More and more people in the New-Wage community are manifesting great gobs of wealth by applying the serious, proven science taught in The Secret about the Law of Attraction. It just occurred to me, though, that some of the nouveau-riche celebrities in the LOA crowd might be facing some annoying image problems right about now.It’s apparent that the most successful New-Wage leaders have mastered the art of what used to be called conspicuous consumption. And the really clever ones – the ones who are raking in the serious dough – are also practitioners of what I like to call conspicuous enlightenment.
Predictably, however, the jealous naysayers have come flying out from their dark hiding places, and some of them have taken certain New-Wage leaders to task for the simple and innocent act of repeatedly sharing the good news about their recently acquired wealth with their poorer brethren and sistren. The critics are claiming that this heartfelt sharing, which is done purely to provide inspiration to those who have yet to achieve a bragworthy level of wealth, somehow casts a bad light on the leaders. I hate to be a gloomy Gerta, but if this trend continues, it could potentially tarnish the leaders’ images – maybe not enough to seriously threaten their profit margin, but possibly enough to discourage new customers.
I know, I know: that’s simply not fair. After all, these gurus worked hard for their money.* But that’s just the way it is, and in a world where perception is everything, it just makes sense to pay close attention to one’s public persona, and fix any glitches before they get out of control. That’s why many famous people with far more money than morals spend thousands of dollars a month for professional image consultants. Well, out of the goodness of my heart, I am going to offer – for free – an invaluable suggestion to all of you New-Wage leaders who are tired of being perceived as avaricious, materialistic braggarts.
Not that there’s anything wrong with greed, I hasten to add. But let’s face it: some people find it distasteful. So the trick is to neutralize the avarice with a bit of conspicuous altruism. Hollywood stars and rock icons have known about this little trick for years.
There are several ways to practice conspicuous altruism. Certainly you could become a mouthpiece for some eco-politically correct cause. There are many to choose from, and if no existing causes appeal to you, you can make up one of your own. But just between you and me, people are getting a little tired of hearing celebrities preaching about saving Darfur or finding a cure for Asswipe syndrome or whatever. People – and by "people" I mean potential paying customers – are much more likely to be impressed by your altruism if you can demonstrate that you’re actually doing something, on an everyday basis, about the problems that concern you.
It was after reading about Angelina Jolie’s latest acquisition that I hit upon the idea I am about to share with you. Although Angelina wasn’t wrestling with the same problems that many of you New-Wage leaders are facing, she still had some public-image issues. People used to think she was a weirdo, partly because of her choice of spouse, and partly because of her taste in neckwear. Now, after dumping Billy Bob, snatching Brad from Jen – and, most of all, buying a couple of foreign kids (and traveling all the way to Africa to give birth to her own holy child) – she’s Mother Freakin’ Theresa.
I really do feel that getting into the international-adoption industry would be a perfect career/image move for you New-Wage leaders who are looking for a quick fix for your PR problems. It is also, potentially, a whole new way to cast your spell on millions of folks whom you might not otherwise be able to reach (not everyone is susceptible to hypnotic bragging, after all).
International adoption is a burgeoning trend, and I recommend that you get in now, before the field gets too crowded. You could start by purchasing a few orphans from Rwanda, if there are any remaining who haven’t attracted that pesky genocide thing. And while you’re at it, grab a couple of young’uns from different parts of Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc. Then, just for good measure, you can pluck a kiddo or two from some US poverty hotspot, so no one can accuse you of ignoring the needs of children in the United States. (If you can’t find an Appalachian kid, at least try to scoop up a Katrina orphan or the child of a couple of meth-heads.**)
I understand that you may have some objections to this plan. For one thing, although I have none of my own, I have it on good authority that immature featherless bipeds can be a little messy, even after they’re paper-trained. That is certainly something to consider, but there's an easy remedy. If you don’t want the little tykes running around messing up that mansion you just bought, you could always keep them in a large enclosure, such as a Catarium. Better yet, have a special Orphanarium built. That way you can keep them out of your sight if you wish, they won’t have free run of your beautiful new digs, and you only have to go look at them when and if you feel like it.
Of course you will have to hire people to take care them – folks who will feed them, keep them clean, and read to them constantly from The Secret and your own works. (The DVD of The Secret will, of course, be playing constantly in the Orphanarium room, in order to scientifically and permanently transform the orphans’ brains.)
Naturally – and this is the most important part – they will always be let out of the Orphanarium and cleaned up extra-nice for photo ops. You can parade them before photographers and interviewers, making a big show of letting them climb all over you (the orphans, that is, not the interviewers and photographers). If you're not going to be a hands-on caretaker, you may need to hire an acting coach for the orphans so they can present a credible show of affection for you. Or, if you are skilled enough, you can simply hypnotize them into believing that they love you.
Once they get past the cute stage, you can release them from the Orphanarium and send them off to school somewhere, and replace them with new orphans if you wish.
With the right amount of IOP (International Orphan Presence), you could quickly gain a reputation of having a heart as big as your ego and your bank account. And that will just make more people love you. They will continue to love you no matter how much you brag about your multi-million dollar swankiendas, your luxury sports cars, your custom Rolexes, your Playboy models, your movie-star pals, your trips to Maui, and the fact that everyone now recognizes you in airports and public restrooms.
And when people love you, they naturally want to give you more money. It’s really that easy!
Now, admit it: You just can’t get this kind of advice anywhere else. If you liked it, or any of the other free advice on this site, please buy me an Amazon gift certificate. Better yet, send me money so I can get my credit card debt paid off. I’m about $30,000.00 away from my goal.
* Many, it should be noted, have worked hard selling tips about how you, too, can sit on your ass all day like they say they do, and still make a billion bucks a week in "passive income." And all of them are busy little bees when it comes to self-promotion. (For additional information, see Blair Warren’s Law of Extraction.)
** Re children of meth-heads: I should warn you that the top entry on the "Google search" link I provided will probably be Narconon. Do not confuse this with Narcotics Anonymous or Nar-anon. Narconon has ties with the Church of Scientology and is based on the teachings Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Read what they're saying on Skeptico's blog about the Narconon/Scientology connection.
33 comments:
Connie,
This is *the funniest* post I have read anywhere in a very long time.
Your picture of the critters, I mean kids, in the Orphanarium is priceless.
And speaking of price...
I am sure you realize how much money you just lost by not turning this into an e-book, an e-course, a teleseminar, a $2500 weekend-with-the-guru, etc.
Just think how much money you could have attracted...
Sorry...how many people you could have helped by charging for this advice.
What's worse, I bet you dollars to dumbasses that the gurus will be employing this strategy before too long - if it isn't already in the works.
And something tells me you aren't going to get any credit.
Thank you, Blair! But it's okay if I don't get credit or money. I am doing this for the good of humanity.
Whew! Not this post is worth reading!!!
First, IOP: brilliant.
As to the strategy, will the celebs be able to depreciate the orphans as they grow older? Certainly a sullen 13 year old doesn't present the value of a precocious 4 year old. Would the Earnings Before Tell-all Biography need to be analyzed?
Keep up the good work Connie, you'll be invited to Davos in no time.
amazes me that no one seems to be tought critical reasoning anymore. In my early training as an engineer we had it drummed into us to question every assumpion,law, and statement, and that there were few absolutes, only axioms that were deemed to be true until someone disproves them. The more outlandish and baseless any guru's pronounced "law" becomes, the more people believe it and the more the guru profits.
I think it would be better to study the venerable books by Napolean Hill and Wattles, who probably had higher motives when they wrote their classics.
Thanks, Chumly!
Thanks, Aaron!
Yes, children do grow up. And I'd thought of that very point later, so I added a brief sentence addressing it. I figured that once the li'l tykes get past the cute stage they can be sent off somewhere and replaced with more cute tykes.
I'm also thinking that once the older kids get past the sullen stage, they can be recruited into the New-Wage leader's army.
On the other hand, if they're exposed from babyhood or toddlerhod to "The Secret" and the wonderfully enlightened teachings of their leader, they may never *get* sullen in the first place. Maybe they'll sail through their teenage years with nary a problem. What great young representatives of the teacher's work they could be!
In other words, they could potentially be useful to the leader years after they grew out of the Orphanarium.
I'm thinking, though, that some New-Wage leaders might not want to be bothered with being responsible for the kids throughout their lives. These leaders should probably consider foster care rather than adoption, though there really aren't any international foster-care organizations that I know of. Someone really needs to set up an organization to rent out international orphans.
Hmmm...International Rent-A-Tyke...
or I-RAT...kind of has a ring to it, doesn't it?
Anyway, Aaron, thanks for writing. Good to have you on board this "garbage barge" (that's what one of the "Secret" fans called my blog not too long ago :-)).
Michael, thanks for writing. Critical reasoning doesn't seem to be taught in our schools. I don't claim to be the most rational, critical thinker myself but I think I have gotten pretty good at recognizing hogwash when I see it. I may not always come to my conclusions through the application of critical reasoning, but y'know, logic and reason aren't even necessary to see through some of this crap.
It's funny you should mention Wattles. I don't know how much of the history of "The Secret" you know, but in case you don't I'll give a brief recap. According to many accounts, the book that initially fired up Aussie TV producer Rhonda Byrne, creator and producer of "The Secret," was "The Science of Getting Rich" by Wallace Wattles. Wattles never mentioned the Law of Attraction; that came later to Rhonda. But she was excited by the "scientific" method Wattles advocated for acquiring wealth.
She reportedly got so fired up after reading Wattles' book that she got her hands on every other related work she could find. I am sure Napoleon Hill figured into the mix somehow.
It should be noted, and I think this is relevant, that at the time she started making her discoveries, Rhonda was in the process of recovering from some pretty awful personal crises and had been deeply depressed. It might be argued that she was in a vulnerable state, desperate for any ray of hope.
At some point she had an epiphany. She decided that there was a thread of commonality running through all of the stuff she'd been reading. She decided it was a great "Secret" known to only a few elites throughout history because "they" (those in power, be it governments or the dominant religion) wanted to keep it from the masses.
Most important of all, Rhonda decided she could market this big "secret."
As she grew more excited, Rhonda decided to put together a DVD featuring some contemporary "teachers" (New-Wage hustlers, I say) whom she arbitrarily decided were using and teaching the principles that so excited her. Pretty early on, she met Esther and Jerry Hicks, a couple who's grown famous and rich because Esther purportedly channels a group of disembodied spirits collectively known as "Abraham." One of the "truths" Abraham revealed to Esther and Jerry was the Law of Attraction. LOA quickly became the anchor of "The Secret." Although legal hassles (centering around Rhonda's greed, according to most accounts) forced Jerry and Esther out of a subsequent release of "The Secret," they are still very much a part of its legacy, as well as the entire "Law of Attraction" culture.
Money was definitely a problem for Rhonda at first; she spent all of hers on the production. So she mostly got others to hawk the DVD for her, through "viral marketing."
And the rest is marketing history.
But it's not science.
Cosmic Connie said, Money was definitely a problem for Rhonda at first; she spent all of hers on the production. So she mostly got others to hawk the DVD for her, through "viral marketing."
The irony behind this fact - the irony that so many believers seem to overlook - is that Rhonda's biggest success came not from *practicing* LOA but by *selling* it.
I imagine the same could be said for most (all?) of the big names selling this garbage.
Just listen to their own words as they describe how they made it big. It often sounds like this:
"I was homeless, broke, divorced (fill in your obstacle of choice here) and then I learned the LOA and realized I had to share it with the world."
Notice they didn't say they realized they needed to *practice* it. They realized they needed to *sell* it.
Now I have no problem with them making money. But we should pay very close attention to just *how* they are making it.
I am stunned at how few people recognize this. And as a result, these gurus are laughing all the way to their mansions.
"I think it would be better to study the venerable books by Napolean Hill and Wattles, who probably had higher motives when they wrote their classics."
I agree with you Michael. I never read the Secret book but am wondering if Rhonda gave them credit for her big discovery (connie, do you know?). That's called being intellectually honest. If this is where she got many of her ideas from, certainly she should have made reference to them.
You hit it right on the head, Blair. As we both know, one of the people to whom this post *may* be directed (nudge-nudge wink-wink) has been involved in one multi-level marketing scheme after another for many, many, many years. He is now becoming more well-known for his own works, particularly his books, but let's just say that MLM has served him well.
And LOA is just a convenient gimmick to use now. Many people are even marketing themselves as "Law of Attraction coaches."
You are also literally correct about New-Wage leaders laughing all the way to their mansions.
I gotta find me a scam...
Moi, I honestly don't know if Rhonda specifically mentions Wattles et al. in the book or DVD. (I've seen parts of the DVD -- enough to express an informed opinion -- but not all. I have not read the book.) But Rhonda has mentioned Wattles in interviews.
In all fairness, she has never claimed to have discovered the big "Secret" or LOA. She does give credit to other "teachers," past and present. What she actually lays claim to is the packaging (not the drug, but the delivery system, if you will :-)). And she pretty jealously guards *those* rights.
Michael wrote...
"I think it would be better to study the venerable books by Napolean Hill and Wattles, who probably had higher motives when they wrote their classics."
I also agree with you Michael.
While I can't speak to their motives - though I suspect you may be right - at least these guys are dead so they can't keep sticking their hands in our pockets trying to "attract" more of our money.
They have had their time here and said what they wanted to say. We are now free to study their words and do with them what we will.
It's a much cleaner transaction if you ask me.
Well said, Blair.
I've seen the video and listened to the audio portion a few times. I know it was made to primarily 'sell' a feel-good philosophy to the masses. But what's wrong with giving people a reason to think in a positive way instead of the feeling's of hopelessness that seem to permeate the have-not's in society?
I know some of the 'intellectuals' who have been informed about The Secret feel they have to save those of us lesser mortals who might fall for feeling good and upbeat when we should actually be feeling sorry for our pitiful asses and wasting our lives pooh-poohing others who try to become successful by employing the principles of the LOA.
Come on, people. Lighten up. Aren't there other more important issues to rail at than whether or not some of us spend a few bucks trying to feel better? Why not rant about the scumbags who are actually harming others through criminal actions? Or child pornographers. Drug pushers who pray on school kids. The list is endless.
We could do a lot worse to society than try and convince them that thinking positively will lead to the betterment of their lives and maybe those around them.
Maybe you should pick on Tony Robbins too. After all, he's made a living at the same thing for many years now.
Who knows. Maybe some of us will actually gain some measure of inspiration from The Secret and go on to find a cure for cancer or maybe the next big invention of our time. Seriously, what's the harm?
Give it a rest. There are bigger fish to fry. And you're making yourselves seem small.
Alleyman, I *have* been making fun of Tony Robbins for years -- not on this blog, but in some of my other outlets, such as my book, "Cosmic Relief." I've picked on many other stars of the self-help / new-age / pop-spirituality culture as well. I've just been focusing on "The Secret" lately because it's one of the hot new things. The book is number one, the DVD is selling like hotcakes, Oprah and Larry King are falling all over themselves about it…I can't think of too many bigger "fish to fry" than "The Secret" right now.
Yet I'm no "intellectual" who feels "The Secret" is so dangerous that people need to be "protected" from it. I do, however, agree with those critics, including some mental health professionals, who say that some of the concepts in "The Secret" can be harmful for some folks. That doesn't mean I believe that people shouldn't be allowed access to the material. (I'm pretty much a Libertarian when it comes to banning things. Cars and guns can be harmful, too, and I don't think they should be banned.)
As for my personal opinion, I mostly feel "The Secret" is more silly than harmful. And since this blog is mostly a humor blog, I am going to continue to poke fun of things I find silly – like "The Secret" and all the mad hype that surrounds it.
As for positive thinking: There's nothing wrong with promoting positive thinking, but the problem is that "The Secret" and the entire LOA culture also promote magical thinking and, it could be argued, false hope. And the main people who are getting much more than a transient good feeling from all this stuff are the few New-Wage marketers -- those consummate self-promoters! -- who are at the top of the heap.
Besides, positive thinking alone won't change anything. Action is required too. I know, I know, you’re going to tell me that “The Secret” is about taking action too. But it seems to me that the main action "The Secret" seems to inspire is to get people to reach into their wallets so they can buy more stuff from the "teachers" who seem to have been handpicked by Rhonda Byrne more for their market value than the actual value of their teachings.
And, sure, it's possible that someone might be inspired by "The Secret" and go on to cure cancer. But since we're giving extreme (and unlikely) examples here, it's also possible that someone might be inspired by "The Secret" and decide to jump off a building because they're sure they'll be able to manifest wings on the way down. Or that they’ll take Rhonda Byrne’s words from the book to heart, and will decide to turn away from people in trouble because, after all, those people brought their troubles on themselves.
I too feel that drug pushers and child pornographers who prey on our school kids are bad. (I think that LOA advocates would say the kids attracted the pornmeisters, though.) And I will answer you, Alleyman, the same way I answered a person who recently reminded me that Holocaust denial is a serious problem too. Here's the deal: THIS IS A HUMOR BLOG. And it is a specific type of humor blog, devoted to (and here I am quoting from my own blog description): "the New Age/New Wage crowd, pop spirituality & religion, pop psychology, self-help, business babble, media silliness & related matters of consequence."
There are plenty of other blogs that discuss serious social problems.
One more thing: Although I get kind of serious back here in the "comments" part, this is, as I noted above, a humor blog, and so I take a more or less lighthearted approach to the self-help/New-Wage culture. For the most part I think it's more silly than harmful. But Steve Salerno, author of "SHAM: How The Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless," thinks that a lot of the self-help stuff *is* harmful at worst, and counterproductive at best. I don't think he is arguing for banning the stuff so much as he is for encouraging critical thinking. And he thinks that the gurus and leaders who make outrageous claims should be held more accountable than they currently are (so do I).
Steve, by the way, has written about Tony Robbins many times, both in his book and on his SHAMblog. And Tony's legal people have rattled their sabers.
You may think that criticizing "The Secret" makes me look small. So...do you think the pro-Secret/LOA New-Wage gurus who spend most of their blog space bragging about their expensive toys sound big?
Sorry, but I will probably keep making fun of "The Secret." But I thank you for writing and expressing your point of view.
I think we should feel much worse for making fun of Angelina Jolie. I mean, she's pretty, and a celebrity. Doesn't that merit special treatment? Shame on us.
You're right, Aaron. I feel so ashamed. :-)
It's all good then. I can appreciate humor when I read it. Sometimes it is thinly disguised as criticism but I can still get it. I think. Maybe.
But for now, I need to go and become cynical again. This New Wage stuff had me feeling good for a while there. Best to be grumpy and suspicious of everything again. In the interest of self-preservation. I don't want to be jumping off of buildings under the influence of "The Secret".
Yes, your blog is funny. I get it now.
Touché, Alleyman. Believe it or not, I am not grumpy and suspicious of everything, though it may seem that way at times. But I have been through both the feel-good and disillusionment stages of New-Wage, and everything in between. I have a lot of firsthand experience. I am still trying to find a balance, and maybe this blog is my way of working things out.
But thank you for writing to me. And for what it's worth, I really mean that.
"Best to be grumpy and suspicious of everything again".
If alleyman is still listening, I went through that problem this summer: damn, I thought, now that i am disillusioned, I have to be all grumpy and sad again. Well, I actually feel much better now that I have some clarity about what is nonsense and what is real in the alter universe of spirituality. I feel more in touch with reality, and not as guilty for having bad days. Also, I recently got together with some people into new age spirituality the other day and was very reticent about expressing some of my critical views about this stuff. Turned out that I freed up some space for other people to express those views. People need to feel free to express everything, no matter how negative or positive it is. I agree with the therapists who have commented that suppressing negativity out of fear of bringing it on oneself is not healthy. Sometimes people have to go thru very dark periods to find the light, as did Ms. Byrne and others. People who have experienced trauma especially have to go through it before getting better. If you just tell someone to get over it and focus on the positive, you'll be doing them a disservice.
I have one reason for aleyman why people should be concerned about the Secret. Read the Salon.com article. It sums up precisely the problems inherent in its message. Here's a little blurb, if I am permitted to reproduce it: "Not that any of this is new. Aimee Semple McPherson, "The Power of Positive Thinking," Father Coughlin, est, James Van Praagh -- pick your influential snake-oil salesman or snake oil. They were all cut from the same cloth as Oprah and "The Secret." The big, big difference is, well, the bigness. The infinitely bigger reach of the Oprah empire and its emissaries. They make their predecessors look like kids with lemonade stands. It would be stupidly dangerous to dismiss Oprah and "The Secret" as silly, or ultimately meaningless. They're reaching more people than Harry Potter, for God-force's sake. That's why what Oprah does matters, and stinks. If you reach more people than Bill O'Reilly, if you have better name recognition than Nelson Mandela, if the books you endorse sell more than Stephen King's, you should take some responsibility for your effect on the culture. The most powerful woman in the world is taking advantage of people who are desperate for meaning, by passionately championing a product that mocks the very idea of a meaningful life.
Thanks, Moi. I have to say that the Salon.com article is one of the best I've read on "The Secret." That's why I linked to it on my March 5 post.
And I agree with you that people need to feel free to express everything. We need to feel free to change our minds about things too, and I have many times about some of these things over the years.
But I haven't changed my mind about "The Secret."
If anything, I've been "guilty" of underestimating the potential damage of "The Secret." I've focused on the silliness and not the danger. And to tell the truth, I'm still hesitant to use the word "danger" because I don't want to sound like an alarmist.
But still...
I've also probably been far too kind to Oprah. Since I hardly ever watch her show and have only bought her magazine a couple of times, she is not really part of my life, at least not directly. With the exception of "The Secret" hoo-ha, I am only vaguely aware at any given time of what Oprah is or isn't doing or promoting. But I think I have sometimes underestimated her influence. The Salon.com article brought it to light a little better for me.
yo connie,
reacting by loving and/or criticizing 'the secret' can only take people so far, methinx, then we hit a wall and there are diminishing returns for all involved - so now let's take it in an edutaining, learning direction
1. go here and add ur 2cents, ok?
methinx this is a conversation u want to take part in
http://immersiversity.com/?p=38#more-38
a good place to be seen and identified with...
2. please lemme know where & how u think i can plug my little discussion
3. please mention http://immersiversity.com in ur journeys, as u r so inclined...
(now, it seems i gotta get go get famous again, like before...)
Thanks for the links and the invite, Clay. You're right when you say that arguing back and forth about the merits, or lack thereof, of "The Secret" can only take people so far. After a while it gets boring. In fact, I thought I was bored with the whole thing...but turns out I was wrong. I guess I am too easily amused. Anyway, I'll look into the links and get back to you. Thanks for writing!
Referring to one of Lana's posts, i read the MD article and agree with what it says about having a positive attitude:
"The common denominator? "Those who believe in something, whether God or a spirit or just in the fact that they will get better do, in fact, get better, get sick less often, and do better," he says. "We see this in health care every day."
I thinks that's why secretrons are complaining so much about negative reactions. They see it as all positive. It's true that believing in something can help people in amazing ways, but there are a lot of things out there other than the Secret that have at least been researched and are not based on a form of magical thinking or a law they claim is universal, like LOA. If a group of self promoting inspirational speakers are going to make claims that their product is scientific, they should be able to back it up with scientific research.
And I'm getting the sneaking feeling that even some of the "stars" of "The Secret" are getting increasingly uncomfortable about some of the explicit and implicit messages in the DVD and the book. James Ray seemed a little uncomfortable on the CBS Early Show. He was quick to point out to the host that the "ask, believe, receive" scenario was another author's interpretation of the Law of Attraction. Joe Vitale, too, has had to 'splain more than once that he thinks "The Secret" left a few things out, such as "right action."
Yet there's no denying that the "teachers" in "The Secret" are getting tons of benefits from their association with the project, and most continue to milk it for all they can. And they seem to be pretty desperately clinging to the "science" promo angle because they feel it's the only thing that can give credibility to all the hype and tripe.
Pretty good!
Just found a link to this posting on Steve Salerno's page and wanted to congratulate you, Connie.
"And when people love you, they naturally want to give you more money. It’s really that easy!"
How sweet it is to be truly loved, really! And it is just as sweet to have a secret that's not for sale.
Thanks, Jen! But more and more lately, I'm thinking that maybe I *should* create a book/workbook/DVD package around the concept of conspicuous altruism -- and then do a big infomercial to promote it. Everybody else is getting rich from selling "secrets," and I want a piece of the action. It would still all be for the good of humanity, of course...at least the part of humanity that consists of me (and my partner Ron).
"And he thinks that the gurus and leaders who make outrageous claims should be held more accountable than they currently are (so do I)."
Can you say specifically what "held more accountable" would look like in actual detailed practice and if it was would it = you and Steve Salerno being satisfied and having nothing more to say on the subject?
And where the kind of being "held accountable" is practiced elsewhere in society, if it is?
It usually turns out that nothing will satisfy certain individuals who choose to want to remain unsatisfied about the world around them , the world "out there" and who choose to stay in a state of judging and pointing at others. Some people seem unable or unwilling to let others off the hook and give up being superior about a certain thing, but rather choose being in a perpetual state of scorn, indignation, complaint, being offended and railing against imagined tyranny, seeing themselves as playing the role of hero for the (imagined) naive, less savvy ones out there and always looking for a small on line audience to agree and cheer them on in their view point.
That it has nothing to do with being satisfied by x happening or having things work for that person, so they keep it vague and say plausible sounding things like:
"And he thinks that the gurus and leaders who make outrageous claims should be held more accountable than they currently are (so do I)."
Choose an identity:
Google Account
OpenID
Name/URL
Anonymous < - - -
Anon, seriously: you obviously have a lot more time on your hands than I do right now, so I'm afraid you'll have to continue this argument alone unless others want to join in.
One point, though: If you think that I imagine that I am in any way a "hero," you obviously do not know me.
You might want to consider what role it is that you imagine yourself playing in all of your ceaseless arguing.
A question more than an arguement.
Can you say specifically what "held more accountable" would look like in actual detailed practice and if it was would it = you and Steve Salerno being satisfied and having nothing more to say on the subject? What would you conditons of satisfaction look like in non-vague terms is a question?
And where the kind of being "held accountable" is practiced elsewhere in society, if it is?
Why does focus on accuracy and specifics seem to be discouraged by critics? Why is demands for it, vilified and labeled trolling or being argumentative? When it is very much on topic. Only agreement is not labelled trolling or argumentative. There are glaring examps of this on this blog.
What seems more of interest to critics and bloggers is circulating and keeping sweeping disapprovals and accusations built up around and very rare and isolated errors and even crimes on the www, which are then endlessly referenced because there is nothing else to talk about.
Will a critic still be promoting the same story around 6 months from now and trying to link it to those millions (billions?) of people who produce or consume "Self-help" products and who keep moving forward into the future who keep working and experimenting with having better lives for themselves and others?
Will a critic still be talking about victims of life that they never met nor had any experience of and still be promoting their Stalinesque visions of controlling others using their mobs and on line manipulations and inaccurate vague propaganda.
Post a Comment