The Good (There's Nothing Common About It)

"I've got an obligation to the victims of Scientology who've come forward with very serious allegations to see this through. To do anything else would be abandoning those victims. To do anything else would be walking away from a very important issue."

-- Nick Xenophon, after being asked if he's "obsessed" with helping cult victims - as though assisting those no one else will help is weird - which makes me wonder about the ethics of those at Australia AM.

I can't say how impressed I am by Australian Senator Nick Xenophon's efforts on behalf of former Scientologists. Here is a man who behaves like a human being when faced with a taboo that others are too cowardly, or self-interested, to address fully. Not only that but, even after an initial defeat in Parliament, the self-decribed "stubborn bastard" appears to be bringing others to his side - good for him.

The way most people react to this subject is a source of immense frustration to me, focusing on the behavior of those making claims, as opposed to the claims themselves - and as though they think PTSD makes one calm - adding another layer of abuse, applied by those who have bought into the NewAge idea that calmness is the default position for anything: brainwashing, murder, being fleeced, whatever. Just focus on your breaths and "move on" is the cure for what ails you - even if your loved one is dead, or you have no family or money left (or you're freaking out from discovering the depth of society's cult indoctrination, from the Maharishi and est, etc., all the way up to the Landmark Forum, Oprah, and others) after the charlatans have had their way with you. It's just a piling on of insanity, squared.

"Of the 20 meetings we had, the managers from 14 of those funds told me they believed in [Bernie Madoff]. Listening to them, I got the feeling it wasn't so much an investment as it was some sort of financial cult."

-- Harry Markopolos

How most people, (but especially journalists and academics) keep willingly ignoring these statements about various forms of cultism throughout contemporary society blows my mind. But, in some ways, I guess, it's to be expected: after the explosion of cultism during the 1960s and 70s, we now have multiple generations indoctrinated into cultish thinking, so it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that their responses would reflect all that they know. Unfortunately, all that they know can be twisted and wrong.

"It appears America has become that mad land Alice stumbled upon down the rabbit hole. There is so much about American society that no longer makes any sense. Up is down, black is white and right is wrong."

-- Mark Hyman

In my last post I used a quote from Ann Althouse, who teaches religion and the law, speaking about the supposed virtues of American Idol:

""It's always been in large part about being kind of bad and loving somebody who doesn't deserve it and failing to appreciate somebody else who was better."

And she, a law professor! (And Obama voter!) Forget for a second what that comment is about - American Idol - and focus on the "logic" at work: "Bad" is good. Support is given to that which/who "doesn't deserve it". And that which is "better" is not to be appreciated. It sounds a bit like Nancy Pelosi's argument for Obamacare, doesn't it? Or, more to the point, like those judges and others who force people into cult groups to heal them? Or like newspapers suggesting meditation to calm down when meditation is practically a gateway to the cult groups, and cultish thinking, that ultimately traumatizes the vulnerable. There's literally no escape from such awful thinking because, in typical cult fashion, those proposing the bad ideas are "love bombers", seen as "nice" and carefree, while the traumatized and informed are looked on as "mean" and/or "crazy" for being unrelenting in their opposition to such nonsense.

Needless to say, it's a sick world out there, and this NewAge sickness in our culture is promoted most by those who can best afford to be ill:

"When the haves remake a culture, the people who pay the price are the have-nots. Let me restate his argument with my own metaphor. Imagine a game of crack-the-whip, in which a line of children, holding hands, starts running in a circle. The first few children have no problem keeping up, but near the end of the line the last few must run so fast that many fall down. Those children who did not begin the turning suffer most from the turn.

There are countless examples of our cultural crack-the-whip. Heroin and cocaine use started among elites and then spread down the social scale. When the elites wanted to stop, they could hire doctors and therapists; when the poor wanted to stop, they could not hire anybody. The elites endorsed community-based centers to treat mental illness, and so mental hospitals were closed down. The elites hired psychiatrists; the poor slept on the streets. People who practiced contraception endorsed loose sexuality in writing and movies; the poor practiced loose sexuality without contraception. Divorce is more common among the affluent than the poor. The latter, who can’t afford divorce, deal with unhappy marriages by not getting married in the first place."

And those who can and did indulge in cultish thinking also don't have to give a damn what happens when that cultism negatively affects the poor. Not to pick on Ann Althouse - really - but she can indulge in this bullshit about bad being good without worrying about how such thinking affects those of us who have to live with the results, or are trying to find their way to a better way of life - a way of life which, of course, Althouse (a liberal) is "failing to appreciate". The banner on her site currently (and proudly) asks, "Ann Althouse, what exactly are you for?" and, I must say, after spending a considerable amount of time on her blog, I still don't know beyond her own desires.

"A country whose national character is typified by the great melting pot is continually being redefined by individuals who promote racial, ethnic, religious, and gender division."

-- Mark Hyman

One of Ann's desires is to indulge a proclivity for discussing race - a desire shared by her fellow law professor, and blogger, Glenn Reynolds. Rather than look at themselves as part of the problem - because they won't shut up about it - they play the race card as well as (and more often than) Al Sharpton. I've made it clear, as a black man in 2010, I could give a damn about the subject's superficial aspects - without folks bringing it up it doesn't really affect me - and to prove my point, after doing a considerable search online, the only pressing racial issue I could find was about a New York play, written by an Irishman, that features Christopher Walken saying the word "nigger". It's actually another non-issue because - I feel stupid having to point this out - Walken's role is as a bigot.

It's just a piling on of insanity, squared.

We deserve better. I know I do. Nobody's trying to lynch me, but these people won't shut up about racism. Meanwhile, cults have hurt me but these two law professors (and two of the most popular bloggers) won't talk about that - except to give comfort to cultism.

"ONE REASON WHY I WOULD RATHER BE AN ACADEMIC than a federal judge is that academics can say whatever we think, and can make outrageous-but-clever points without worry, even if our logic goes astray."

-- Glenn Reynolds

Again, I guess acceptance of that attitude's to be expected since they're Boomers, those who came of age during the cult indoctrination period, resulting in America's first generation of hippies that got off on - what? - "being kind of bad,..."

AKA still up to no good.