"Adolf Hitler Der Letzte Avatar Ebook Feng Shui Esoterismo Cabala Tarot Magia Metodo Pilates Yoga."-- Christopher Locke, finding a lot of the very-popular subjects covered on TMR, while reprinting part of the URL to Nazi Miguel Serrano's book, "Hitler the Last Avatar" (that's Miguel, above, with the Dalai Lama) and making a bunch of other profound NewAge/Nazi connections - to the "white people" in the "progressive" liberal fascist cult - also known as the Mystic Bourgeoisie.
There - now, if you want, all you post-Germany, Israel-hating, "spiritual" earth-loving Nazi health freaks can, openly, sing along with your anthem - adopting the appropriate straight-arm salute, of course:
When I first read this article I thought the writer was talking about TMR! The resemblance is uncanny...ReplyDelete
BTW, people who advocate turning American states into concentration camps for religious minorities don't have much ground to stand on when it comes to painting "New Age" crystal gazers as skinheads-in-training - I'm just sayin'...
The alleged Nazi angle of the New Age movement is a favourite theme of Communist scholars looking for crypto-Nazis to "expose", and for ways to reduce every debate to an "anti-fascist" issue (reductio ad Hitlerum) in order to recreate forever the moral power equation of the 1940s when democratic anti-Communists like Churchill were forced to support Stalin; and of Evangelicals trying to score points against competitors on the religion market. Thus, on an Evangelical website I found a jubilant review of a book by a German Marxist, Peter Kratz, which uses all the tricks to amalgamate the New Age phenomenon with Nazi ideology...
As one example of his amalgamation technique, the opening paragraph describes the presence of both grim neo-Nazis and mild New Age types at the Externsteine (Germany's counterpart to Stonehenge) during summer solstice...
Though the question is in itself apolitical, and though there would be nothing wrong with Germanic authorship of the solstice hole (except for anti-Germanic racists), Kratz uses it to put Nazis and New-Agers in the same corner...
...While Nazis may attach great importance to ethnic identity and often claim Germany as the Indo-European Urheimat, the freewheeling spiritualists whom he labels "New-Agers" care little about it. They generally accept the conventional wisdom about such historical details, i.c. that the solstice-hole at the Externsteine, like Stonehenge, was probably pre-Germanic, either Celtic... or more likely pre-Celtic and pre-Indo-European, or what Nazis would call "non-Aryan". Many Pagan remnants in the European landscape are "Old European", dating back to before the Indo-European invasion from the east, and New-Agers generally prefer the purportedly matriarchal Old Europeans to the patriarchal Indo-Europeans.
...many contemporary "anti-fascist" publications [have as their] single aim to damage as many people and movements as possible by tainting them with Hitler connotations. Laird Wilcox, an American anti-racist activist of long standing who got tired of the verbal hate crimes committed in the name of anti-racism, writes of antifa "watchdog" groups that they "are aggressively hostile and have as their specific mission to defame, degrade and ultimately destroy their opponents. For Watchdogs, there is nothing to debate and the only issue of real significance is how much harm they can inflict on their enemies". In Wilcox' experience, their methods to "ostracize targeted individuals and groups" include "establishing 'links-and-ties' (i.e. footnoted guilt by association), discerning their 'hidden agenda' and 'true motives'" (L. Wilcox: The Watchdogs: a Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Olathe KS 1999, quoted by reviewer Frank Miele, Skeptic, 2000/1, p.92). This applies quite neatly to Kratz's book.
His argumentation follows the typical pattern of conspiracy theories: "Mr. A is a member of club B, he also met Mr. C who knows Mr. D, therefore Mr. D is an accomplice of club B"....
Thus, after citing some "tree of life" imagery from recent New Age writings, which in turn refer to the tree as a favourite cosmic symbol of the Native Americans, he reveals that tree imagery was also used by racist and nationalist ideologues in the 19th century and even by a Nazi biologist, who elsewhere also ranted against the Jews, ergo to talk of trees is Nazi and racist. After all, when you hear Stamm (tree's trunk), "the notion of Ab-stamm-ung [descent, genealogy] readily comes to mind"! (p.165) From tree to bloodline to eugenic massacres: by this free association, a sick Communist mind can turn the most innocent piece of greenery into a Nazi gas chamber.
This way,Kratz can blacken every premodern culture as fundamentally Nazi, for practically all peoples use tree symbolism, from the Germanic Yggdrasil (meaning "Odin's horse" and being an "ash-tree whose roots and branches join heaven and earth and hell",--Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th ed., OUP, Delhi 1986, entry Yggdrasil) to the Jewish Etz-Chaim, "tree of life".
While we are at it, let us note that symbolism from the Jewish mystical tradition (Qabala) is an integral part of Theosophical and New Age syncretism. By contrast, if you visit anti-Jewish websites, you will find "qabalistic" used as a term of contempt encapsulating the alleged Jewish secretiveness and deceitfulness. Since anti-Semitism was the core concern of the Nazi movement, it should be obvious that the respect which Theosophists and New-Agers pay to the Jewish tradition, and the carefree innocence with which they incorporate it into their syncretism, are decisive arguments against the alleged Nazi agenda of these movements.
But even where Kratz makes valid points about ideas allegedly held in common between alleged Nazis and New-Agers (holism, organicism, environmentalism, animal protection), these fail to prove his main thesis, viz. "that New Age and fascism are identical in essential ideological components and that both serve, in their similar objective practical consequences, the interest of capital". (p.31; Kratz even opposes the common belief that the Nazis merely "misused" ideological elements of holistic or theosophical thought: in his view, the Nazis made a logical use of elements which are intrinsically identical to Nazi thought, which implies that if New-Agers were to come to power, they would only be consistent with their beliefs if they re-enacted the Nazi crimes...
Thus, it may well be true that Romantic love of nature was or is a trait of both the New Age philosophy and of the personal philosophy of some Nazis; but... it fails to confer the really important traits of National-Socialism onto the New Age movement. If Hitler's name has become a synonym of horror, it is not because he passed laws to protect rare flora and fauna species.
Kratz's design is to show that certain New Age themes or mere buzz-words (e.g. "holism") were already used by fascist or otherwise rightist people, and then to deduce the grim warning that if we let New Age people continue to do their thing, we will all land up in Auschwitz. But this is obviously untrue. Whatever similarities Kratz may discover or invent, New Age at the very least differs from National-Socialism in the one respect which explains Auschwitz: it rejects violence. That the Nazis killed many people was not due to their penchant for animal protection, but to their belief in the rightness of violence...
The one ideological choice of National-Socialism (and even more of Communism) which was crucial in making its mass-murders possible, was its glorification of armed struggle, its readiness to pursue its political goals over numerous dead bodies. That is a decisive difference with the much-maligned "New Age" movement, which, if nothing else, is certainly a pacifist movement. Having worked in a New Age bookstore, organized some New Age events and attended many more in my twenties (after my Marxist and before my skeptical period), I know the type: perhaps a bit narcissistic, perhaps intellectually sloppy, but quite well-meaning and at any rate mild and harmless. Possible wolves in the New Age landscape are at worst charlatans, conmen, swindlers, but not mass-murderers. Precisely this thorough non-violence explains the conspicuous syncretism of the New Age scene: all traditions and innovations are deemed worthy of existing, something worthwhile is assumed to operate in all of them, none should be fully rejected, let alone exterminated. It is, on the part of Peter Kratz, a despicable calumny to impute a Nazi mentality and Nazi designs to the New Age people.
And it doesn't stop there. Among other fundamental differences, a relevant one for this political discussion pertains to authority: in contrast with the Nazi "leader principle", the New Age movement is antiauthoritarian. Its defining principle is precisely that everyone is free to explore and experience whatever resonates with him at that point in his evolution. Mostly in reaction against the suffocating authority of Christian dogma, New Age people are freewheeling consumers on the market of religions and lifestyles, accountable only to their "higher selves", not to any political dictator. New Age is also multi-racial, mixophilic and globalistic (which is why it is actually despised by the extreme Right, a conspicuous fact which expert Kratz manages to overlook), it talks a lot of community but is quite individualistic, and it dismisses the hypermasculine bravery cult of the Nazis in favour of soft feminine values. It is about as foreign to the regimented goose-stepping SS boots as you can get.
Today, most people in the New Age scene, to the extent that they hold political opinions, cherish vestigial Leftist attitudes...
Many of the similarities which Kratz claims to have found are factual but harmless. It is quite true that the New Age movement shared some elements with the Nazis, as did the Communists, the New Deal socialists and many others; the question is which elements...
Let it for example be true that some alleged Nazis, like some New-Agers, were inspired by a pantheism captured in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's notion of "the cosmic Christ", as Kratz shows of 1930s Nazi-related ideologues Herbert Grabert and Wilhelm Hauer. (p.302) Heterodox Catholic philosopher Teilhard was very popular among modern Christians as much as among New Age people (who are generally not anti-Christian even if they object to Church authority); his idea of an emerging convergence of the consciousness of all sentient beings in a future "point Omega" brought the Christian notion of Salvation down into the course of history, which to fringe ideologues like Wilhelm Hauer resonated well with Adolf Hitler's notion of "providence", of a divine presence in history, itself a non-theistic version of Biblical "salvation history", of God's involvement in the history of His people. So what?
Numerous harmless dreamers have entertained such ideas, they cannot help it if some camp followers of the Nazi movement also liked them. Vegetarians cannot help it if Hitler too reportedly shunned meat; more pertinent is that the communities which have practised vegetarianism for thousands of years, such as the Gujaratis, have no record of genocide,-- on the contrary, they have an extremely low crime rate and are welcomed in the West as "model immigrants", forming the very best argument against the xenophobic association of immigration with disorder and violence.
Kratz's own Marxism did not share many of the philosophical assumptions of the Nazis, yet it was similarly (actually, ten times more) murderous. These philosophical profundities are just not the point. Whom should I rather encounter: a New Age dreamer who paints Buddhist swastikas on the walls of his meditation room, or a People's War Group Communist who has orders to eliminate the class enemies? New Age can share with Hauer or Chamberlain any amount of verbiage it wants; I still won't mind running into a New-Ager in a dark alley.
The reason is precisely that New Age implies a commitment to soft values, to harmlessness. By contrast, Communism is a dangerous enemy, even if its militants show knee-jerk reactions of hatred when shown Nazi terms or symbols, because in spite of all its differences, it shares with National-Socialism the crucial elements of self-righteousness, subordination of human lives to political goals, and belief in violence as the acclaimed motor of world history.
First, let me say I appreciate the effort you put into this comment. It's thoughtful, well-written, and devoid of the usual venom I (and other NewAge researchers) receive when we open up this subject. For that, I thank you. This can be a lonely, and depressing job, with little up-side, except to meet those who also understand the subject matter - which, I might add, can also sometimes be depressing as well, making me even more lonely. It's people like you I, honestly, want to engage with.
"atever similarities Kratz may discover or invent, New Age at the very least differs from National-Socialism in the one respect which explains Auschwitz: it rejects violence."
I was reading your comment - and even questioning myself - until it claimed NewAgers are "gentle souls" who "reject violence." Yes, my friend, that snapped me awake because not only do I recognize it as a lie but as naive beyond (what have become) my wildest dreams.
There are certain points I've made throughout the blog that I think bear repeating. I am writing TMR, in it's current fashion, because:
1) I was married to a NewAger who, along with her friends, lied to me about the nature of their beliefs for 20 years - before, on my own, I eventually caught on - but they would have kept doing so, otherwise, which, as Prince said, "means 'forever' and that's a mighty long time."
2) My ex-wife, and another believer, killed her mother.
3) They've since gone on to kill two more people (that I know about: let's not forget they didn't report it when the first one died,...).
4) Numerous NewAgers have told me in private (as they assumed I was, still, a Kool-Aid drinking naive black Leftist, down with the cause) they wanted to start (in their words) "a Civil War" in this country - and there's nothing "non-violent" about that - or what occurred in numbers 2 and 3.
5) Rather than the NewAge "movement" being a few crackpots, these are now famous people who have weaseled their way into the larger culture, leaving those who are being strictly logical - against a foe working from a "metaphysical" framework - missing the operation in action, and even defending them as "harmless," while wondering why everything appears to be going to Hell and we see the people who make the least sense (or who we can spot outright lying) steadily gaining real power. As my ex-wife told me, at the top of her lungs, in one of her last screeds to me:
"We're in the hospitals - we're getting legit - you'd better 'get it' before it's too late!"
Skeptic, there's nothing "non-violent" about that statement, either.
I don't blame you, or anyone else, for missing this. I did as well. We're logical, and hopefully, peace-loving people. But NewAgers are not - they're people who "believe what they want to believe" - or, as Oprah Winfrey says, who "make your own truth," and thus (in their minds) can "spin" the ugliest of realities into gold, just as Hitler's sick mind could turn the attempted annihilation of the Jews into some kind of "good" for the german people.
Haven't you heard Oprah, and other NewAgers, talking of shedding "energy vampires" - meaning those who don't go along with the NewAge agenda once it's been accepted? It's kind of easy to mistreat "vampires" isn't it? Especially if they're loved ones - who are, both, oblivious and the first folks close at hand - and whose only true transgression is being, somehow, stuck with a person they care about who insists they must be forced into, innocently and repeatedly, attempting to suck the air out of (what appear to be) numerous non-sensical arguments? Why, one can do a lot of damage to a loved one - who is constantly off-balance - like that, can't they? Especially if the believer is assisted by a network of others in the process - along with, for instance, free speech advocates, like you, who are insisting NewAgers are peaceful and harmless as they continue to abuse someone, naturally, growing increasingly angry from that abuse - right? Why, with that kind of cover they could probably get away with murder, couldn't they? But a NewAger would never do that, would they?
Sure, tell that to my ex-wife and her quack doctor, who - as I was crying, in severe emotional pain, and begging for some semblance of understanding and connection to reality as they tore my world apart - certainly weren't espousing "soft feminine values" when I last heard their laughter. And believe me - they're, both, NewAgers - through and through.
One of the things you seem to miss, or have schizophrenically "moved on" from, is the very-real harm this attempt to change our values does to those the NewAgers are working on. In the 70s, numerous lawsuits were brought against these groups for messing with people's heads, but that doesn't ever stop them. They ignore the values of those who aren't asking for their help - who point out it's NewAgers who are dissatisfied and determined, by hook or by crook, to change our world - whether we like it or not, as San Francisco's NewAge Mayor, Gavin Newsom, said.
They appoint themselves as the Euphemistic PC Language Enforcement Police (as you just did over RJN's concentration camp joke) while allowing countless ethical lapses - actual actions by those "in the fold" - to be brushed away. Thus we get the spectacle of Don Imus hung out to dry, for his "nappy headed" comment about a group of women, while Bill Clinton's been winking his way out of using the most powerful office in the land to have sex with, smear as crazy, and discard a young woman, right before the eyes of the entire country and world - and then go on to places like Davos to decide what should be done with the rest of us. Actions his NewAge wife brushed aside - because there are "worse things" - as she was plotting her next step to power. I guess, in order for the magnitude of his actions to have mattered (his lies did also cause a Constitutional crisis) he should have killed Monica as well. But in this environment, I've no doubt, he may have gotten away with that - and he also might have received Hillary's help, too.
Now, I can imagine you saying, "That's outrageous!" But is it really? Consider this:
I'm a black foster child - now grown - probably one of the best examples of the "Native Son" concept you're going to find in 2009. And what have I been unleashed into? A world where supposedly sane adults can't determine the nature of water (Is it medicine? Does it have a memory?) while also belaboring my government - basically my parent - for supposedly hiding information on U.F.O.s.. They're even crowing because they've introduced quackery, like acupuncture, to Iraq war vets. And, as they're wasting our time and countless dollars on such nonsense, and a whole lot more, the rest of you have been cowed into (and/or are now spookily determined) not to taking a stand. To not grabbing ahold of the American values my "parent" raised me with and saying "Enough!" You've been convinced to have no interest in passing judgement on them to spare me - why not? You fight for their right to spout Nazi craziness because they talk nice and they insist they're the ones with my best interests at heart - even when I'm saying otherwise! And am I better off because of them? No. Things are just more convoluted and confused. Nobody, from where I sit, knows anything "for sure." So I ask you:
Who's the racists and Nazis now?
Really, the ultimate question for me is, what's happened to us? What's happened to make so many Americans determined that common sense, and truth, are out of style? To not be able to say, "Fuck that - I am passing judgement - and I'm determined to discover the true parameters of what can be known - forget the wishes and unicorns and "possibilities" - what is really true? Right here, right now? And who's pulling my leg? And why? And what are they costing us? And who should even be going to prison?
You say it's not Nazis, just the idiots with a European, pre-Christian ideology that Hitler shared. Well, that kind of talk sounds a lot like when I hear newscasters say Obama "isn't ideological": what I hear is the man is a proven liar and nobody wants to call him on it because that's not PC. Whatever the truth is, on either topic, the result is the same:
You're leaving American citizens, like me, blowing in the wind because - whether I'm right or wrong - you've lost the guts to be "devisive" and determine the truth of the matter.
You know it: you've lost The Macho Response.
“Having worked in a New Age bookstore, organized some New Age events and attended many more…I know the type: perhaps a bit narcissistic, perhaps intellectually sloppy, but quite well-meaning and at any rate mild and harmless.”ReplyDelete
Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas had a different experience than that.
The followers of Charles Manson fit the description;
“everyone is free to explore and experience whatever resonates with him at that point in his evolution. Mostly in reaction against the suffocating authority of Christian dogma, New Age people are freewheeling consumers on the market of religions and lifestyles, accountable only to their "higher selves", not to any political dictator.”
And Manson may have appeared to fit “at worst charlatans, conmen, swindlers, but not mass-murderers.” prior to his heinous acts.
Clearly there were strong antiauthoritarian aspects of the group, with regards to mainstream society, but it’s also just as clear the followers embraced a “Leader Principal”. There is no argument I can see for the necessity of a “dictator”. The Manson followers, in the context of their cult orientation, made a choice to follow and obey Manson, primarily for his “charisma” and what they believed to be his above-it-all presence.
This is typical of the NewAge mindset. Many other “Leaders” have led their followers to destruction and mayhem, and even the most innocuous seeming attachment to the charisma of “the one” or the “new messiah”, or the latest psychic surgeon has the potential for turning ugly. But when you’re mesmerized by your dictator, he’s not a dictator in your mind.
As for the “soft feminine values”, the crimes were carried out by the Manson women.
It does all seems so harmless, as it must of in 1932 when the German people put the Nazi party on a path, with most, I suspect, having no clue what was going to happen, and the psychological denial of what was happening afterward.
NewAgers, are also not open-minded as most claim to be. What they are not open to is reality.
They frequently reject what is known, demonstrable, and produces observable results in favor of what is impossible, defies even rudimentary common sense and produces imaginary results that are only observable if the observer agrees to leave the building.
This contrarian, narcissistically immature mentality is harmful to those around this type, and combined with the propensity to fawn over a messiah type, could be generally harmful in big enough numbers.
These people are harmful because they are not trustworthy, and they are not trustworthy because they are mentally and emotionally stunted, and willing to distort common reality so grotesquely. What might they put on a path someday?
Charles Manson and his followers may not have achieved the magnitude the Nazis did, but who’s to say it was impossible given some lucky breaks. He did however, carve a swastika on his forehead.
In any event, I’m Sure Sharon Tate doesn’t care if she was murdered by regimented goose-stepping SS boots or hippie beads with flowers in the hair. She’s dead.
Saying you have the New Agers' number because you were married to one and knew a couple of people who were hurt by others makes as much sense as Sarah Palin saying she was qualified in foreign policy because she could almost see Russia from Alaska. she MIGHT have seen a real Russian or two, and you MIGHT have seen a real New Ager, but that doesn't translate into having knowledge about either. And spending hours every day searching for articles that support your paranoia doesn't get proof, either, unless what you're trying to prove is that you're REALLY obsessed.ReplyDelete
I wasn't going to engage you but there's two things I want to get clear:
1) I don't just know one NewAger, I know LOTS of 'em, and I see a bunch of 'em in politics and the popular media too.
2) My ex and co. didn't just "hurt" me but killed three people. One was my mother-in-law and the other two had families as well. I was the only person who knew it and had to endure years of idiots, like you, insisting on minimizing that (which was also the destruction of a 20 year marriage) to being the same as some simple boyfriend/girlfriend break-up. Also, like you, there was the efforts trying to defend the indefensible - which says to me you're a psychopath along with all the rest of 'em. Now go away:
I've given you your one reply.
Fuck, I hate having to come back after saying I wouldn't but you should know this, so you can see how stupid you are:ReplyDelete
Sarah Palin didn't say that: Tina Fey did. You can look it up on this very blog.
See? You misjudge everything and don't really know what you're talking about. You're just a mean spirited, hurtful idiot with nothing better to do than attack people who have already been hurt beyond your wildest dreams. Yes, indeed:
A classic Nazi.
I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video (Here Be Dragons) at the top of this site.
You claim that one can’t know about, lets say..sharks, by being involved with one, by knowing some, by reading materials written by them and by their critics or by observing them from Alaska.
But even though you’ve cut off all routes of any learning about anything at all with your theory, I somehow still know enough about sharks to not swim with them, or at least not to rinse in the chum bucket before I do, and to spread the word to those who don’t know yet.
In fact, your theory sounds like one of the roots of NewAge; “You don’t know what you do know, and it’s unknowable, so water has memory because you don’t know that it doesn’t, and if you prove it doesn’t, you don’t know that either.”
So, Lester, I’m going to go throw another log on the fire, as I’ve heard that if I don’t believe in it, global warming won’t work on me, and it’s a little chilly today.
TMR - Delete this if you need to. I know thats what you do with things you dont like or that dare question the picture you paint of yourself.ReplyDelete
JRN - All I'm saying is that if you read TMR's blog regularly, and don't see plenty of evidence of a really sick obsession, youre probably in the same boat. People arent sharks, and you cant get to know all about a whole group just by looking at a few. And I just dont believe TMRs story is the whole story, where he is the perfect guy and everyone else is an idiot or worse. but if you want to believe everything he says, youre welcome to.
Since you know I delete stuff, I'm keeping this one because (once again) it allows for a few moments of clarification:
"Delete this if you need to. I know thats what you do with things you dont like or that dare question the picture you paint of yourself."
Well, I delete stupid comments. Like I don't print comments by homeopathy advocates because, let's face it, it's water.
Sometimes I don't print things from people like you - people with their own obsession: with breaking me down - based on a blog they haven't really read (I'm sure) because 1) it's the nature of most people, today, to be shallow, and 2) I can see people's movements.
I also don't print a lot of stuff, like yours, that's based on a lot of assumptions - like saying I delete things I dont like or that dare question the picture I paint of myself. Really? How do you know that? Are you psychic? Do you see all the comments I get? Are you in my head? Or do you just assume, because I deleted an idiotic harangue of yours, that's what happened? I don't mind being challenged - live for it, actually - but yea, especially when I'm dealing with anything that can come over the internet (where people encourage you to kill yourself) I've got parameters on what I'll accept. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
"All I'm saying is that if you read TMR's blog regularly, and don't see plenty of evidence of a really sick obsession, youre probably in the same boat."
And I'm saying, if words like "divorce" and "murder" don't move you, then the deficit is in yourself. If (like the typical NewAger) you expect people to just "move on" from such things - no matter how extreme - then you've got a bit of the psychopath in you and should seek help yourself. I mean, if you recognize that I'm hurting, why would you want to come here and call me names? Put those together, and they show a streak of cruelty that (as far as I'm concerned) warrants the title "Nazi" - because that movement started with just those traits - and it ended much, much worse.
"People arent sharks, and you cant get to know all about a whole group just by looking at a few."
Lots of things to say about this: funny but "people" seem capable of doing, and rationalizing, a lot of horrible things. Haven't you noticed? And who says I'm just looking at a few? I may use my experience with my ex-wife as a sort of prism to view NewAge through, but we both had friends, and I'm in the world, so where you get this idea from I don't know. It';s another assumption - and a stupid one - really not worthy of re-printing but, as I said, I want this to be a learning experience for you.
"And I just dont believe TMRs story is the whole story, where he is the perfect guy and everyone else is an idiot or worse."
See - another stupid assumption: who said I'm perfect? I'm a guy with an opinion, more natural talent than most, and a willingness to speak - I never suggested anything more. You made up anything else out of the whole cloth of assumptions in your (troubled, envious) mind. I find people like you just don't like "goodness" and/or anyone who's actually striving for it. That would be a personal failing (of yours) as well.
And yea - my ex probably has a tale to tell - but if you want to take the word of what was a U.F.O.-loving married Reiki Master who let a homeopath "treat" her sick mother, slept with him right after her mother's death, and then the two of them went on to "treat" two others - to death - that's on you. Personally, I'd find such ruthless people to be more suspect than little ol' me.
"but if you want to believe everything he says, youre welcome to."
Dude, that would be stupid. For instance, I - alone - don't say there's a cult around Obama. Evan Thomas (Newsweek) said it. Joe Klein (TIME Magazine) said it. Rush Limbaugh - and many more - say it. Hell, even the Obama Canpaign has said it!!! The question I have is a simple one:
Considering what we know about cultism, why don't we - as a culture and a people - deal with that?
Here where I am, a journalist (Chauncey Bailey) was shot - in broad daylight - because he was investigating a cult. It's like we don't learn and keep repeating this nonsense, allowing some (like Oprah, etc.) to use it and others (like Bailey) to be destroyed by it.
Now, you don't have to take my word for that - you can look it up yourself - right here on this blog. And I encourage you to do so, here and anywhere else you want, because I don't need you to "believe" me, I want you to "know" it on your own.
And that's why I do this. Why you read it is, of course, a whole other story.
The Best mohammed T-shirt art is from Sweden. Watch and read the info at,ReplyDelete