When I begin to feel like the anti-racists begin to become the racists. [Ramble]

When I begin to feel like the anti-racists begin to become the racists. [Ramble]

When raised as a kid, in the 80s, I didn't see race. PC culture worked as early as the late 80s for me. Working-class, had very little. Didn't see race. I recall a very dark-skinned girl called Natalie, we were good friends, I thought nothing of skin colour differences as I recall. Most friends in that town were white, very few people at that time in that town were anything else.

Much later, I was about 11, a person who was taught racist opinions, who bullied a Malaysian boy. I didn't know it was racist. It just seemed like a joke, as it must have done to the lad who was the bully, but not the boy who was bullied. The bully got that from this family, as a joke, the older generational casual racist humour. If we didn't magnify racial divides and what makes us different we wouldn't have racial divides.

Sadly, the shoe can be on the other foot. Where many magnify the issue of race politics to correct injustice, but often they generalise and promote division. Which makes the new political correctness in some situations conflict with old skool political correctness. As not treating others differently according to race is treated by some as if it is somehow racist. And being of the right or wrong ethnic background or skin tone can allow generalisations that throw some rich black african people who abuse power into the same rank as the abuse and slaved black Africans used as cheap labour across much of the empires of the colonial empires.

This kind of generalisation also means a person of average working-class who is white-European of average poverty ancestry is junked in with the wealthy slave owners and their descendants. And the preachers of this new political view claim to be socialists as they forget class struggles, as they forget those that still exist, preferring to see things only through racial lines and not in a wider view that accounts for many injustices.

I wouldn't say you're a socialist, or even a liberal or conservative if you claim socialism primarily applies via race. Yet many of the shady opinions that I see as racist now are expressed as socially progress. And it is very concerning political shorthand. As when one generalises, it can, as it goes around, become where they don't express a difference between Jewish people and Israelis and the Israeli government(and military). I know it is cliche to bring things back to anti-Semitism, but it is in vogue with many who claim to be educated anti-racists. And as an example it expresses so much of the kind of confusion that is common if you didn't know better. And, in some ways, it not a great distance away from the confusing the average Jew for an extremist Zionist settler on the West Bank.

And it is not unlike mistaking the character of the average UK-Muslim with the stories of ISIS and Grooming gangs.

There is this idea that if you could find someone associated with the greatest ills of the world, as you see it, even if by a stretch of the imagination and by the blurring through generalisation, that even obvious prejudice is justifiable. It is as if the radical voices on the left have taken a few broad notes from the far-right. Where characterisation matters more than the quality of each person's character. And, it is made more socially acceptable if it wrap it in academic language. In the same way that racism has, from time to time, been wrapped up in the words of the church, if only to gain value in the eyes of the people. And more recently, the racist will toy with pseudoscience, just like the snake oil salesman.

I worry only about one thing, that those who think themselves informed lead society with their little collection of ideas, while those who doubt them and those who know better remain muted.

Brainwashing Group Warning Signs

Response To EoF comment/question [28/5/2016]

well, I wrote of them before, and I can only add what I will.  They're not as nuts as some atheistic/sceptical groups, they do seem to be 'first world issues' types, in the sense that they focus on what they know, where they are, the west.  So Jessica talks on New Age quackery, indeed posts this kind of stuff on facebook, her critiques.  Diego talks good game, although tends to get to complex for some questions, meaning that which of what is said is lost in translation.  

'First World Issues' are those that are minor next to wider concerns, it can be said that much of the Atheistic barking in the west is just that, and much of the 'Social Justice' fanatics are simply part of the same problem in some cases.  In fact, since I don't like to edit my thoughts, I will correct by saying that SJWs are worse, Atheists can be easily offended, as can theists of every stripe, and in the scale of things EoF isn't that bad. 

Diego seems like an intelligent man, Jessica seems to have some good ideas too, as do others, I'm a maybe light weight in the old research department myself, but to be honest I don't get a lot of information from them in person, via skype.  In fact, by reading up on them I've found more. 

I find that they have some interesting, if unclear ideas of examining your beliefs, meme-ish concepts, well thought out by Diego, yet not my cup of Java.  I'm perhaps too old fashioned with my own philosophy, or I have a fundamental disagreement that I can't quite explain.

I am of a school of thought that insists that for one to know what one means, it can be expressed in simplistic terms, or at least the impression of the complex can be given by simplistic ideas.  And I don't mean you need to condescend to me and the average Joe.  I mean that one's beliefs should be explainable without sounding like a person who loves to speak too much, or one who has a thesauras on hand with every topic of discussion.  Maybe this is harsh?

I should say that both Jessica and Diego seem like nice people, but I don't think they help themselves by sounding like they have a case of verbal diarrhea.  My own case is far from passing solids, yet I can happily explain logical facts in simple terms, not that Jessica is the complex one as far as language.

 

We agree that many gurus are deluded persons of little merit, we agree that religion doesn't really help a society, and ideology is the problem, but in a free society there will be those who are fond of religion or politicial beliefs.  I may have missed the point? 

They seem to oppose religious thinking, yet wish to use techniques that are not unlike the thought reform methods of spirituality.  Or so it can seem?

Memes can only carry you so far with this, sceptical memes that have an End of Fear symbol or watermark is not changing anything, and selling a few books is doing little too. 

And what are they concerned about?  oh, right, ideology. 
I don't think you can break people out of ideology in general, ideologies can be surpassed no doubt, but when you have a series of ideas and engage in your own ideological methods, aren't you then part of the limitation of belief?

it seems to me that EoF project is like many groups, not like joining a secularist party, nor a humanist discussion forum, but rather an ideology of anti-ideology.  So what's so bad about that?  not too much, to be fair, but you can tell why their critics call them a cult.  The Lost symbols don't calm down the mad dogs, or fundamentalist Christians as they prefer to be known. 

If we agree ideologies aren't all bad, which I think they[Jess and Diego] would, then the real question is where do we draw the line in the dirt, to whom to we declare out defiance? 

Well, a good start in what is a bad ideology is obviously that which does real world harm, this level we can call 'A', and it refers to actual physical or mental harm, and don't be tempted to add more than you need to this first type, stretching definitions, like 'harm', isn't very clever.  


Then to 'B', what is the lesser of evils?  rare harm, mild harm, mostly not direct, and thus we can throw many ideologies in this category. 

Now we arrive at a safe 'C', what fits this, safe and non-demanding beliefs of any kind. 

'C' is akin to a club, open religion, personal religion, etc.  Whereas 'B' has more power and control, it's fair to say that many churches as somewhat safe in this way. 

It's not the end of the world if a fundamentalist believes in dumb things, as long as no harm is done.  Even if some harm maybe done by the brainwashing of children and the limits you set in place for your own view of reality. 

'A' is the extreme case, add here any who kill, torture, etc.  so personal religions in rares cases of mental illness and belief coupled, but more the dangerous beliefs that many ideologies have, or have had in the past. 

A religious fascist may well pick mt pocket and break my leg, the number of gods, or lack thereof, is not as important as how they act on their beliefs and what is claimed within their ideology. 

As you should to be able to guess, I think the 'A's deserve being regulated based on their conduct, the 'B's too, yet they are safe to have in society, and 'C's are none of our concern.

Safe beliefs are just the mediocre[C], the less safe[B] are worth keeping an eye on, and the dangerous extremists[A] are by definition unable to accept and live within a free society. 

The Extremists are not a powerful western faction, the somewhat harmful are often largely regulated against in a balanced society, so at best we can be trongly critical of some such groups where they act out, or try to ban things such as critics. 

I don't think ideology as a topic is clear enough, dangerous cults is a worthy issue, and saying learn to move on from beliefs may have a minor level of merit.  Although, I think most people move forward themselves, self-help methods or trying to counter presumptions does little.  

psychologically helpful ideas may help, even if that market is saturated.  You may see a meme of a young buddhist boy in Asia, what do you think of?  meditation, peace?  well why not indoctrination?
Okay, it is a point, but why not anything.  Note the indoctrnation exists, and that ideas can bring peace, or meditation is a tool to make yourself think in different ways.  it's an obvious point, and I don't think asking what you think of first is the best thing, nor is suggesting we should think brainwashed is the first thing to come to mind when seeing a young buddhist boy in a meme-like image. 

It is also a question of what ideology is at play, I mean was it is like, not just that it's buddhist-like, but is it harmful, since some brands of buddhism are quite reasonable.  I don't think generalising is helpful in every case. 

I could go on, and I may do in the future, for now I want to make clear...

 I see little reason in moving beyond whatwe need do, we can defend the right to believe and help increase education, in which case religion is a choice, and mostly not my business. 


[some of the points here are minor side issues and not so much primary concerns, although where we draw the line in a free society is.  ]

Skeptic vs. Spirituality group on facebook

New Age Sceptic

enough said, the group has been up for months, over a hundred people on it, a dozen or so regulars, and about half a dozen admins, and I have one rule, well two by technicality; don't spam, keep the posts relevant.  

Cult leaders

 [a few thoughts]

we can mean a person who is popular with a following, a so-called 'cult of personality', yet typically we mean a person who run a group of extreme devotion, or a charismatic guru who gathers followers to his or her self. 

At a push you can call a scammer a cult leader, with Peter Popoff he is a guru of sorts, a scammer, sure, yes, and indeed uses his ministry to gather funds, it's a racket, a front, he has a pet cult on a lead to get money, yet there are worse things than greed alone. 

David Berg, also known as Moses David, ran a group known as the Children of God, since changed it's name a few times, and he wasn't in it for money, he was in it for lots of sex with underage-girls, he was a narcissist in the extreme, and created a faith to allow him to live out every fantasy and perversion. 

There are many reasons why cult leaders become what they are, in the sense of position and the abuse they offer, the everyday western guru, new age or otherwise, doesn't often form an organisation, they are selling a product.  And usually not on the scale of Popoff, small business models based on lectures, books, and worshops, no big clean up scam, lots of small plays that are not easily regulated. 

Narcissists are commonly the type of people to create cults, socially insecure people are often the best followers, the narcissist hungers for position, the rest are dominated, indoctrinated, or expelled. 

The average Newage speaker isn't a cult leader, they are a sales person with a willing and credulous audience, same for many christian speakers, they may make vast sums of cash, but it's more about the money than anything.  And these sorts of people are rarely true narcissists. 

The Narcissistic Cult Leader is one who isn't so much after money, sex, or any such thing as such, it's all about what Sam Vaknin, an expert on Narcissism, calls 'narcissstic supply', the sense of gratification that comes of having their own way.  And remember the worst thing you can do is remove that supply to the narcissists ego, it is their life's blood, and extreme cases will do anything to ensure they get it and keep such a supply within their power. 

top 10 - Doomsdays, Conspiracies, Cults, Etc. - RobertWLester

Good Deed Spam

A man does a good deed, he is a muslim, and this deed helps many, and some would say it confirms the good nature of his religion, and indeed the truth that is natural to it.  As it transpires he is not a devout muslim, in fact does not go to mosque, but those who want to hijack good deeds to prop up a failure to provide evidence for faith love to use anything they can.



a fictional story that happens in reality in some form all too often, as the good deeds are done by people and someone wants to use it to prove their belief, as if a good deed prove anything of a belief, religious or not, as being totally true.

Eckhart Tolle is a cult leader? or a poet with issues?

Well, not all that much of a cult leader...

Where else may you find the traits we see in cult devotion, where could we find such treats of nonsensical reasoning, one such place is a mental landscape in which an aloof guru may ply a trade in platitudes for a more than generous profit.  One such Guru is Eckhart Tolle.

The Guru find him or her self as a poetic speaker of little intellectual note, a person who can carry hearts on wings of philosophy, inspirations that offer flight to the imagination, yet as to their truth, the factors by which we judge, an absence of foundation.  By my words, I need only express a gentle breeze to may the branches sway, and so be as a guru, and to offer a reality beyond a sense of wonder is another realm altogether, since hopes and feeling are not guide posts to a reality that seems to have not been made for our comfort or pleasure. 

How else may a man stand as a voice of reason other than a man of truth?
A: by talk to those who may not know better, or can be converted by the sales pitch rather than the broader principles and knowledge.

Can an answer come from a person who has learned to say the right things?
Can truth come from the desire to be enlightened?
Can we find reason in unreason, and unreason in reason, and nothing is total, no absolutes?
Are we looking at a few ideas of truth that are quite general and those draw you in, and at the same time other things that are mostly meaningless are accepted as true, as part of the package?

The Cult, is a culture, a belief in a poetic former depressive, who got over a back patch in his life, created his own religion that gave him purpose, this faith in a neutral idea "Now", is a construct that can be used like the term "god", "infinity", or anything, to offer scope to one's hope as lenses to a telescope.  Magical words gather magical thinkers, those who wish on a star, but the stars are not able to give them liberation.  To create an idea and pass it on as truth, the great wisdom, that which offers liberation, freedom from a self-manifested sense of not being whole or happy, or directed, to be free by belief of responsibility, and the only liberation is in your mind, and if you just get real you can reach it regardless of New Age daydreams.

The followers in chains they make, and labour is not really required, just a neo-theology of simple ways that don't make my sense of pressure rise, to avoid stress by simplifying the way you perceive reality, but it is not reality that is moved, it is you alone.  The revelation to you seems great, and you seem to take on great ideas, yet the feeling does not last, the placebo passes by, and you must try again, re-read, buy a new book, practice the system to gain personal power Now, maybe go to a lecture, try to re-spark interesting and the sense of reality.  In most cases this fails, some move on to new and great gurus, from 'The Power Of Now' to a different cult of faith, 'The Secret' and power of attraction maybe?  It is easier to find peace, and many of us are busy finding those who offer promises instead, but hey, it works somewhat, and if you lose you high and quit the belief it's your fault?!

If only people knew they need not be servants to beliefs, if they just pause and consider for a few moments, slow their thoughts, and the fog clears, that is all they need do.  Maybe easier said than done?  It is worth considering philosophy, how your world can be meaningful even if seemingly less than perfection, and why not read a book like The Power Of Now, and remind yourself the worlds just offer and excuse to do what you know you need, or want, to do, it is just more than you doing more than dwelling in a rut.

In all fairness Eckhart is not a cult leader, just a man who makes easy money on simple ideas, ideas so limited a child could do it, a system that simply says think calmly and do what you really should sort out for your self-betterment.

I have found, as have many of you, that reading any good book, a novel, maybe, will help you step away from stress and person problems, and so you may as well read the hobbit or harry potter to step away from your issues, you need not find a wondrous solution, just a way to step from stress and allow yourself to get a grip on your life.  It's not as easy as a new religion of "Now", but it's worth more to you to find real self-value beyond a construct that is based on devotion to a blindly positive belief.

Excuse my ramble if you found it a bit incoherent, I just had an inspiration while working on a video project, and though I could share it, see what people reckon, and I do see Eckhart's Teachings are a new extra-soft religious teaching, like if you got a holy book and cut out all the bad stuff, it would sound good, but good does not mean it's true.



my recent videos on Eckhart Tolle, followed by my rebuke to the false copyright claim. 

What is Desteni???

In the simplest terms, Desteni is an organisation that tries to act like it has answers, and its trying to make a better world, but the facts say its a new age cult that uses conspiracies to draw in recruits, and tides donations in the name of equal money, naturally all for the leader of the cult.

the work of 0rdoTempliAurora on youtube is some of the best on Desteni, although there are now many critics on Desteni, including XfinksX, Istenenergia, freespech4tw, antidestenimovement, antidestonian, desteniscam, felidatheg33k, roblester666films, and many others who tactle the issues in regard to Desteni in all its cultish truth.



please check out this video, an offer to desteni

an educational video on desteni