--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I > would say that your point that new-agers are "gullible and trusting" > and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are > talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. > I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at > least the ones I know)
That seems to imply a conscious choice "I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics". I don't think peoples minds work that way. The gullible are the last to know it. Did you fell gullible when you were deep in the TMO? I think people grow out of gullibility, but at anyone time, they are pretty equally gullible or rationally skeptical about the whole spectrum that cross their plate. > tend to be rather savvy, indeed, quite > hard-nosed, about the forces of greed and lust for power that drive > the world. "Pretty savvy" is pretty relative. Some conspiracy thinkers may think they are very savvy when they have simply been duped again by some grand thery that they don't or can't analyze deeply and "harshly". > New agers tend to support environmental causes, Which I do to from my angle. But I see many in environmental groups who are quite golly gee gullible. Environmental groups are not the bastion of rational thinking IME. An ca nbe quite susceptible to groupthink.(which should be #5 on the new age list) > which are > largely of the left, and I would guess that if asked about it they > would be in favor of maintaining civil liberties and exercising > diplomacy rather than force in international affairs. While I am not a leftist, I strongly believe in civil liberties, diplomacy, and non-violence -- as an ideal. And I see a lot of naivety on the part of some / many loose-thinking leftists. >I simply cannot > see new-agers supporting any emerging fascist movement, however > disguised that movement might be. Well, we may be defiing terms differently, but look at the wildly cheering crowds in the Domes. Who have much of their lives dictated by a group or leader, and they face severe recriminations if they fall out of line. I would not call that fascist -- which is a very laoded term, but i would call it some big steps towards totalitarianism. > They are more MoveOn.org and Michael > Moore types than proto-fascist enablers. The funny thing about enablers is they are not always aware of it. >The emerging fascists, it > seems to me, are the Christians, the right-wing, the people who are > willing to curtail civil liberties in the name of an invented war on > terrorism, which is a smallish threat made into a big one by those who > seek to profit from it in ways financial and ideological. I have no argument that the religious fundamentalists have also taken big steps towards a totalitarian lifestyle and society. To me. there are gullible, non-rational people on many sides of many fences. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to > > > fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) > > > still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New > > > Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as > > > a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and > > > Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. > > > Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to > > > Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the > > > "Islamofascists." They are the ones we have to worry about. > > > > > > > Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without > > generalizing too much, that "new-ager", relative to the general > > population, have tendencies to: > > > > 1) be more gullible and trusting > > > > 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and > > reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) > > > > 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. > > > > 4) want to be part of the "emerging transformation" in this "very > > special age" > > > > > > No one, well few, vote for fascist or totalitarian regime. Anglea's > > post this morning was interesting. Good Germans initially supporting > > Hitler because he was doing God's work. Or at least creating a strong > > German economy, increasing employment, supporting the arts, > > revitalizing German culture. It seems that people with the above four > > tendencies would initially support a Hitler than hard core skeptics. > > > > That FF tends to support left of center fringe candidates also speaks > > of these tendencies. > > > > And the most here were lulled in to a progressive SIMS vision of > > scientifically researched, simple, no dogma, universal 40 technique of > > self-development. They ended up 20-30 years later with a repressive, > > totalitarian like cult, yogic flying, the Laws of Manu, and now mealy > > mouthed rajas. Did they consciously choose that in the beginning? I > > suggest the above four tendencies are predominant in most TMO groups, > > past or present. And the result has been people getting sucked into > > something they would not have otherwise -- to the extent they did -- > > if they had been less gullible, more skeptical, more questioning, less > > attracted to grand solutions and a "mission" to save the world. > > > > I think a group or society with the above four tendencies is a more > > fertile ground for creeping transition towards, not necessarily to, > > totalitarian and fascist regimes. Not causal . But a supportive, > > albeit not intentionally, feature. > > >
