Nobody Knows The Trouble I've Seen (About How Little The World Still Knows)

 

"You get your news from Chris Cuomo on CNN when he's married to a woman selling quackery out the back door." 

- The Crack Emcee, NewAge Poop 

 

"My wife is a wellness person, you know. She runs this business where she's learning about homeopathic and all these different things, so she's given me a ton of stuff. I don't even ask what it is." 

- Chris Cuomo, Democrat party royalty, supposed-journalist, and science critic

   

Take a moment to understand what Chris Cuomo can say, on American television, while talking to a Doctor and another journalist - and recieve no pushback. He's admitting he and his wife have a deep proclivity, not just for quackery, but for the Daddy of them all. Two people who are, both, living in a world of madness (being parodied above) while CNN helped them drag society further into it with them. 

I love the vague formulation, "She runs this business where she's learning about homeopathic," which is accepted - again: with no pushback - as though it's perfectly normal for a journalist's wife to be educating herself after she starts charging people for what she's selling (Chris Cuomo's wife is a grifter).

And what is she selling? "Homeopathic and all these different things". When a journalist should know homeopathy is water. "I don't even ask what it is" he says, instead, revealing his worth as a journalist. (His niece, Andrew Cuomo's daughter, also runs a NewAge podcast).

Dr. Oz's wife, Lisa, is also a "reiki master" and homeopath, so one can only assume he's a physician who also doesn't question what the missus is up to. 

RFK, Jr. was supposedly "vetted" by Congress, without a single question tying him to other quacks, or quackery.

 

Which brings us, once again, to the question: if "The Age Of Unreason" was declared by Frank Furedi in the same year Richard Dawkins exposed who "The Enemies of Reason" were (by that time, and specifically mentioning people into homeopathy) then, by now - 20 years after we haven't done a single thing to address a single issue raised back in 2005 - is it fair to say reason's enemies have won, and the west has legitimately gone insane? I mean, how could we ever stop something so few see (or ever saw) as a threat?

 

Take all the time you need,...

 

Fentanyl Milk Shake

 

  Whoopi Goldberg mocked after claiming ALIENS have 'been here for quite some time' 

   

  Cult leader sentenced in case of 3-year-old boy who was buried to be brought back as Jesus 

   

  Is the West in a Societal Death Spiral? 

   

  Mike Tyson sells cannabis sweets in shape of Evander Holyfield’s ear 

   

  Trump unwisely compared to Charles Manson by Fox pundit

Look At It And Say It's Good (I Dare You)

Stormy depicts porn star heroism 

   

  Moment businesswoman accidentally bares all at funeral by Zoom broadcasting herself naked in the shower to a church packed with mourners 

   

  Kanye West Says He Has ‘Issues’ With Jesus: ‘I Prayed & He Didn’t Show Up’ 

   

  We Are Really Living in The Matrix, It’s Just Not What You Think It Is 

   

  6 Black Cult Leaders Who Ran Into Trouble With American Law Enforcement

A Note To Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan (About Problems In American Journalism Today)

 

 On Democracy Now! you said "there are not two sides to every story" and journalists "should have a bias toward truth". On Gaza, we agree 100%. 

   

 But you are the journalist who also said he believes a prophet rode to Heaven on a winged horse, making your "bias toward truth" look about as accurate as Dave Chappelle's partner, Neal Brennan, when he described atheists as the "smug hypocites" promoting Vision Boards to the world. 

    

 Can you imagine Richard Dawkins with a Vision Board? Well, sometimes, when I hear you speak, that's not only how accurate you sound but, I think, may play into why your work inspires hostility: not being accurate is leading you into not being fair, and - since there's only one side to the story - you're unrelenting about spreading a lie. You know, like a prophet rode to Heaven on a winged horse. That sort of thing.

"As Black Voters Drift to Trump, Biden’s Allies Say They Have Work to Do" according to The New York Times, reporting a rise in black support of 500%. Meanwhile, you're insisting Trump is "in bed with white supremacists," which should tell anyone something's "off" in your analysis. I think you're missing too much data to have an informed opinion on what you're seeing.

For instance, you say "one party," the Republicans, are "fully radicalized" and "spreading some of the worst QAnon conspiracy theories out there," instead of accurately reporting on an unfortunate early 2000's Democrat party phenomena that was "fully radicalized" long before it exploded nationwide, after the pandemic, resulting in other bizarreness you can see, like a NewAge spiritualist, Marianne Williamson, or a quack like Dr. Oz, running for office.

Of course, both Marianne Williamson and Dr. Oz - as well as "some of the worst QAnon conspiracy theories out there" - are all tied to the ever-popular Oprah Winfrey, the journalist who campaigned for and with Barack Obama, who is treated like a prophet who will ride to Heaven on a winged horse. The result being you - placing blame on Republicans - for problems you should be investigating the Democrats and journalists for promoting. But trust me: 

If you think the media shoots softball questions at Trump, how you treat yourselves will amaze you.

 

Slipping

Stormy Daniels wants to party with Hunter Biden 

 

You've Eventually Got To Learn You Must Take It (If There's Nothing Pinned Down)

What happens in a country that knows psychics don't have powers, but lets them operate anyway? The authorities start to make it really easy for others - like a company of NewAge bullshit artists who became worth half a billion dollars:

Goop to Pay $145,000 Settlement for 'Misleading' Claims About the Effectiveness of Vaginal Eggs

Ouch. That's not gonna hurt. I can see how this plays out elsewhere in society:

One reason the break-ins have become so common is that almost no one is ever arrested in these cases. Back in January, the San Francisco Chronicle reported there had been 81,000 reported break-ins over a period of seven years, but only 13 cases resulted in arrests.

So, the NewAge is a criminal heyday. But that's what happens in a country that knows psychics don't have powers, but lets them operate anyway. So now what?

A Tip: Don't Talk Inheritances Around People Who Have Never Got One, Never Had A Vacation, Rode In Airplanes

Richard Dawkins is from a slave owning family, and the revelation seems to have the public atheist coming apart at the seams:

   "I condemn slavery with the utmost vehemence, but the fact that my remote ancestors may have been involved in it is nothing to do with me.

"One of the most disagreeable verses of the Bible – amid strong competition – says the sins of the father shall be visited on the children until the third or fourth generation."

Audibly irritated, he added: "You need a genetics lecture. Do you realise that probably only about 1 in 512 of my genes come from Henry Dawkins?

"For goodness sake, William Wilberforce may have been a devout Christian, but slavery is sanctioned throughout the Bible."

Richard Dawkins' sister Sarah Kettlewell, 67, is thought still to live on the estate, which has a farm shop and pedigree cattle. 

According to Companies House records which list Professor Dawkins as a director, Over Norton Park Limited made a £12,000 profit last year.

He insisted: "The estate is now a very small farm, struggling to make its way, and worth peanuts. The family fortune was frittered away in the 19th Century. Such money as I have is scarcely inherited at all."

He is now facing calls to apologise and make reparations for his family's past.

Esther Stanford-Xosei, of Lewisham, south London, the co-vice chairman of the Pan-African Reparations Coalition in Europe, said: "There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity.

"The words of the apology need to be backed by action."

The revelations come after a difficult few days for the campaigner.

On Tuesday 14 February, some critics branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."

The 1st Is Approaching: Soon - My "Welfare Check Day"

Alright, it's 3AM and I just woke up for no reason - an hour ago. Great. 

A cup of coffee, to wash down a 88 cent TV dinner, and here I am, violently disagreeing with Soundgarden's Kim Thayil about bandleaders, but completely understanding when it comes to Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan:

“If you’ve got a band where one guy calls the shots, that’s a band that’s going to suck. Because the guy might have bad thoughts in his head. Well I just came out of sobriety and I’ve got this idea for a rock record, I just married my third wife and I have this new idea for a rock record.”

I've told you, you gotta watch the multi-spouse thing, because - like gays trying to be straight or straights "experimenting" with being gay - that's a give away you don't know what's going on, and people notice these things. That's why Kim mentioned it. 

I also like that he compared it to those "inspired" by quitting drugs. They always become defensive assholes, too. (You ever been around somebody who just started?) 

Fuck, if Soundgarden hasn't always sounded like somebody taking a dump, Kim Thayil would be my hero.

Is Richard Dawkins a dick? 

 Well, I know he has one, anyway. And somebody running a church, or school, apparently played with it and little Dickie Dawkins doesn't care. 

Compared to most people, I think that makes him more "odd" than anything else, don't you?

“Mitt Romney just bought a black grandchild, straight cash dawg.”

Along with all the other hilarious (and "resentful") comments received, surrounding news Mitt Romney's got an adopted grandchild, a black conservative found time to make a fool of himself by writing "with the taxes the Romneys pay, they already have adopted an entire city of ignorant black people." 

Really?

That's news to me - and without the Mormon "church" around us?

Too bad the country couldn't have gotten a guarantee, on that deal, when he ran for president:

Instead of getting kicked out of this place, I might have been moving into Mitt's already,...

 

I Am The No-Jehovah's Witness (And I've Seen It All)

Here's a great headline by someone who didn't get the memo:

“Not in our name: Dawkins dresses up bigotry as non-belief - he cannot be left to represent atheists”

Um, guys, Richard Dawkins doesn't "represent atheists" because - this is going to shock the cultish thinkers - we're not a group. Atheism isn't a rallying cry, but a fact Dawkins (and others) speak about. 

Something I can't do at the moment because, I've been laying on my side so long, my throat is starting to close. 

 And BTW - Dawkins isn't wrong - you're just too PC to live,...

 

Science Knows A Lot: Any Fool Knows That - No, Wait

Clearly, Richard Dawkins is no Phil Plait. Come to think of it, Plait was the voice behind that silly "Don't Be A Dick" campaign a couple of years ago. Hmmm. The man doesn't make sense:

Unless you're a mark, sometimes, being a dick is the only option open,...

 

"In Today's World, We Make Mistakes, Seeing Patterns That Aren't There And Missing Patterns That Are,..."

I'm Offended Anyway (But Nobody Cares If I'M Offended)

Sill more fun with The Washington Post, this time over a recently released video of Romney discussing his cult's beliefs. (I've posted a longer version of it, but this new one's just the meat.) One thing that's missing from the Post's article - and which shows how lame reporters are at covering "spiritual" concerns - is any mention of Mitt's again citing that "brilliant man" The National Review called an "all-around nutjob," W. Cleon Skousen. (Mitt mentions him at the 1:30 mark.) Don't forget who Cleon Skousen is:

A historian accused of racist revisionism, and a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He contended that the Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, claimed that a global cabal of bankers controlled the world from behind the scenes, and wrote a book that referred to the "blessings of slavery."

How nice. He gets my vote! And let's also not forget that - as Mitt argues, since he's a Mormon Bishop, he understands his "faith" better than anyone else - he's already denied the revelations his church is based on are true. (See above.) So - following Mitt's logic - the whole Mormon deal's a fraud. Or a scam - your pick - since he's so aware of what he's doing and does it anyway. (Notice when he says he doesn't take any of it seriously - even to the face of someone who does? Some Bishop.) And there's one more thing - do you notice how, even when faced with someone who agrees with Mormonism, Romney claims the questioner is attempting to "go after my church"? It reminds me of Brandon Flowers' reaction when faced with Richard Dawkins:
 

"I'm offended." In true NewAge fashion, Mormons are always offended - especially by facts and those who hold to them. A trait which conservatives find disgusting - in liberals - but are lining up to endorse in their choice of presidential candidate. Serious question:

Considering the level of hypocrisy and lies flying around, can I be offended now, too?

ADDED: I see Glenn Beck has been answering questions for evangelicals, explaining "the 'magic underwear' was compared to a skullcap" and whatnot. I just have one question - not for Beck but for those evangelicals:

You ever heard a Jew claim his skullcap can stop bullets?

The Lord Of The Jungle (Meets The Law Of The Jungle)

Tarzan,

"In as much as Mormonism encourages healthy living and not putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe, I think it stands as good a chance as any of outgrowing it's status as a cult in relatively short order."

While disagreeing with you, I want you to know I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject, which is a nice digression from the usual on Althouse. Let me address your statement that "Mormonism encourages,...not putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe," because it's the most divergent passage that I feel the need to engage - and can hopefully allow you to see what I do:

Check out this television segment. 

Notice how quickly the Mormon, Brandon Flowers, takes offense. That's a hostile act. He starts it. This hostility to uncomfortable facts - lashing out for leverage and to protect cognitive dissonance - is the entire basis for the Mormon claim to historical "persecution." (You see several instances of the same behavior in the new cult-themed film, "The Master.") There's no reason for it. Richard Dawkins merely said The Book of Mormon is an "obvious" fraud. That's a fact - not an attack - so the Mormon is immediately acting cultishly paranoid, insular, and vindictive - "putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe."

Let me explain further:

Imagine Brandon Flowers had discovered, upon seating, that his chair was "obviously" soaking wet. So he alerts his host, who responds that he's offended at the suggestion - wouldn't that be strange? And wouldn't it be even more bizarre if the host declared Brandon Flowers needed to "do more research" than his moist bottom has already?

This demand for "more research," too, is a common cult tactic, BTW, designed to keep the ignorant and/or insecure off-balance, and chasing an imaginary answer when any fool can see what's right in front of them.

For instance, Homeopathy is just water, but it's cultists insist science needs to "do more research" in order to understand why they call it medicine. Billions of dollars have been wasted under this ruse, all coming to the same conclusion - Homeopathy is simply water. What's the cultist's answer to that?

You guessed it:

Still "more research" is needed.

It buys the cults time, but nothing more, because people eventually catch on.

The problem for religious cults is, if they stay too vague (say, referring to God as merely "a higher power") there's not much to seriously devote oneself. But if they get too specific (as in the Mormon claim Jesus will return,...to Missouri) they're revealed as fruitcakes - which is why Mitt Romney lied about the Mormon claim to prophecy when talking to an outsider. In this way, Mormonism - like all cults - has a self-destruct mechanism embedded within, and, no matter how long it's existed, it's days are now numbered:

They simply can't justify their behavior in the 21st Century,…

 

Richard Dawkins Meets The Mormon Brandon Flowers, Leader Of The Killers - Romney's Favorite Rock Band

“There is far more beauty in the real understanding of the reality of nature than there is in reading some ancient book – or in reading some modern book which is what the book of Mormon is. I have to say that when I read the book of Mormon recently, what impressed me was that this was an obvious fake. This was a 19th Century book written in 16th Century English. That’s not the way people talked in the 19th Century – it’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful, it’s a work of Charlatanry.”

Barking Mad: Rationalists Discuss Romney's "Beliefs"

Joseph Smith was a known convicted con man,...

Joseph Smith didn't even understand the religions he was stealing from,...

"Mitt Romney,...should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity."

The Mormons partnered with the Mafia to build Las Vegas,...

 

The Symphony Of Science: A Wave Of Reason

With All The Love A Great Religion Can Muster

Here's some food for thought for all the religious letter writers of the world, determined to hold back the inevitable, and/or (at least in their own lives) maintain the charade of "belief" for as long as humanly possible:

As someone who has an interest in human history, it seems fairly clear to me that we are naturally moving away from the silly and childish superstitions of our past.

We no longer believe in leprechauns, dragons, unicorns, centaurs and a whole host of imaginary creatures that our ancestors took fairly seriously. Even those who still believe in the existence of gods believe in gods who are far less active that those of the past.

Not so long ago in history, we believed gods were responsible for what we would now consider mundane things such as lightning, the tides and the sun crossing the sky. Now, we have, for the most part, gone from dozens of gods directly manipulating the world around us to a single god who has no discernible impact on us or our environment.

I should point out there are exceptions. Many people still believe in astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, ESP and many other beliefs that, to the best of our ability to detect them, have no basis in reality and thus present no good reason to believe in them. On the whole, however, we are far less superstitious than we used to be, and that trend has been continuing for a long time.

My conclusion, therefore, is that our belief in gods will just naturally disappear over time, much as our belief in leprechauns naturally disappeared over time.

The concerted efforts of determined individuals and groups may speed that up or slow it down. But the trend appears irreversible.

And that, as they say, is all she wrote.

Say It Plain: Religion Is A Load Of Bullshit

A.C.R.S.: Atheist Consciousness Raising Session

Look, if you've got to kill an hour on religion (and you know you do: life can't all be about the wacky things cultists do) you might as well check out Richard Dawkins at U.C. Berkeley. That's a snippet above.

So why do I think you (whatever you "believe" you are) should watch it? Because the lecture's on atheism, and while Dawkins sometimes gets played for the fool by the media (which I'm learning to thoroughly sympathize with) unfiltered, there's no denying who's who and what's what. You know how it is, when you see someone you might've read or seen, and it's a let-down, or a confirmation of your worst fears? That isn't what's happening here: I like this guy. I thought I might since he made The Enemies of Reason but, hell, Dawkins is so good here - uncut - that I might even have to forgive him for the whole "Brights" thing, cultish as it is in execution; and I never thought I'd ever consider doing that.

But he's really that good. Come on, when was the last time you've heard me say anything like this? Well, it's the truth:

The man's a better speaker than Barack Obama!

Atheists And Evangelicals (Got Nothing For IOU)

"The Rev Pat Robertson, infamous American televangelist, sees the hand of God in the earthquake, wreaking terrible retribution for a 1791 pact that the Haitians made with the Devil, to help to rid them of their French masters. 1791? Ah, but don’t forget 'I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me'.

Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads fell over themselves to disown Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.

What hypocrisy. Loathsome as Robertson’s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonised theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable 'mystery', or who see God in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti, or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God 'suffering on the cross' in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.

Where was God in Noah’s flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for 'sin'. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock, stock and barrel, as punishment for 'sin'.

'Oh but that’s the Old Testament. No one believes those stories literally any more. The New Testament is all about love.' Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious. Your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the odious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus’s incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the 'sins' of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the 'sin' of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?

Yes, I know you hate the word 'scapegoat' (with good reason, because it is a barbaric idea) but what other word would you use? The only respect in which 'scapegoat' falls short as a perfect epitome of Christian theology is that the Christian atonement is even more unpleasant. The goat of Jewish tradition was merely driven into the wilderness with its cargo of symbolic sin. Jesus was supposedly tortured and executed to atone for sins that, any rational person might protest, he had it in his power simply to forgive, without the agony. Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian 'atonement' would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity."

-- Richard Dawkins, who doesn't appear to have had a first beer before he got to rollin' (or, maybe, he missed a chance to get on the m-i-c) - to make the same point I've made before elsewhere - but with the fire and brimstone (and over-the-top hilarity) that seem to be a requirement of The Times.