sabotage of the Abraham Accords which Iran fears - btw) coupled to whatever madness they dream of further abroad. I think this far, Pres Trump is rightly giving them the uncompromising warnings his appeasing predecessors would not. Pile it on: Ultimately, the massive, abusive, racist assault against world Jewry and Israel, like a pack of hyenas on an injured prey is simply the symptom and harbinger of the moral, cultural, ideological - and future - condition of the West: A sad sight, to see such "even-handedness" and sometimes, enmity, to Israel shown by (I presume) ultra-isolationist conservatives, Rogan, Owen and D'Ore and others, that exhibits moral relativism and moral inversion, insidiously almost as bad for the freedom of the West and America, as the outright Jew-haters/"anti-Zionist" horde on the Left, composing of Islamist-inspired, -organized and -financed - Woke, cultural Marxists.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12 Author Posted April 12 Tony, But... but... but... you're not an expert. How dare you talk about Israel and Gaza, and especially Murray and Smith? Murray says if you are not an expert, shut up for a while. You can have an opinion, but for God's sake, keep it to yourself. Nobody is supposed to take you seriously. In fact, you are polluting public discourse and unduly trying to influence the world by speaking your mind in public without having the credentials to do so. Watch the Joe Rogan interview and you will see. That is his explicit message over and over. in his own words. Over two hours of it. He even thinks Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and people like that are doing irreparable harm to the world by interviewing people who are not experts. He said so. And he said (I paraphrase) they, themselves, not being experts, should pipe down. If a dude like that is your Huckleberry, go for it. I won't be reading or watching his shit. Believe me, even though you might agree with him on Israel (as I do), supporting Israel is not a moral "get out of jail free" card or a certificate of moral superiority. It is entirely possible for an authoritarian elitist neocon like Murray to support Israel. (Like he said, there's the "N" word again. Even he knows what he is, but snarking about it does not change his nature.) How do I know Murray is an authoritarian? He argues against free speech. A choice like that is not an error. It's made on purpose, it comes from a spirit of innate superiority to the rest of mankind, and it's an indication of what is underneath. (Not only that, I see the Intelligence Community with its portfolio of organized crime dirty tricks lurking in the wings.) I want to be nowhere near people like that. I want to be nowhere near people who push for censorship, especially those who know you get there by degrees, not by an on-off switch. First you get people to agree that only experts should have public opinions (like Murray's stated position). Once people swallow that, then you can enact more strenuous constraints against public discourse and get the "unapproved" people out of the public eye by force. Take a look at the world the experts like Murray gave us. I want to be nowhere near such experts. The world they made is a mess. For example, isn't one expert-endorsed bioweapon enough? Thanks, but no thanks. I want messy public discourse. I do not want public persuasion to be easy and I do not want it to be under the control of experts. Fuck them and their obscene plans for humanity. I openly argue for cutting their government funding. More important, I, for one, do not have rattlesnakes for pets, nor do I pet them on the head. And, for the record, I have no intention of ever sitting down and shutting up. Nor would I ever want you to. You are my friend and always will be, despite our disagreement on Huckleberries... Michael
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12 Author Posted April 12 I am not against experts per se, for example, I think RFK Jr. is an excellent expert, one who's health views I follow. I have a criterion that rarely has disappointed me. There are two kinds of experts that attain a public voice. 1. Experts funded by the Predator Class (including most of the NGO-government money). 2. Experts not funded by the Predator Class. In general, the experts not funded by the Predator Class tend to do their work because they love their work. Experts funded by the Predator Class tend to be sellouts at best, and snakes. They can be super-intelligent, but their intentions are not pro-humanity. They are pro-Predator Class. Douglas Murray is well-funded by the Predator Class. People like him are the Trojan Horse of authoritarians. They are camels who get their noses under the tent... They are weeds with deep roots in the garden of Israel... Michael
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12 Author Posted April 12 I just came across this X post by Mike Cernovich. He nails what I think about Douglas Murray. I had forgotten what Douglas said about Darryl Cooper (@martymade). (Cooper got a real boost when he was interviewed by Tucker.) I only remember Douglas saying things about Cooper that made me think, "That's now what I have seen." Douglas does not consider Cooper an expert because Cooper does not have credentials. And, Cooper does not go along with the Douglas propaganda line. That's it, the all of it, and the nothing but it. However, Cooper's work form makes him more of an expert than any expert I know of regarding history. He goes back to the time when the event took place and reads everything he can get his hands on from that time so he can see the event from the eyes of the culture of when it happened. His research is vast. It covers original material from upper and lower classes and other relevant perspectives, and it is impeccable from everything I have seen to date. He finds some more recent things to tie it to, then he makes a podcast about it that goes on for hours. People love this because it is real scholarship without lying. The size of his audience and popularity is proof there is a hunger for this kind of expertise. So is the fact that an "expert" like Douglas feels threatened by him. This is an aside, but I have only gone through one full podcast by Cooper and, frankly, it blew my mind. The thing is almost 5 hours long and I have listened to it three times. No joke--15 hours. It's that good. I'm thinking about doing another go round. It concerns the parallels between Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche and some current events tied to the "underground spirit" and philosophy (like George Price, Mitchell Heisman and others). Since Ayn Rand was into both Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche, that is why I chose this title to start with. After going through it the first time, I walked away with a totally different understanding than I had before, including how philosophy affects life for super-intelligent people who are not quite in tune with life's defaults. But ironically, I did not get anything that contradicted Rand's opinions of Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. (She only scratched the surface, anyway, and that's all.) Instead, I got a deep dive that made a lot of philosophy in today's world make sense in terms of approach to living. For those interested, here is that podcast: Listen (if you have time) and see for yourself if Cooper is an expert or not. And, regardless that some people think he is not, I want more of that and less of the experts in the Douglas mold. I don't have to agree with Cooper. But I feel confident I am getting facts without distortion, which is really hard to come by in today's culture. btw - Cooper is not funded by the Predator Class. Michael
anthony Posted April 12 Posted April 12 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, But... but... but... you're not an expert. How dare you talk about Israel and Gaza, and especially Murray and Smith? And, for the record, I have no intention of ever sitting down and shutting up. Nor would I ever want you to. You are my friend and always will be, despite our disagreement on Huckleberries... Michael Michael, but I AM - "an expert". I've unofficially followed/studied/heard from Israel/Palestine since my close cousin was killed in the 67 war, intensifying my studies lately. I'm quite "expert" enough to know there is always more to learn, and expert enough to recognize Douglas Murray's expertise, and of the lack of expertise by other dudes who have "talking points" fed by the MSM and social media, and little more -some of them - than feelings and a strong anti - Israel bias. Anti-Jew, also, far as I know. (Since, if one is against Israel/"Zionism", one is against Jews living in security--and because of this surge of anti-semitism in the US, and in every "free nation", the Jews need a secure spot, more than ever. And they are less secure than the 1930's in the West today). Here's the Pundit's leader again: "British neoconservative author Douglas Murray publicly scolded the world’s most popular podcaster for allowing anti-war voices and dissident thinkers to appear on his show. Instead of rebutting arguments, Murray attacked Rogan himself—accusing him of platforming the “wrong” people and endangering the credibility of his podcast by refusing to limit guests to establishment-approved “experts.” Rogan supporters say Murray’s attempt to police acceptable discourse says more about the panic of the permanent-war establishment than it does about Rogan’s show". -- Some real sophistry there. As if this war is "neo-con" Murray's pride and pleasure, pursuing the US Military Industrial agenda - not a man's principled stand against the Hamas brutality/Iranian control, and in favor of what Israel has had to do--to survive. "Anti-war voices". Would Americans not defend their border and retaliate against a major assault until the enemy is destroyed or surrenders? Damn right. But the Israel Govt. hasn't the right and obligation to its people? Did the writer think this war was instigated by Israel? The censorship-free speech thing is full of holes. If anyone has bravely been speaking out when his pro-palestinian opponents tried to shut him down, it's Murray. He makes a reasonable point about Rogan's platform and guests weighted towards the anti-Israel side, as Rogan himself seems to criticize Israel more than Hamas, and probably believes the moral blame for this conflict should be weighted the other way entirely. BUT: he knows - and we know - Rogan has the right to do what he pleases. It goes both ways, as Rogan has the right to his free speech and selected guests, so Murray can criticize as a guest other guests' moral equivocations, even on the Rogan Show itself, which to give Rogan credit, he didn't block. So, why the outrage? A glance down those comments under the podcasts indicates the bile that people exhibit in many places I read. I'm disturbed at what comes from the Left and (some of) the Right. These haters of Israel/Jews lack a rationally moral standing, while it's great Trump has made strenuous efforts against the new racism rife in the US. One more thing, it is a certainty Barbara Branden would have blasted the mealy-mouthed, hypocritically-"compassionate" pro-Palestinians who advocate - for those ignorantly unaware of it - Israel's destruction. I'm almost glad she didn't live to see the rising hatred in her country and every other, against "the Jews", again.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 13 Author Posted April 13 1 hour ago, anthony said: I've unofficially followed/studied/heard from Israel/Palestine since my close cousin was killed in the 67 war, intensifying my studies lately. I'm quite "expert" enough to know there is always more to learn, and expert enough to recognize Douglas Murray's expertise... Tony, Life experience? That's not expertise according to Murray. What institution gave you your credentials? What think tanks do you work for? What approved government agencies fund you? Without credentials of that kind, you are no more an expert according to Murray than a fat person is an expert on cookie making because he eats a lot of them. You find that OK? I don't. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. People like Murray do more against Jews than for them. They are great for singing to to choir. But to everyone else, they are bigots. That's because they are bigots, but not in the Israel-Hamas thing. (Well, maybe, they can be, but that's incidental.) They are bigots against anyone who is not in their protected ruling class. There is them, the humans. And everyone else, the subhumans. They don't use those terms openly, but pay attention to what they say and what they do. That subtext is in everything they touch. They are power-mongers. Their discourse is a smokescreen and it changes as their power opportunities change. On another point, tribal thinking, when it goes deep, will lead anyone to blindness. Even you. Want proof? For example: 11 hours ago, anthony said: Murray is no "neoconservative", If you say so. Go to Amazon and see if this book will influence your opinion. Neoconservatism: Why We Need It by Douglas Murray Here's a variation on an old riddle from my dark years. Q. Who wins when globalist America and Iraq fight? Or when globalist America supports Ukraine against Russia? Or when globalist America and Afghanistan fight? Who wins? A. Communist China. There is nothing you will ever be able to tell me that will convince me an authoritarian neocon warmonger is a good thing. I see no fundamental difference between Murray and an Islamofascist except the tribe. They both agree that killing innocents is no biggie. If Murray wants to fund endless wars for profit, let him fund them out of his own pocket. I am working to make sure America no longer funds them or fights them. I have seen what happens when people like him get power. It's called the Deep State and it almost wrecked America. My team is called freedom. Its epistemological base is not a tribe. It is reason. Michael
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 13 Author Posted April 13 Tony, btw - I despise antisemitism. I've more than proven that over the decades right here on OL. Michael
anthony Posted April 13 Posted April 13 14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, btw - I despise antisemitism. I've more than proven that over the decades right here on OL. Michael True, you have. The thing is, "antisemitism" can't be separated any longer from anti-"the right of Israel to exist". If one is "for" Jews, it is today consistent to be "for" Israel. And the reverse. But cunningly to avoid being called "anti-Semite", the dirty word "Zionism" is now being appropriated as the point of attack by antisemites. Now more than ever, the "Zionist" (a secularist-Jewish movement, I'll remind anyone) ambition for a safe haven (pre-WW2, and most urgently during and after the war), in a minor territory ceded to them by the British, and later confirmed by the UN General Assembly, out of the French-British fragmentation of the defeated Ottoman empire--is proving essential. As the world got unsafe, Zionism has been vindicated once more. The contrast is glaring, especially for those who have visited the region. When compared with who and what surrounds Israel, the nation is a shining light of liberty and rule of law. (I know of successful, loyal Muslim-Israelis who would not leave, and hear of other Arabs who are applying to immigrate). So - how did many Americans on the Right, of all people, come to despise, and tacitly or openly seek Israel's demise--and laud above Israelis the Palestinians and neighboring countries who live in degrees of oppression due to their "masters" (religious and autocratic) and to their own servility? It is unfathomable. I wonder if some isolationist, antiwar Americans have abandoned their nation's founding principles, using as an excuse Israel's (defensive, always) conflicts? And, does Israel's origins remind them painfully of their own "colonist" past? Yet, nobody questions the USA's "right to exist". Or that they'd identically defend their country. In abstract: Americanism = Zionism.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 13 Author Posted April 13 2 hours ago, anthony said: So - how did many Americans, Right and Left, come to despise, and tacitly or openly seek Israel's demise--and laud above Israelis the Palestinians and national neighbors who live in degrees of oppression due to their "masters" and their own servility-- is unfathomable. Tony, No, it isn't unfathomable. People like Murray keep showing up and doing propaganda for endless wars for profit as they tell Americans that killing babies is no big deal. That the people are not expert enough to know when killing babies needs to be tolerated. That the people should sit down, shut up, pay for the expenses, fight in the wars, and let the experts handle the intellectual stuff. For pro-Isreal fanatics, that might be OK. They even welcome these assholes. For the rest of mankind, they go ick... (And Hamas, always ready, is right there to make their own propaganda with this.) Just a simple acknowledgment that the baby killing is awful would go a long way, but denials, lies, and propaganda turn people off and then make them believe something fishy is going on. Well, with neocons, something fishy is always going on. I, for one, want Israel to resolve this thing as soon as possible. And I believe eliminating Hamas is the only solution since it will not go away and will not stop butchering innocents. (And all those tunnels...) But, like I said, neocons and jihadis are the same authoritarian evil. It doesn't matter if neocons support Israel. They are evil. So long as neocons like Murray are the spokespeople for defending Israel, the support for Israel with the rest of mankind will tank, as it is now doing among other forms of conservatives. You find this unfathomable, but that is the reason. The devil cannot defend God. It just doesn't work. So stop defending the devil in the name of Israel. Or watch as rejection of Israel grows among people who were not invested before. That's what happens with free speech... Dead babies no longer evaporate in a fog of words like the good ole days when neocons ruled and censored... Michael
anthony Posted April 13 Posted April 13 16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Michael The answer to neo-conservatism is not pacifism - right? You get attacked, your country is attacked, one deals with them - finally and decisively. No? There're over-many comparisons here to America's poorly (I think you'd agree) conceived-and-executed involvement in overseas conflicts -- dropping the context of what you'd do to a comprehensive enemy attack launched into one's borders by a neighboring country. Which Americans have fortunately not had to contend with and - maybe - find it hard to imagine. Frankly, I cannot see how anyone can place the self-defensive Israel - and the US ventures into Iraq/Aghanistan/Ukraine/etc. - together in 'the same boat'. The Israeli war/s are fought for the Israeli people's survival. From religious Islamists who were indoctrinated to loathe Jews' existence, a death cult as they are often named. Almost 100 percent of Israelis want and always wanted a just and peaceful solution. A successful and dynamic nation that cherishes life abhors war. I think there's the error the Rogans, Greenwalds and Smiths etc. have in common. Not distinguishing between a necessary war and an interventionist war. By this misperception, Israelis are neo-con warmongers! What a projected fantasy. (Like any other countries, there are equivalent political factions from neo-lib to neo-con and other rational types also in Israel. However, they all agree very strongly that Israel must defend itself again, with only the methods argued over).
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 13 Author Posted April 13 Tony, If you piss in wine, you spoil a lot of wine with a little piss. Keep trying to pretend evil is not evil and sell that as the good. Then sit back and wonder why good people are turning off. They can't stand the evil you are promoting. And the harder you push evil on them, the more they push back, to the point where some are going to the other side out of anger at the con game. They don't want to drink wine with piss in it, even if it is only a little piss. Reality is the standard of good and evil. Not a tribe. A tribe does not blank out reality. Statements like the following are poor identification: 5 hours ago, anthony said: I think there's the error the Rogans, Greenwalds and Smiths etc. have in common. Not distinguishing between a necessary war and an interventionist war. By this misperception, Israelis are neo-con warmongers! What a projected fantasy. The person who does not seem to distinguish this is you (based on your words here). You want to use interventionist warmongers like Murray to sell necessary war to the world. People are not buying it anymore. It's bait-and-switch bullshit. Same old same old. Israelis are not neo-con warmongers. Some are. From what I can tell, most are not. Neocon warmongers are neocon warmongers. And you seem to be fine with promoting neocon warmongers. That's your choice. Good luck selling it. That's a recipe to be in fathomless-land for a long time. One does not fight bigotry with bigotry and win anything worth winning. Only bigotry can win in that fight. One fights bigotry with reality and that eradicates it. On the reality front, thankfully, a reality-oriented person, President Trump, is doing a lot of stuff backstage. I believe he will end the killing. Incidentally, Trump has done more for Israel than any of those goddam neocon warmongers ever did. And he did not do it by pretending that killing babies is no big deal and selling that as the good. If you want to see what I am talking about, pay close attention. Trump gave a perfect answer about Ukraine that applies to here. When asked who he wants to win in Ukraine and by how much, he said, "I want the killing to stop." Not tribe epistemology as the foundation. Reality. Michael
anthony Posted April 15 Posted April 15 On 4/13/2025 at 11:24 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, If you piss in wine, you spoil a lot of wine with a little piss. Keep trying to pretend evil is not evil and sell that as the good. Then sit back and wonder why good people are turning off. They can't stand the evil you are promoting. And the harder you push evil on them, the more they push back, to the point where some are going to the other side out of anger at the con game. They don't want to drink wine with piss in it, even if it is only a little piss. Reality is the standard of good and evil. Not a tribe. A tribe does not blank out reality. Statements like the following are poor identification: The person who does not seem to distinguish this is you (based on your words here). You want to use interventionist warmongers like Murray to sell necessary war to the world. People are not buying it anymore. It's bait-and-switch bullshit. Same old same old. Israelis are not neo-con warmongers. Some are. From what I can tell, most are not. Neocon warmongers are neocon warmongers. And you seem to be fine with promoting neocon warmongers. That's your choice. Good luck selling it. That's a recipe to be in fathomless-land for a long time. One does not fight bigotry with bigotry and win anything worth winning. Only bigotry can win in that fight. One fights bigotry with reality and that eradicates it. On the reality front, thankfully, a reality-oriented person, President Trump, is doing a lot of stuff backstage. I believe he will end the killing. Incidentally, Trump has done more for Israel than any of those goddam neocon warmongers ever did. And he did not do it by pretending that killing babies is no big deal and selling that as the good. If you want to see what I am talking about, pay close attention. Trump gave a perfect answer about Ukraine that applies to here. When asked who he wants to win in Ukraine and by how much, he said, "I want the killing to stop." Not tribe epistemology as the foundation. Reality. Michael "I want the killing to stop". So do I. In a different context you recall I kept saying the same - to urgently end the wholly inessential Russia/Ukraine war, by diplomacy and concessions. As could have been accomplished early on, if not for who was in the White House. I want this one to end also, but there's no conflation between the two wars. This one cannot end until Hamas is defeated/capitulates and removed from power. What Gazans suffer IS entirely the moral responsibilty of their terror-'government'. Hamas never *had to* do what they did, and can stop the war in a day. I repeat. Hamas attacked and took hostages for exactly this purpose. That Israel inevitably retaliates, in part to return hostages, in part to disempower Hamas-- and inevitably kills "innocents", in the process. Then the hostages become the bargaining chips - along with the backlash from western sensitivities to Gazan suffering - so to coerce Israel into withdrawing: Hamas (Hezbollah, Houthis, Iran) claim a victory and go on to to repeat it another time. . I don't think you believe that fact, like many don't. This has been a cold-blooded, deliberate martyrdom of their people to the Islamist 'cause'. As the world is largely altruistic, most people admire their "sacrifice". Whereas "the selfish Jews" prove they won't be sacrificed. So tell me that's not "evil". IF the West truly cared for Palestinian "suffering", it would be Hamas which the screaming mobs and politicos vilified and ordered to release hostages and end the war. Instead many celebrated Oct 7 (Israel's 9/11) and pressure Israel to stop defending itself. Only, it seems are some/many Christians who recognize evil when they see it, who take Israel's side. And the few who champion Israel's part - like Murray and Bari Weiss - understand perfectly this moral equation (and it's less relevant to me that Murray has espoused neo-con ideas for his country) but are blown away by the strident Woke-Left neo-Marxists teamed up with western Jihadists, Additionally, now, by the growing numbers of the Right (the Woke right, as they've been named, but that's another subject). It is dead simple: the uncompromising intellectual defense of Israel -and- America is moral. What the anti-war US Conservatives (whom I generally agree with) are doing - is unknowingly undermining the high principles of American independence by compromising Israel's right to exist, with their "neutral" platitudes -- when not their me-too outright despising of Israel. The fundamental aim is NOT to get America drawn into the war, militarily, BUT to give the only free-ish country in the Middle East its full, MORAL support for its military actions, completing the task that favors America. Further to that, that the US Right also supports and protects without reserve, the American Jews--against the most dangerous internal enemy the USA has ever faced, the US neo-Socialists in bed with their glorified Palestine/Islamists. This menacing coalition - and some conservatives - have found common cause: anti-Semitism. That's a frightening scenario for the USA and the West, not to mention global Jews and Israel. All I can add is thank god for President Trump. His (acquired) "instincts" are usually good, and his activities so far are bearing them out.
anthony Posted April 15 Posted April 15 The Pres endorses Murray's new book and a lot else in a great interview.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 15 Author Posted April 15 2 hours ago, anthony said: I don't think you believe that fact, like many don't. Tony, You attribute this kind of thing to me, so I don't believe you actually read what I write. On 4/13/2025 at 9:54 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I believe eliminating Hamas is the only solution since it will not go away and will not stop butchering innocents. I don't know what is so difficult about that to understand. But you keep missing it as you preach that Hamas is evil in a tone as if I believe the contrary. As to Murray, maybe Mike Cernovich will convey the message better. Who knows? For the people who argue like you are arguing, all I can say it keep turning into Hamas (in fundamentals) to promote Israel and keep wondering why you are losing support for the Israeli cause. Sounds like a plan... Neocons are evil. They have a lot of innocent blood on their hands... They are just as despicable as Hamas according to my values. Cold blooded killers of innocents. With one hell of a propaganda machine and covert funding. Fuck them all. Michael
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 15 Author Posted April 15 3 hours ago, anthony said: What Gazans suffer IS entirely the moral responsibilty of their terror-'government'. There is a rhetorical switcheroo in O-Land that I want to point out. The meaning of statements like this is that two wrongs make a right. Which is BS. But it goes deeper. In the current meaning, one wrong gives the other side a blanket permission to do as much evil as they want without any other consideration. It's all bullshit. We're not talking about word games. We are talking about killing innocent people and babies. One side killing innocent people does not give the other side blanket permission to kill all the babies they want to. Friggen' sadists do that. I repeat. I want the killing to stop. By that, I mean I want the killing of innocents to stop first. Modern Israeli and American (when called on) militaries are capable of eliminating enemies without killing off a bunch of babies. They are competent enough to do that. And even then, Hamas is Israel's problem at root, not a US problem. I don't want Idaho families going to the funerals of their sons, or Montana families, or Iowa families, just because someone wants them to go fight in another country for that country's interests, not US interests. And I am sick of the US paying huge sums of money for all this. At least, Trump is going to make all this stop. Netanyahu just visited Trump trying to get him to commit to a war with Iran and this fell flat. The US will help defend Israel, not promote war for Israel. People like Murray want to promote war for Israel. Not going to happen. That's evil. And, since you don't seem to understand my words--you argue constantly as if I never wrote them, I repeat, Hamas has to be destroyed for peace to come. Michael
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 15 Author Posted April 15 Here's a real beaut. Murry says Jewish lives are more important than Christian lives. That's a great way to promote support for Israel, huh? He says there are fewer Jews, that's why their lives are more important than Christian lives. I don't even know where to start with an argument based on such a boneheaded premise. And his bullshit about killing 15 million... that's not plausible in modern days outside of a nuclear bomb, bioweapon or something like that. Certainly it is not possible in the kind of warfare being waged by Hamas and against Hamas. All these asshole neocons do is dream about killing. They are just like Hamas. Killing, killing, killing... The more innocents the better for them. And the more millions the better... As an aside, I like Ben Shapiro. Michael
Brant Gaede Posted April 15 Posted April 15 He's embracing collectivism a la Hitler. Or, German lives are . . . . If you argue about who's more valuable you lose right out of the box. You can put a man on a scale and find him wanting, but not because of his ethnicity or race. 1
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 15 Author Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: He's embracing collectivism a la Hitler. Or, German lives are . . . . Brant. Thank you. Someone is seeing it. Jewish people are supposed to be smart. Yet they are letting this dumb-ass shit go on in their name. Humans... I wonder if there is a dumb-ass gene... Michael
anthony Posted April 15 Posted April 15 3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: He's embracing collectivism a la Hitler. Or, German lives are . . . . If you argue about who's more valuable you lose right out of the box. You can put a man on a scale and find him wanting, but not because of his ethnicity or race. Unwillingly for them, "collectivism" has always been thrust on Jews. No Jew is safe from it. Left to their own, I have found them a highly individualist race/religion. I am one too, by my mother's "race", while never a practising one. The (Collectivist) haters of Jews, of course don't make that fine distinction, not that I bother to conceal my "identity" from anyone. The problem lies with all of those through history who couldn't leave Jews alone, now you're watching the repeat. I take Murray's analogy only as metaphorical, not contempt for 'lesser beings'. After all he is/was Christian. His main point is to those growing numbers who've been taught to despise their western civilization, and who will select the Jews to be their scapegoat to sacrifice. The signal: Jews will go first.
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 16 Author Posted April 16 16 minutes ago, anthony said: I take Murray's analogy only as metaphorical, not contempt for lesser beings. Tony, There's the double standard. When Murray gets caught with outright bigotry, it's because he is being metaphorical. Or maybe he was joking? That's the other out people use... (He wrote a "metaphorical" book about the necessity of neoconservatism, too, huh? ) In your country, some people are claiming black lives are far more important than whites and that whites are inferior. Are they being metaphorical? This is collectivism at root. Jews are not angels who never sin. They are human beings. We are all the same metaphysically. And it is entirely possible for bad people to defend the Jews. Or are Jews to you a collective immune from being human like the rest of us, with special metaphysical considerations and powers granted to each individual in the collective? How's that for thrusting collectivism on Jews? It's your side that is doing this one. Michael
anthony Posted April 16 Posted April 16 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: People like Murray want to promote war for Israel. Not going to happen. That's evil. And, since you don't seem to understand my words--you argue constantly as if I never wrote them, I repeat, Hamas has to be destroyed for peace to come. Michael Where have you seen any Israeli try to drag the US into its local border wars, from 1948 to now? When did Murray promote it? You propose a self-countradiction, Michael. Hamas has to be eliminated - yet - no innocents must die. That is never the case any war, normally, and cannot be the case in the Hamas war, especially: we know they *need* their innocents killed as cannon fodder, propaganda material and protective shields. You saw the testimony of a US military man, who assesses the casualty ratio to be 1 : 1, my estimates agreed. A ratio never seen before in warfare. Obviously, the IDF's job has been killing terrorists, but the msm calls them all "people", never noting the distinction. If the figure as released by the Hamas 'Ministry of Health, can be believed to be 40k that means 20K Hamas terror operatives have been killed. Recently they reduced the number of civilians killed by admitting that 72 percent have been male, teens and older. The "genocide" is a horrible fabrication. "Baby killers" : propaganda. I asked if pacifism was the answer to warmongering. I answer myself. Moral war is exclusively in self-defense, kill them before being killed.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now