Oprah Gets Rielle - Aren't Women Appealing?

Since my divorce, and my immersion in my adulteress murderess ex's cultism, I listen to the lyrics of romantic songs on the radio a lot closer than I used to, and I'm amazed at the way their meanings have slid by - almost without notice - making it like there's this cosmic joke going on, but I couldn't hear the laughter.

Here's a glowing endorsement of malicious contradiction that smacked me like a bucket full of heads today:

She can kill with a smile
She can wound with her eyes
She can ruin your faith with her casual lies
And she only reveals what she wants you to see
She hides like a child,
But she's always a woman to me

She can lead you to love
She can take you or leave you
She can ask for the truth
But she'll never believe you
And she'll take what you give her, as long as it's free
Yeah, she steals like a thief
But she's always a woman to me

Yea. So Rielle Hunter, a total NewAger and a woman, had a talk with Oprah Winfrey - another total NewAger and a woman. I've read a lot of reviews of Hunter's appearance, and every one of them seems to have missed/ignored the fact these were two identical NewAgers talking, just as they hid the Edwards affair that made this moment possible.

Rielle made it clear that "for her, the right and obvious thing to do is always to follow 'your own truth'".

And, for years, Oprah's message to the public has been "Be true to you. Live your truths.", as well. The ideology and phrasing are so close, Rielle may have even gotten the idea from watching Oprah on TV.

That seems to have been missed/ignored, too, by all those appointed (and self-appointed) to tell us these things.

I wonder if anyone knew it but just refused to mention it? You know, like they did the John Edwards scandal?

Journalism's too damned bizarre today.

Many reviewers called Rielle's spiritual beliefs "delusional", and were "eager to see a 'Clash of the Titans'-like face-off between her and Oprah, our nation's unofficial stand-in for wives, moms and wholesome caregivers everywhere."

This, of course, didn't, and couldn't, happen:

Oprah isn't a wife, or a mother, and - as far as her stand-in role for "wholesome caregivers everywhere" - she's really just another NewAger who helped foist The Secret on the nation, another NewAge belief system which is rightly described by critics as "a dressed-up version of blaming the victim."

All of that was also missed/ignored - so who, exactly, is "delusional" again?

And about what?

Considering the popularity of The Secret (and Oprah) with women, I'd say delusion's getting quite the workout, wouldn't you?

Oh--she takes care of herself
She can wait if she wants
She's ahead of her time
Oh--and she never gives out
And she never gives in
She just changes her mind

And she'll promise you more
Than the Garden of Eden
Then she'll carelessly cut you
And laugh while you're bleedin'
But she'll bring out the best
And the worst you can be
Blame it all on yourself
Cause she's always a woman to me

There's a lot of NewAge stuff about that woman, Oprah, that gets missed/ignored out there, even as people take note of other individual elements.

For instance, Victor Davis Hanson has noticed Al Gore's own Rielle Hunter-like version of following "your own truth" - "the gospel of Gorism was Al Gore himself" - and that Gore's new mansion is located in "Oprah Country".


But he seems to have missed/ignored that, when the mayor of San Francisco - who was married by a psychic - ran home (on an unannounced break from governing) he took a self-help guru with him,...to see even more of "Oprah Country" in Hawaii.

Considering all three of these public figures are proponents of the cultish (and fascist and stupid) "green" agenda - and Oprah has been behind so many other bogus cult beliefs, quack remedies, and the deceptive (and already-withering) presidency of Barack Obama - I'd wonder, if I was a political watcher, what the long-term gain of being around someone known as "The Queen of NewAge" could be?

I'm sure there must be others who'd like to know as well.

Look how a man - one who shares Oprah's beliefs - gets treated:

"Prince Charles’ recent visit to Afghanistan seemed designed more to garner favourable publicity than to produce any measurable gains.

To seek sensible advice about the war from Charles is probably a futile endeavour, considering his chuckleheaded submission to voodoo thinking.

His mind is so clouded with the mists of irrational fantasies that I am surprised he can walk around without bumping into things.

Indeed, the completeness of his submission to the lure of unreason is astounding.

Kitty Kelley, in “The Royals”, mentions that he “sought the consolation of seers, mediums, and (other) psychics. He dabbled in the paranormal, took part in seances and consulted clairvoyants”. And, as if this great smorgasbord of nonsense was not enough, Charles added a dessert of homoeopathy.

On second thought, maybe this surrender to fatuous concepts is not so astounding after all; once the demand for evidence is scorned, one foolish notion is as compelling as any other.

Fairies, goblins, ghosts, poltergeists etc, all can find a niche in the uncritical mind of the believer.

But in a few of those who revel in this eldritch landscape, there can be detected a tincture of hypocrisy — a fear of placing a solid wager on the strength of dizzy fancies.

It seems that Charles is one of these.

Professor Simon Blackburn, the British philosopher, has this to say: '. . . Even that great public sceptic about the value of science, Prince Charles, never flies in a helicopter burning homoeopathically diluted petrol, that is, water with only a memory of benzine molecules, maintained by a schedule derived from reading tea leaves, and navigated by a crystal ball'."

And neither does Oprah.

But she catches no shit for it.

I mean she catches no "poop". It's always infantilized "poop" (and "vajayjay") with Oprah.

So the short-term gain, politically, is obvious:

Unlike Prince Charles (another known NewAger) the public has, stupidly, rendered Oprah currently untouchable.

She can be wrong in public about alternative medicines (and specifically about homeopathy). And she can be wrong in public about The Secret. And she can be wrong in public about vaccinating kids. And she can allow known-cultists to jump on her couch (and even offer to give other members TV shows of their own) or teach "courses" through her organization. And she can make quacks famous who give bad medical advice. And she can get children sexually molested at her South African school before she "conceded that she had spent too much time personally selecting light fixtures and pillow cases and too little vetting the staff" (a comment which got her sued by the principal). And even her own family can say, in public, she's wrong and they feel shamed by her lies, by the fact she's a NewAger, and - except monetarily - how she disrespects them. But, still, the public never looks at Oprah's beliefs vs. actions and asks, "What, exactly, are we supporting?"

That's awful nice to be around if you're a politician.

Here - changing course again - let me try this on ol' Billy Joel:

"[Rielle] Hunter sees herself as neither villain nor antihero, and not even as a victim; in her New Age view of the world, she simply is. She’s airy and upbeat and completely in denial, believing she’s the one in perfect harmony with the world."

Sounds like another woman - Oprah - to me.

And tell me this - another sidebar - sorry: can anyone else understand how Rielle Hunter's real name - Lisa Jo Druck - is so close to my murderess NewAge ex-wife's name - Karine Anne Brunck - that it would bother me?

For some people, that - alone - would be enough to drive them to drink.

Not to mention how much that description of Rielle sounds like Oprah,...

The way it works is just maddening.

Oh well, what can you say?

They're women!

In happier news, over in England at least, they're not taking this NewAge quack nonsense lying down.

Martin Robbins has a piece in The Guardian where a group of scientists asked the Labour Party (think Democrats) about reality:

"Alternative Medicine:

If the balance of evidence suggests that a treatment does not perform any better than placebo, should it be supported by the National Health Service?

The Department of Health has yet to give its response to the Science and Technology Select Committee's damning report on homeopathy, but under a Labour government its views would apparently be irrelevant. Labour states that it would not take a line on alternative medicine, but would rather leave the decision to local trusts.

A revealing comment is that 'the availability of suitably qualified/regulated practitioners' would be taken into account in decisions on the provision of treatments. Labour has been active in promoting the creation of alternative medicine quangos in the past few years, which means it is helping to give credibility to quacks and increasing their chances of infiltrating our health services. The fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money have been poured into alt med lobby groups like Prince Charles' Foundation for Integrated Health – now defunct after being involved in fraud and under investigation by the Charity Commission – raises serious questions about ministers' judgement."

But don't get me wrong - there's good anti-quack stuff going on in America - but it doesn't have the public's attention in the way it should.

Nothing could.

That woman, Oprah, wouldn't like it.

Which I guess means, neither would "moms, wives, and wholesome caregivers".

Or Rielle Hunter.

So, whether it needs to be or not, it just won't get said.

She is frequently kind
And she's suddenly cruel
She can do as she pleases
She's nobody's fool
And she can't be convicted
She's earned her degree
And the most she will do
Is throw shadows at you
But she's always a woman to me

Yeah, yeah - whatever - under the circumstances, and after all I've seen and been through, that song should be called "9-1-1 Is A Joke".