Saturday, October 13, 2007

Ignorance Is Bliss

"I'm not a Scientologist, and I couldn't tell you two things about it."
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, when questioned about his dating a Scientologist.

"As of yesterday, I hardly knew anything about him."
- Lance Miller, president of Scientology's Way to Happiness Foundation International, on San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who the cult has finally admitted they were "recruiting, participate in a campaign to promote L. Ron Hubbard's writings."

Ah yes - just as I've been saying all along. Let's see where we are now regarding America's favorite Cultland On A Hill:

The mayor has dated a member of the cult of Scientology (CoS) but claims to know nothing about the it, though the cult admits they were "recruiting" him. The implication being the Mayor of San Francisco, adopted home of The People's Temple, isn't up-to-speed on cults in The City or his pretty little head can't/doesn't know how to read,....two explanations which are, totally, believable. Except:

He made September 7th, 2007, a holiday for the Dahnhak Yoga cult - but claims he didn't know that group was a cult either - or that they had killed someone. (In a "blissful" manner, I'm sure.)

The cult of the peadophile Sai Baba sells their wares all over San Francisco - but, I'm sure, the Mayor knows nothing.

San Francisco's Mayor allows the Falun Gong to do their thing outside City Hall every day, because no one inside can imagine how a group of loopy, paranoid, homophobic, cultists (who have been known to set themselves on fire) might one day become a problem.

There are numerous cults working freely within the city. So many that, during a conversation about the Falun Gong, Thom Lynch of the LGBT Community Center once said, "How do we get into Chinese cults when we have so many cults here we are not addressing?" The rest of The City claims not to know what in the world he's talking about. Or what a swastika is. And the name "Mickey Mouse" escapes them as well.

San Francisco put Jim Jones, The People's Temple cult leader who murdered 900 people, in charge of it's Housing Authority. They claimed they didn't know what was going on. It's safe to assume he didn't either.

Like Ron Dellums (above) the Mayor of Oakland who endorsed Your Black Muslim Bakery until they killed a reporter covering their story, San Francisco's most popular politicians - including former-San Francisco Mayors Willie Brown and George Moscone - all endorsed The People's Temple cult and went on to glorious political careers. The public feigns ignorance, claiming that until Mayor Dellums stretches out his arm and flattens his palm, they don't know how to respond.

Anybody else noticing a pattern here? Do I know more than the entire city of San Francisco? The entire San Francisco Bay Area?

Well - I guess we'll just have to wait and see - because, Baby, this is getting GOOD!

We've got one very-good (and very-dead) reporter - now, who's going to be next?


  1. Hi,

    You may be wondering why I posted a link to the "Fallacy Files" in the below post. From reading your blog, I can tell that you are unacquainted with formal logic or critical thinking, thus you make many error-ridden and emotional arguments that rely on common sleight-of-hand tricks that collapse the second anyone looks into them a little closer, for example, argument from ignorance, guilt by association, false analogies, etc.

    You should do a google search for the phrase "logical fallacies" and investigate these a bit.

    Right now the types of arguments you make are like this:

    - Martin Luther King cheated on his wife, therefore the civil rights movement was wrong and the people who wanted voting rights for blacks are adulterers who cannot be trusted in marriage

    ...for example - most of the points you make on this blog can be broken down to some variation of this theme. Sound ridiculous? You bet. It sounds just as ridiculous when you spout off in complete ignorance about the civil rights tsruggle in Burma,

    On a related note, you seem to not know or understand very much about world events, e.g., you mistakenly believe that the conflict n Burma is between buddhists and buddhists when actuallly it is the buddhist monks who are the spearhead of a civil democracy movement which is standing up against a secular military dictatorship, they this knowing they will be killed like th freedom riders in the old south but they do this because they believe in something larger then themselves and are willing to make this sacrifice for the freedom of others.

    Now, you have claimed elsewhere that because they are buddhists, and because the burmese are living under a dictatorship, then they deserve to be torured and killed for wanting freedom.

    I think if the shoe was on the other foot and somebody argued to you that Martin Luther King deserved to get shot for trying to get civil rights for blacks in your own country, because he was just a supertitious preacher fighting people with guns, maybe you would be offended and disagree?

    All I am trying to say here, if you are going to advance controversial positions, then use good logic, instead of falling back on the sorts of stereotypes and lazy tricks with false logic you seem to prefer. It does not make you look smart to say these things, it makes you look like a racist fool.

  2. Secret, you tickle me. While defending beliefs - ideas of faith with no logic - you charge me with refusing to use critical thinking. Hilarious.

    How many times must I explain I'm fighting metaphysical thinking? Fighting fire with fire. It's the attempt to be reasonable, logical, etc., with these people that they laugh at. Listen to Camille Paglia:

    "Religion as metaphysics or cosmic vision is no longer valued except in the New Age movement, to which I still strongly subscribe, despite its sometimes outlandish excesses."

    See? Right, wrong - "outlandish excesses" (like ripping people off and outright murder) - Camille doesn't care, because caring would be moral (which, as a new ager, she doesn't believe in) and logical. All that matters is the New Age "movement" - which she "strongly" subscribes to - and which uses "metaphysics or cosmic vision" to steam-roll the rest of us. Exactly the same attitude the communists had, here, regarding Stalin.

    Funny how (considering her high-profile) you don't care how Camille looks - when she is defending "outlandish excesses" like murder - but only how I look (in my obscurity) when I'm trying to stop it. You're just like the anti-war folks who scream at Bush but are/were silent to Osama bin Laden, and Saddam, regarding their horrendous crimes.

    You have one goal and one goal only - to weaken "good" - and that's evil. You (smart person that you are) know "evil" right? That's when you allow/cause bad things to happen - or allow/cause bad things to happen and don't care.

    That sounds exactly like the new age "movement" to me.

  3. While defending beliefs - ideas of faith with no logic - you charge me with refusing to use critical thinking. Hilarious.


    I do not believe that pro-democracy protestors are being tortured and kille din Burma - that is a fact.

    You claim that they deserve to be tortured and killed for 2 reasons:

    1) It is "silly" to want freedom

    2) Buddhists deserve to get clubbed because their beliefs cannot be proven.

    Now, are either of those things facts? No, they are your opinions, and very lazy racist opinions that you cannot support or argue for.

    I asked you how the situiation of these monks was different from MLK Jr and you dodged.

    I tried to ask you again. You dodged again.

    Your only counter-=arguyment when I called you on this is that people who disagree with you are "evil"

    So fighting stupidity with stupidity is your strategy? I do not think it is very effective.

  4. Let's be clear:

    I never claimed anybody deserves to be killed, clubbed, or tortured. I made a flip remark that you've decided to take literally. It's no wonder so many people say liberals are humorless.

    "I think if the shoe was on the other foot and somebody argued to you that Martin Luther King deserved to get shot for trying to get civil rights for blacks in your own country, because he was just a supertitious preacher fighting people with guns, maybe you would be offended and disagree?"

    Of course not - I'm an atheist, remember? (I reject MLK's religious beliefs just like all others.) Civil rights has nothing to do with religion - as MLK's own adulterous behavior proves. His behavior made it easier for his enemies (like Hoover) to dislike him, even more, when he might have had a chance to win them over by living what he preached. Unfortunately, with spiritual types, they never do.

    Try again, secret, because you're working with an old play-book.

  5. man I don't want to be a busybody, but who care that other people do with them money, time, religious belief and thoughts, I mean you made good post about other and more interesting themes, please let this crap to the cleaning lady or to 2r2d.