"The rich, churchless, blue-state elites,...are hungry for the kind of secular nirvana Obama is serving up. Obama-mania is a political expression of the same impulse that underlies a broader movement, among the educated rich, towards a post-Christian spirituality, evident in such fetishes as yoga, feng-shui, investment-banker Buddhism, and tennis-set Sufism — the small-is-beautiful and green-is-good crazes.
A potent myth-maker, Obama is also a limited one. His New Age shamanism tells us less about where the country needs to go than about the spiritual emptiness of those among our elites who have been so quick to anoint him a new, secular messiah. The irony is that these same elites have used a draconian reading of the First Amendment to relegate the oldest and richest traditions of our spiritual culture to an obscure corner of the public square, a kind of refuse bin for slightly disreputable hand-me-downs from our benighted ancestors. They now look to the new swami to effect the miraculous regeneration of a spiritual waste land their own policies have helped to create."— Michael Knox Beran, writing in the (conservative*) National Review Online
"The ultimate postmodern irony is today’s strange exchange between the West and the East. At the very moment when, at the level of “economic infrastructure,” Western technology and capitalism are triumphing worldwide, at the level of “ideological superstructure,” the Judeo-Christian legacy is threatened in the West itself by the onslaught of New Age “Asiatic” thought. Such Eastern wisdom, from “Western Buddhism” to Taoism, is establishing itself as the hegemonic ideology of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress of capitalism’s dynamics—by allowing us to uncouple and retain some inner peace—it actually functions as the perfect ideological supplement."- Slavoj Žižek, writing for (the liberal*) In These Times
* Right or Left, the view of Western NewAge belief as a waste of time and resources will not be denied. It's a dead-end for America. It's a dead-end for YOU. And it's a dead-end for our children. Stop it. Now. Demand real answers. From everyone. Beginning with Barack and Hillary. Here's a good question to start with:
"Who do you think you're fucking with?"
That's the American way.
This is an election year - now let's get serious,
CMC
P.S.
This was posted while listening to Dorothy Ashby's "Soul Vibrations":
Quite an impressive verbal barrage from Mr. Beran here, but what specifically new age, buddhist or shamanistic principles has Obama advocated?
ReplyDeleteBelief in astral travel? Reincarnation? Polytheism? Ancestor worship?
If you can't name any, that's OK - Beran wasn't able to either. But strip away the impressive list of adjectives Beran tosses around and there's not much left to rest an argument on except for a "feeling"
Thats not logical or rational.
Excuse me but expecting specifics from a cultist is like expecting real basketball at a Globetrotter's game. It doesn't work that way: Once you dig into specifics the jig is up, so it behooves Obama to keep it airy-fairy for as long as possible. But, even more important, I can't tell you, specifically, what he stands for politically either. And, no, I'm not going to his website: The man can talk - for hours - let him tell us himself.
ReplyDeleteAlso, trying to discuss cultism (which, on it's face, isn't logical or rational) using only logic and rationalism is impossible: I've had to twist my mind into a pretzel to try and understand this stuff and what it's "practitioners" are trying to achieve - which always boils down to power over the rest of us. And it's not just about the extremes of NewAge (astral travel? Reincarnation? Polytheism? Ancestor worship?) but about all these seminars, retreats, alternative medicine, and other now-commonplace thought-stopping phenomena that occurs right under our noses but hasn't received nearly enough examination to justify it's popularity. Why the free ride? And why the full-court press defense whenever somebody tries? What have they got to hide?
About that "feeling" - let's start with his lead endorser: Oprah Winfrey. Are we to deny she's a NewAge mavin? Has Barack asked her to explain herself? Either as a journalist or a black person who, supposedly, cares about the lives - and educations - of black people? Nope. (Sure, she can make a movie about a debate team - fighting The White Man - but all debates on the merits of NewAge shamanism, Self-help, quackery, or even race baiting, stop at Harpo's door, right?) Obama not only accepts her endorsement but has the Queen of Quackery stump for him. Is that what we want in a president? Bill Clinton works with the fire walker, Tony Robbins, and doesn't blink an eye at his nonsense either. Trying to defend these obvious charlatans and their followers, while trying to claim to care about the country, says much more about you than it ever will about Beran.
Next is the language of Obama: "Belief", "hope" "change", "transcendence" - or Michelle's talk about healing our souls before we can do any actual work - excuse me (again) but is this a political campaign, or what? Where's the beef? This is the first year we have an extended political primary and, in all this time, he still hasn't given us any more than one can expect from a tent session with Peter Poppoff. ("Heal!")
You, if you're a supporter, should be expecting more as well. I mean, why are YOU - who can write in as, supposedly, a smart guy looking for logic and reason - supporting him? And, please, don't give me that "black guy in the White House" nonsense because, if you're so smart, you know race doesn't matter. What is it about Barack Obama, specifically, that inspired you to defend him?
Kick it to me: I'm waiting.
Actually I am a Republican and will probably vote for McCain. I simply dislike twisted logic.
ReplyDeletePolitical candidates are by definition charged with leading small groups of enthusaistic supporters into snowballing larger groups who find converts, raise money, etc. Thats just the nature of the beast and its ridiculous to think that political campaigns are "cults" for engaging in what is - as far as I can tell - 100% par-for thr-course behavior.
As far as rhetoric - name me one politician who has not discussed "hope," "change" etc. If anything, Obama, seems to have learned the lesson of George Bush - use lofty, inspring language and avoid specifics as much as possible.
Ron Paul discussed the decline of the dollar, the housing bubble, currency markets, blowback, Middle Eastern history and sovereign wealth funds in his campaign and look where that got him - the American people are bored silly by (and don't understand or have patience for) reality - what they want is an inspiring figure who will soothe them with words. Thats the function of the president in thsi day and age and until more people do actually take the time to understand economic, diplomatic and scientific issues, those are the types we're likely to keep getting - my opinion.
If the day comes when Obama claims that he was "chosen by God to lead America" (sound familiar?) then I'll be concerned about his "cult" - until then, this is really much ado about nothing.
A Republican? Wow. Not many Republicans visit. I wish I had more time to write back (I'm busy, poking someone in the eye, repeatedly) but, because it's a point I've wanted to drive home before, will say this:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the main reason so many people deny Obama's cult status is because they don't know very much about cults. See more below.
Second, I haven't charged any other politicians, but Barack and Hillary, with cultism. Barack's got Oprah (big red flag) and Hillary's done tons of cultish shit. (You'll have to look around the site to find it.) That's their base, just as Madonna moved to Kabbalah to shore up her flagging sales. I haven't said John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich (who really should be with his U.F.O. claims) or anybody else is a cultist. You can deny it all you want, but I'm not alone in nailing Barack for it - I was just first.
And, finally, I've watched a lot of political campaigns - and know a lot about cultism - and he's the real deal. (I do question if even he knows what he's doing but, a cult's a cult, and there you go.) Don't be misled: There are political cults, just as there are religious ones, and medical ones, etc. (You don't have to declare being "led by God" to be in a cult. Here's a page, written by the guy who designed the Macintosh computer, on the Therapeutic Touch cult. See? Nothing about being "led by God". Just nursing mumbo-jumbo. It's the mumbo-jumbo part that's important - not God. The Heaven's Gate cult was waiting for a flying saucer,...) And remember: the last thing any cult needs - from the perspective of an outsider - is defenders. Let Barack defend himself: He got himself into it.
Oh yea - Ron Paul lost because he was unrealistic (eliminate the I.R.S.? Come on.) He never stood a chance, not because he was boring, but because anyone with an I.Q. of ten could see nothiong he was talking was going to happen. John Stewart told him so, on The Daily Show, for crying out loud.
Anyway, I've got to get back to poking this idiot in the eye repeatedly. Thanks for writing. And look around the site: You might learn something about cultism you didn't know. That's what I'm hoping anyway.
CMC
My understanding of the process of indoctrination into a cult is that your emotions are manipulated, your fears are stoked and then you are given a prescribed way to safety or bliss and you have hope. You get so caught up in this hope/fear cycle that you cease to think critically about your life and problems. Exposure to outside information and emotional connections are restricted in cults also, so alternative sources of solutions to problems are not available to you. You come to depend more exclusively on the hope the cult offers just to feel 'normal'. If you try to break away at all, you are punished in some way, through exclusion or attack.
ReplyDeleteSo looking at all the candidates, not just in this election but the last four - who has played most on both sides of fear AND hope? And remember, cults play on the unsuspecting and vulnerable. Thinking of the current situation - Who is vulnerable to promises of 'peace' 'unifying' and 'health care for all' and 'saving the planet from greenhouse gases'? Who will be punished when it is all over - those who refuse to be 'brought together', or refuse to accept 'peace' ?