Saturday, January 9, 2010

Not Positive Thinking Or Self-Help But NewAge

Introduction - A little while back, just before the New Year, I had started a series to be called "A Decade From Hell: I Am The Winner" that was going to detail all the correct calls I'd made over the last few years. Unfortunately, I got stuck after Part I because Part II was going to be on today's subject and, as I started on it, I immediately realized there was just no way to cover it all in a single post or two. So, with apologies for not continuing the "Decade From Hell' series, I now invite you to follow me down the rabbit hole that, if you don't know it's there, is capable of swallowing (if not destroying) almost any logical endeavor:

At some point, all the learned writers mention it - every one of them - but, in the end, they also tend to miss it by a country mile:

Barbara Ehrenreich has a new book out called "Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America".

Steve Salerno wrote one about "SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless".

And, at right about the same time as Salerno, Francis Wheen released his entertaining tome on "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World".

Wendy Kaminer went so far as to say we're now "Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials".

So what are they so haphazardly adressing? Positive Thinking, The Self-Help Movement, Mumbo-Jumbo, and Extra-Terrestrials - they don't really have anything in common, do they? Of course they do:

They're all part of The NewAge Movement.

I'm not surprised so many miss the whole enchilada. Trying to describe a sprawling, assaultive, spiritual culture - especially a corrosive one that doesn't necessarily want to be noticed - is like trying to capture a cigarette's plume with your hands. Even those of us who understand it can't even seem to settle on a terminology.

The Mystic Bourgeoisie's Chris Locke signals it's many permutations by calling it "New Age++". Connie Schmidt, of Whirled Musings, focuses on it's scams with the phrase "New Wage", while I tend to lean towards James Randi's "NewAge" because I think he said it best ("Rhymes with 'sewage'").

But, long before NewAge "Undermined America" or "Made America Helpless" - or even "Conquered the World" - writers who noticed just wrote about the coming New Age. Christians were so concerned about what they were seeing happening in our culture, as far back as 1983, they aired a cautionary documentary on WCFC TV in Chicago called "The New Age - A Pathway to Paradise?" Needless to say, they didn't answer in the affirmative.

But Chicago, the most recent home to what some have referred to as our first "New Age President", Barack Obama, is as good a place as any to start breaking down what all these disparate individuals (encompassing liberals and conservatives, as well as Christians and atheists) are so concerned about. Why? Because, as we all know, it's also the current headquarters of Obama's biggest supporter - the "NewAge goddess", Oprah Winfrey.

Ah, Oprah - the #1 talk show host in the world and the woman many call "a moral force bearing down" on America - what's not to like about Oprah? Like The NewAge Movement itself, she's seen as a positive influence, out to help others, right? Well, yea, that's how she's mostly seen - but is it true?

I say "mostly" because those who are paying attention have found that, underneath the conventional wisdom on Oprah's world-wide influence, something is just a little creepy and more-than-a-little bit off.

I guess people really started paying attention around the time the queen of daytime talk started hawking The Secret. According to Salon.com:

"The main idea of 'The Secret' is that people need only visualize what they want in order to get it -- and the book certainly has created instant wealth, at least for Rhonda Byrne and her partners-in-con. And the marketing idea behind it -- the enlisting of that dream team, in what is essentially a massive, cross-promotional pyramid scheme -- is brilliant. But what really makes 'The Secret' more than a variation on an old theme is the involvement of Oprah Winfrey, who lends the whole enterprise more prestige, and, because of that prestige, more venality, than any previous self-help scam. Oprah hasn't just endorsed 'The Secret'; she's championed it, put herself at the apex of its pyramid, and helped create a symbiotic economy of New Age quacks that almost puts OPEC to shame."

Did you catch that? Oprah, ostensibly the subject of the piece, is not just in with quacks, but specifically "New Age quacks". Like I said, all the learned writers mention NewAge - every one of them - but, in the end, they also tend to miss it, just as Oprah's followers (a word associated with cultism) tend not to see (or willingly ignore) that their all-seeing hero is repeatedly being mentioned in the same breath as a "pyramid scheme", a "con", and "venality" - or later (my favorite) just "baldfaced bullshitting". (Where are all the millionaires The Secret's advice was supposed to create? Why are we in one of the country's worst recessions right after it emerged? Wasn't this just a scan with Oprah getting people to waste their money? Never mind,...)

Oprah's fans also pooh-pooh charges she spreads "The Glamour of Misery" and, more to the point, any statement that says "Clearly, Oprah Winfrey has been converted into the New Age Movement." But, as this charade continues to play out, I'd like to make one point no one can ignore or deny:

We all know what they're talking about - people are aware there is *something* called "NewAge" stalking our culture - it's the "movement" part that's not so clear yet.

But, reading it's critics, NewAge sounds pretty cruel and gruesome, doesn't it? I mean, "pyramid schemes" and "misery"? Are we talking about Oprah's belief system here or Bernie Madoff's? Neither: we're talking about the Western World's - which, as all the writers mentioned above have stated, is pretty bad - and, starting with this post, I aim to prove to you they're not exaggerating. Not by a long shot. Listen to them again:

"Positive Thinking Has Undermined America". "The Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless". "Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World".

Ladies and Gentlemen, NewAge - not politics or medicine or science - is why our world is failing. Those who have gravitated into it's sphere of influence (and many are politicians and doctors and scientists) are no longer capable of thinking clearly, and thus, they're putting all of our lives in danger for it.

I, for one, don't believe that - I know it. Soon, you will, too.

Stay tuned.

5 comments:

  1. You know, it would help if you didn't undermine your own argument - the insistent of proof and rationality over 'belief' - by elsewhere, and frequently, showing that you yourself do exactly the same as your New Age adveraries hence, absurd notions like "The fact that there are record heatwaves occuring is not evidence of global warming" and "Recycling doesn't achieve anything", which a child could refute.

    Other than that, you have a good argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The New York Times did a 12 page article called "Recycling is garbage" on the uselessness and delusional thinking behind the practice.

    And if you don't know global warming is bogus - even after the ClimateGate fiasco - then I can't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both these examples are steeped in belief. They start with the proposition of either 'this notion is garbage/it does not suit me/it is the position my enemies hold' and then proceeding to find some evidence to support this. Well is it called 'climate denial' because it doesn't begin with a good faith position of examining all the data and making an assessment from this, it looks at the work of others and seeks to tear it down. As such it doesn't (see the) need to be terribly scientific or rational.

    The NY Times article is impressive in the way it can go on for that long making one contentious statement after another. It is hardly a template for building a safe and robust community.

    Detractors of recycling waste try to argue that it costs less to extract raw materials, build and amalgamate from scratch, than it is to use material already prepared for similar purpose. This is inherently nonsensical to anyone who has cut and paste shapes in kindergarten (hence my criticism) and culminates in the craft and skill of the artisan who can weld and meld over and over from the same piece of material.

    What you're basically arguing is that I should throw something out that I can make perfectly good use of. That I should pay afresh to have a facsimile of what I already have, and waste enormous amounts of resources to achieve this end. Then you carp about the energy expended in recycling, without comparing it anywhere with the comparable cost of producing from scratch - the purchase of the land, the labour, the machinery, the restoration work of site. Even if you don't care about the environment (and that is a self-defeating stance, unless you live in a bubble), the sheer expense makes mockery of anti-recycling cant.

    So, if it's so good, why write a 12 page article against recycling? Well, what is going to happen to manufacturer's profits if you don't keep buying new widgets from them. The profits from a jerry-built re-use of scrap metal or plastic have long been spent. They need you to buy one of their new ones instead and will spend a lot of ad dollar convincing you. That's sound commerce but it ain't sound logic.

    Briefly on global warming. 'ClimateGate' won't make it degree cooler or warmer. It won't stop the waves lapping the villages in Micronesia, it won't stop the ice walls melting or the coral reefs bleaching. What you need, if you are really serious - and I know you're not - is to find an explanation for record heatwaves and startling changes in the ecology, not care what someone said in an email!

    Yes, if we were relying on the participants in your 'fiasco' for our data, you'd have a point. But we are (presumably) talking about denying photographs from independent sources, denying what the thermometer on the back veranda says, blowing raspberries at the weather man on TV. Oh, and expecting that the one group who take the greatest effort to test and disprove hypotheses are all conspiring to hide the "real truth" - the reforming icebergs, the cooler oceans - even though they squabble heartily over minuscule differences in interpretation in other fields. It just gets incredibly silly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Like I said, I can't help you, and - since arguing with a fool makes it hard for others to determine which is which - I'm just going to back away from you very, very slowly,...

    Well, since I want to be a gracious host, I will ask you one question in return - since you're so smart and informed and sure of yourself:

    What's the "correct" temperature of the planet and how'd you arrive at it?

    Nobody seems to have made that very clear,...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tee hee...love ya, although this is the first time I've stumbled onto your blog. Don'cha love the way the left completey ignores the whole East Anglia reports of fraud concerning "climate change"? They just go on with their fingers plugged in their ears, saying "Nya Nya Nya." Of course, if it had been some new "proof" of CC, they would be quoting it in every post on every blog, not to mention in all the msm outlets.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON