Ceci n'est pas...er, freedom of speech.

Although I am vehemently opposed to the mating of religion and politics, I find myself uncomfortable in the anti-theist community. I can find many reasons to lambaste religion and do so loudly and often, but I'm hesitant to be associated with "atheists" as a whole. Internet atheism is largely young, white, and male, and thus plagued with all the things you would expect such a group to be plagued with. Is it just me, or does it feel a bit hostile in here?

In light of the violence that occurred in the wake of The Innocence of Muslims, another game of "Let's all draw Mohammed and piss off the silly Ay-rabs!" has caught fire among skeptics and religious critics everywhere. I'm an artist, and an agnostic, so people sort of expect me to want to join in on this game. I do not want to join in on this game.

Although it isn't only atheists involved in this, the "draw Mohammed" meme speaks to a certain childishness that I see as rampant in the atheist community. I fail to see the logic behind repeatedly inciting the extremist fringes of a religion. There's all the lofty rhetoric about freedom of speech, but at its core it's nothing more than a schoolyard spat.

Granted, this is pretty clever.

Insist on your right to poke the bear all you want--doesn't mean the bear ain't gonna bite your damn hand off if you keep doing it. That's kind of what bears do.

I assume the idea is to demonstrate that those who want to draw cartoons of Mohammed will not be censored, even in the face of violence, and that inviting a bunch of people to participate in a Facebook event is a show of strength in numbers. There seems to be a bit of a disconnection, however, between the idea's inception and its intended result. Let's break it down, shall we?

A. Visual depictions of the prophet Mohammed are discouraged.
B. A non-Muslim draws a caricature of Mohammed. It is likely unflattering.
C. A segment of the Muslim population gets angry, loud, and violent.
D. More caricatures of Mohammed are made.

From step D, I think we have two outcomes here.

E1: An infinite loop of cartoons that result in death threats, anger, and violence that result in cartoons that result in death threats, anger, and violence.
E2: The previously violent and angry Muslims realize they will never be able to stem the tide of Mohammed cartoons, renounce their violent ways, reform their religion and culture, and we all hold hands and coexist happily forever after, and there are rainbows and wheeeee!

I DON'T THINK WE THOUGHT THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH, GUYS.

The reason that making more offensive cartoons isn't gonna work is because it's not really all about the cartoons. It amazes me, given the anti-theist love for critical thinking, how little of that is present here.

High-school-me got pissed whenever I heard "The terrorists hate our freedom," and yet I laughed at this:

I failed to see the correlation between the two. Religion was a proxy through which decades (centuries, really, depending on how much context you want) of political tension were expressed on 9/11. After learning a little bit about the US's history of mucking about in the Middle East, and examining bin Laden's statements regarding Palestine, and taking a look at Islam itself, suddenly this wasn't so funny anymore. Suddenly it was simplistic; a product of whitewashed history.

The U.S. is largely responsible for the turmoil in the Middle East. The fundamentalism and oppressive cultures that exist in some predominantly Muslim states did not simply emerge from the religion unaided. The idea of violent political revolution is particularly appealing to those living in war-torn and poverty stricken areas--desperate people, in other words. Fundamentalism claims to target the root cause of that desperation (namely the West), and thus it spreads.

There is tension. There is anger. Though I don't agree with violent expressions of that anger, the anger itself is kind of justified. So it's important to me that people realize when they make a Mohammed cartoon it's not really the Mohammed cartoon that's the problem. It's the smug dismissal of an entire culture from a privileged, white standpoint. It sends a clear message--we've been fucking you for years, which we'll conveniently forget about when you retaliate, and we have no real interest in coexisting.

So here's the part where I make a bunch of stupid disclaimers I shouldn't have to make, because as an atheist and an American I'm basically required by law to think that Islam is fundamentally a horrible thing and I don't think that and I don't want to hear about why I'm supposed to think that.

I am not trying to erase the struggles of those who are persecuted and censored and sometimes hurt or killed for something that isn't a crime.

I am not denying that the Islamic world has serious cultural problems, evident in the horrific medieval practices like female circumcision and the stoning of LGBTQ individuals and the treatment of rape victims and and and and.

I am not saying that the correct reaction to what you view as an offensive depiction of your prophet is anything other than looking at something else.

What I am doing is pointing out that these smug, stubborn little drawings aren't accomplishing anything productive. That maybe making these cartoons to incite violence and make all of Islam look awful is going to drive an even bigger wedge between the Muslim world and the secular West. That maybe, just maybe, given the shared history of eye-for-an-eye political manipulation and warmongering and violence, a bigger wedge is the last thing we need.

And I'm adding that people like Sam Harris--lauded as one of the Four Horsemen--claiming that Islamophobia isn't a real thing completely erases the struggles of people who experience it on a daily basis and never did anything to warrant it. (And by the way, Sam Harris, the day that a white male gets to tell other people what forms of discrimination do and don't exist is the day that you motherfuckers don't run everything.)

And I'm getting to my central point that maybe there's something a little hypocritical and petty about the behavior of one distrusted minority when they incite and insult another distrusted minority. These Mohammed cartoons are accomplishing something, that's for sure--they essentially ensure that the extremism on the fringes of Islam is never going to die. They alienate the moderate Muslims who could be potential allies in the struggle to combat ignorance and theocracy. And they guarantee that the Muslims who want to take responsibility for the ills of the culture their religion has cultivated are always going to be drowned out by the ones making death threats and burning books.

My dislike of Mohammed caricatures doesn't stem from a desire to see them censored. The line between "free speech" and "being an asshole" is often blurry and I don't advocate trying to bring it into focus.

Should you be able to draw a cartoon of Mohammed without facing the threat of violence? Absolutely yes.

But would your time maybe be a little bit better spent on other things? Opening up dialogue with moderate Muslims. Reading a little history and then putting it into context. Or just asking yourself why you want to draw a caricature of Mohammed until you come up with something with a little more depth than "herpa durr because First Amendment, y'all!"

Face it: the zombies will stomp you.

The first time I heard someone draw parallels between the bath salts thing and a zombie apocalypse, it was funny. It's not funny anymore, but it has revived the phenomenon that, fittingly, just won't die.

PSST! I have a secret for alla ya'll with super-tight zombie attack plans: you're fulla shit.

It's okay if you don't know how to handle life when the
power is out and your laptop battery is about to die.
Read this. You'll be fine.

When I say "stomp you" I'm talking decimate; obliterate; reduce to a sobbing pathetic pile before munchin' on your sweet flesh. That's if the actual scary-ass apocalypse survivors don't get to you first.

I've spent a pretty sizeable amount of time outside in the wilderness and I'm still pretty ignorant and inexperienced when it comes to long-term wilderness survival.

Still: I can identify useful and dangerous wild plants, build some basic snares and shelters, and perform first aid that is based on, like, actual first aid techniques rather than something I saw on a movie. I know ways to find water and prepare it for drinking if boiling or modern purification techniques are not available. I have a lightweight pack of essentials that goes with me on even the easiest day hikes.

The ones I speak of? They read a book that was written largely for comedy purposes and are now convinced that despite their privileged, cushy lifestyles, they all individually would be the Alpha Motherfucker because they know about that thing where you shoot zombies in the head.

They can formulate plans to reach the exit of a room based on their own hypothetical placement of zombie obstacles (zombstacles?). Their plan mirrors the plan of every other person who has ever seriously considered this issue, but they'll be fine. They'll just loot the pawn shop.

Us fuggo ladies are the most dangerous kind of lady.
photo: nerdylorrin.net

I can safely say that most of the people who I've heard talk at length about their superior zombie plans couldn't gut a small mammal, control serious bleeding without causing more injury, or find the safety on a gun in less than a couple of seconds. Let alone load it and proceed to defend themselves while running and assessing their environment. I could even say that most of them don't actually own a decent knife. Nor are they comfortable with things like, just as an example, shitting in the woods. But they'll totally kick ass at the zombie apocalypse. They'll fuck up all the zombies, for real.

I'm not dumb--I get that irony is one of the major factors behind this "zombie" bullshit, but it's about as funny as people whose humor consists entirely of quotes from comedy movies.

I'm not impressed and I don't find it funny--how bout let's all please stop using the zombie apocalypse to stroke our egos. Please. It's boring, unoriginal, and made up of silly self-aggrandizing lies. Can we, as a culture, officially move on? I feel like there are probably some new, more creative apocalyptic scenarios we could use to convince ourselves of our own badassery.

Anime theme songs: awesomely bad.

I mainly like to rant about politics and wax philosophical in a roundabout way, but every once in a while I'm gonna drop a random topic on alla y'all's heads. Today's is anime--particularly, the theme songs of anime, which is an important thing that everyone cares about.

I disliked anime for years, without having seen much, mostly due to being on fucking Deviantart. Turns out a lot of it is silly and stupid, some of it's good, and some of it is fucking awesome. I got the ouroboros tattoo after watching Fullmetal Alchemist (the original series) because truly, nothing I had ever read or encountered made me think so much about what it meant to be a human being.

The dragony-lookin' thing is from the anime. Before you ask about the banner it says this.

But that discussion is for another day. I'm here to talk about the theme songs.

When I first heard the opening song to Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood I was surprised. It was . . . good. Nothing mind-blowing, just a normal catchy pop song with some rock influence, but I did end up downloading it and putting it on my iPod.

I'm listening to it right now, and I kind of forgot how much it actually fucking rules. I can't sing along with it (except for the part where they might be saying "I'm on my way" but that could be my own English-speaking pareidolia) so I just sort of bob around with a stupid grin on my face.

But I digress. I was surprised that it was not only listenable, but worth downloading. If you don't watch anime, you don't know about this, but the theme songs are always hilariously awful.

Case in point: "Mirai No Kioku" from Kiddy Grade.

Now that you've watched that there is no way I could convince you that this show is not as dumb as it looks.    Yes, the writing can be corny, but the show takes very dark turns. It tackles socioeconomic issues that a future galacticized (as in globalized, or maybe jazzercized) society might face, the darker sides of eternal youth, and conflicting moral duties. I dunno about you, but I certainly didn't pick up on any of those themes from that . . . whatever that was. The one thing that you probably did pick up on was the gratuitous-female-form/not-so-subtle-suggestions-of-lesbian-eroticism sort of fanservice that's also a constant.

And just check these lyrics:

"Fate and fake is everything
What is important, oh, won't you please tell me?
Love and pain will revolve
In the very same reflection of space and time they shine."


I know that feel, bro.

Of course, lots of things get lost in translation and when doing English dubs the studios must be very cautious so as to avoid tantrums from the uppity fanbase. (Go get on an anime forum and find a thread about the Japanese version of this song versus the English version. I dare you.) But still, it makes no sense in English, and it's funny to me, so fuck a logical explanation of silly lyrics.

The first theme song (there were several) from the original Fullmetal Alchemist TV series:

I understand that much of Japanese pop is influenced by Western pop, so apparently Japan is not on Earth but rather somewhere in space that the radio transmissions 80's workout video soundtracks have just started reaching them in the last decade.

From Samurai 7, a sort of steampunkish sci-fi version of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and (other than Planet Earth) the only DVDs I own:

It's not completely unbearable, but let me put this into context for you: this is an anime about fucking samurais chopping up giant robots with their swords and then overthrowing an empire. I feel like something other than a corny love song might have been more appropriate, don't you?

Basilisk is essentially a ninja clan retelling of Romeo and Juliet, and it's really, really violent. I'm talking blood everywhere, bros. Fittingly, its theme song kicks all the other song-asses. I especially love the recorder, because it really cements the whole "30-year-old-fat-white-nerd-playing-with-katana-in-front-of-his-webcam" aesthetic.

You know you're rocking the fuck out to Lady Japanese Dio right now, or at least you can't deny that you want to so bad.

Pictured above is what happens when you google "Japanese Lady Dio." I suggest you don't look into it any further, because the thing about Japan is that it's much funnier when you take everything about it out of context.

And for the record, the music isn't all bad all the way through. Samurai 7 and Full Metal Alchemist both have excellent soundtracks. The opening credits are no indication of the quality or depth of the show. (Though it'd be real nice if I didn't have to listen to some bullshit before getting to my show, anime studios.)

Now I feel like I have to apologize for putting you through those, so enjoy Nujabes doing Samurai Champloo up right:

This is my opinion, Internet! Don't dispute it!

I have a confession to make.

I like to argue on the Internet.

We all know it's a Sisyphean task and of course we're all above that silly pointless shit, but the truth is I'm not above much. When the rock hits the bottom I stroll cheerfully right after it. It's kind of fun, honestly, and almost always a challenge. And sometimes hilarity ensues.

 I truly believe that the Internet is humanity's best shot right now. It's given us potential that has been discussed to death. The problem is, as we all know by now, it has a tendency to bring out some serious crippling ugliness in other humans.

For most, the anonymity provided by the Internet is a flimsy illusion, but it doesn't stop us from shedding the burdens of behavioral expectations as soon as we're in front of the screen. When Facebook asks what's on our minds we almost never hesitate to answer like we would in the physical world. Being connected to each other through social media facilitates conversations we would never have without it, but it also allows us to get away with acting like little wieners if we feel like it. In real life, I'm loudmouthed, but reasonable and generally hesitant to offend. On the webs, I'm more prone to fits of outrage thinly disguised as sarcasm. I imagine I'm on the "Restricted" list for quite a few of my conservative Facebook friends.

What's on my mind? Glad you asked, Facebook. I'll argue and opine all day given the chance, because generally when I have a strong opinion on something I have some sort of justification. And if you're interested, I will gladly share that justification with you. I like debating.

Here's what I don't fucking like: people who use bitch-ass little cop-out phrases because they love to state their opinions but can't form a logical argument or respond to any of the points in order to defend themselves.

1. "I'm not going to explain to you why I believe this, you'll just shoot it down."
2. "To each their own."
3. "Let's agree to disagree."
4. "If you don't like it, block me."
and finally, my absolute favorite,
5. "I'm entitled to my opinion."

I like to argue, and I like to fuck with people. I especially like to argue and fuck with people who say shit like that. It's kind of fun to whip someone into a furor when they blurt their opinions without foreseeing any consequences. Or if they do expect a challenge, they don't expect to have to defend it with, I dunno, facts and information and petty shit like that.

That's where that old chestnut comes in: "I'm entitled to my opinion." Yes. Yes you are. Good on you for figuring that much out. But here's a tip--if you don't want people to question your beliefs or disagree with you, then keep them to yourself. If it bothers you when skeptics question your moonbat posts about Creationism or quantum woo, don't post that shit. If you don't like explaining your beliefs to people who disagree with them, it's okay to just be quiet sometimes.

You're on the Internet now, and we're not here to coddle you and validate you with a circlejerk of likes and upvotes and +1s and whatall. Your opinion is not a royal decree.

People are gonna question your beliefs. People are going to disagree with you. This is a normal thing, and it will not stop if you throw a fit. But if you don't want it to happen, the trick is don't get on the Internet and blurt your opinions out. And for the love of science, stop bitching and moaning when someone challenges you.

I've been publicly insulted and trash talked because of Facebook posts. I've lost friends because of stupid Internet arguments. Not because I'm an asshole to people. I have been accused of condescension, and though I won't invalidate another person's perception, any condescension on my part is not intentional. I don't resort to insults or ad hominem attacks or logical fallacies designed to make me feel like I won. Sometimes I'm sarcastic, but I'm never mean. I back up my statements with verifiable facts and clear lines of logic, and in all but a handful of my regular sites the responses are ad hominem attacks, dismissals, and lame attempts to look superior.

This shit must die.

I'm going to pull out the old conservative favorite: personal responsibility. 


Not "personal responsibility" as in "never needing help from another human despite any existing socioeconomic circumstances beyond your control," but "personal responsibility" as in "owning up to the shit that comes out of your mouth/keyboard."

We've been given a platform to instantly share our thoughts with an extended social circle. We've been given the capacity to reason and the capacity to express ideas. What we haven't been given is the ability to argue properly.

Maybe I'm cynical, and of course I only speak for the small sample of my own culture that I know personally, but I feel like we aren't given tools to use our First Amendment rights to their fullest potential. The ability to debate well. An open and questioning mind. New perspectives. An understanding of the limits of one's own knowledge. Respect and courtesy--or at least the ability to fake 'em--toward your opposition.

When the dissociative quality of the Internet meets our reluctance to hold our tongues, admit limitations, or make concessions, our egos can produce some rather explosive results. And you know what? I think it's okay to get upset about an argument that isn't personal. Certainly there have been times when my hands shook as I typed out responses. Anyone who claims that getting emotional during a debate is not allowed is just being a superior asshole (people with a true sense of emotional calm and mastery don't fucking brag about it, so if someone tells you they 'don't get offended and don't understand why anyone else does,' they're lying).

It's also okay to say, "I feel like this argument is going in circles and I have nothing to add to the points I've already stated." It's okay to say, "I guess I haven't done enough research on the subject yet." It's okay to say, "I don't really have a response for that particular point."

But it's not okay to shove your uninformed opinion in everyone's face and then act like a nutsack when you're challenged.

It's sometimes still jarring when stupid arguments flare up on one of my profiles--it is, after all, my tiny little corner of the Internet. I don't know that we, as a society, have stopped collectively scoffing at the idea that the pointless, asinine diversions of social media are now very culturally important. But we probably should stop with the scoffing, and start taking it seriously. It's platform to essentially extend your "self" into an accessible, massive digital annex. Shit, the Internet has forced us to redefine our concept of reality.

I suspect, without having been there, that there have always been people who are impervious to facts and reasoning. With the advent of the Internet, these people are all up in my shit all the time. These people are probably going to be around for a long time. Reasoning with people who are impervious to reason is, well--you get it. But every little bit counts.

And so, hypothetical "you" that I've been inconsistently addressing throughout this post--you're entitled to your opinion, but you're also entitled to use Google or learn the basics of logic and rhetoric before you take to the Intertubes with a damned megaphone. Which means when you do this without expecting any ramifications, I'm entitled to make you look like an asshole in front of all your friends.

GO BACK TO MEXICOOOOO! SOOOOCIALISM! UFOOOOOOS!
(photo by Mindaugas Danys)

HASH V1:CH7 The Secret

In this installment of Hardcastle's Adventures in Self Help, I dive into Chapter 7 of The Secret by Rhonda Byrne. Each chapter of The Secret contains "Secret Summaries" at the end which I've . . . edited . . . to better reflect reality. Enjoy!

Chapter 7: The Secret to Health.

This one starts out kind of making sense, but I can't disassociate from the earlier batshit enough not to expect the worst. 

"The placebo effect is a powerful phenomenon. When patients think and truly believe the tablet is a cure, they will receive what they believe, and they will be cured."

Not disputing this other than the use of the word "receive." And as I mentioned before, I find this reference to the placebo effect both 1) pretty funny and 2) not particularly self-aware. In high school, a common prank was giving someone baking soda or OTC pain relievers with the logos rubbed off, claiming they were drugs, and watching the recipient act all fucked up after taking some Tylenol. People tell me I'm mean for thinking this is funny, but fuck you, it's totally funny. I'm sure we would have had fun with ol' Rhonda.

But the placebo effect is not some manifestation of the Universe's power. Says Wikipedia:

The placebo effect points to the importance of perception and the brain's role in physical health. However, the use of placebos as treatment in clinical medicine (as opposed to laboratory research) is ethically problematic as it introduces deception and dishonesty into the doctor-patient relationship. The United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology has stated that: "...prescribing placebos... usually relies on some degree of patient deception" and "prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS."

Says Rhonda: "Derp."

She, and her blurb-providing minions, then encourage people not to disregard medicine in favor of positive thinking. Rather, you should combine the two. Sound advice, really. It's kind of a pleasant surprise to see the suggestion right in the beginning of the chapter. I'm already preemptively rolling my eyes, however, at all the people who will chalk their healing up to their own prayer and positive thinking and indirectly pat themselves on the back for all the hard work their physician did. No, no, you're right! It wasn't the years of expensive medical training, the patience, the compassion, or the knowledge. It was you and your fucking frequencies.

And of course there are always the responders: "Well, maybe it was their prayer." A lovely little thought, but until someone has some proof for me, I say fuck that. There is quite a lot that the world has given me to think about and I see little point in wasting time on moonbat "maybes."

So she encourages her readers to do the sensible thing and go see a doctor if their shit's all jacked up. Great. Takes all of a page and a half (and keep in mind, a page is about 200 fifth-grade-level words) before this chapter delves right back into batshittery:

Dr. John DeMartini
Our physiology creates disease to give us feedback, to let us know we have an imbalanced perspective, or we're not being loving and grateful. So the body's signs and symptoms are not something terrible.  

So, when I'm not being grateful enough to my surroundings, substances can . . . become carcinogenic or . . . . . . infected blood will start . . . magnetizing itself to me or . . . what the fuck is this guy on about?

Love and gratitude can part seas, move mountains, and create miracles. And love and gratitude can dissolve any disease.

1) No. 2) No. 3) Fuckin' miracles. 4) She doesn't say "prevent," she says "dissolve." Shouldn't I be able to avoid disease altogether?

It's stated that stress is the root of all disease. And while most of us know that stress can, in fact, lower the immune system, we also have known about how things like pathogens work since we were little fucking kids.


Some gems from the Dumb-fuck School of Medicine:

Bob Proctor
Disease cannot live in a body that's in a healthy emotional state. Your body is casting off millions of cells every second, and it's also creating millions of new cells at the same time. 

Dr. John Hagelin
In fact, parts of our body are literally replaced every day. Other parts take a few months, other parts a couple of years. But within a few years we have a brand new physical body. 

[Rhonda's text]: If our entire bodies are replaced within a few years, as science has proven, then how can it be that degeneration or illness remains in our bodies for years? It can only be held there by thought, by observation of the illness, and by the attention given to the illness.

People who are diseased are spiritually sick all the time, and by the way, did you know this cool shit about your cells? The best trick in the book: mention sciencey-sounding shit, and gullible people will eat it up (as science has proven). It's followed by John Hagelin's oversimplification of a true thing, and then bam! Batshit outta nowhere!

Fucking germs/cells/basic anatomyz, how do they work?

All those people out there who found that passage to be truthful, mindblowing, or in any way logical, are going to find no explanations here. I'm not about to type out a logical takedown of those quotes because I learned the basics of that line of reasoning when my age was still a single digit. Much like I can't harness the power of The Secret because I am closed off to it, people who believe in The Secret can't harness the power of logic because they, too, are closed off to it.

I heard that "cells-replacing-themselves-so-technically-you-are-completely-physically-different-than-you-were-7-years-ago-or-whatever" thing (known in Legitimate Sciencey circles as "CRTSTYACPDTYW7YAOW") when I watched Waking Life. I found it pretty interesting, and it's a nice concept philosophically. But obviously Byrne didn't actually read any further than the blurbs provided in her books, because she continues to demonstrate her toddler understanding of biology:

You can see that beliefs about aging are all in our minds. Science explains that we have a brand new body in a very short time. Aging is limited thinking, so release those thoughts from your consciousness and know that your body is only months old, no matter how many birthdays you have chalked up in your mind.

Uh, months? Just because some of the cells in your body might be replaced with new ones every few months doesn't mean your whole body . . . gahhhhh. Whatever. I guess that explains why animals don't ever age or die, right?

This is where the chapter goes from plain stupid back to privileged-fortunate-superior-white-lady shit:

You cannot "catch" anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought.

Interesting. I wonder how often Rhonda Byrne shares dirty needles with people who definitely have AIDS. I mean, shit, why wouldn't you if her statements are true and you're truly applying them? Getting clean needles would be such a pain in the ass. And if she counts addiction as a disease, then why isn't she partying balls every night? Certainly money isn't an issue for her . . .

You are also inviting illness if you are listening to people talking about their illness. As you listen you are giving all of your thought and focus to illness, and when you give all of your thought to something, you are asking for it. And you are certainly not helping them. You are adding energy to their illness. If you really want to help that person, change the conversation to good things, if you can, or be on your way. As you walk away, give your powerful thoughts and feelings to seeing that person well, and then let it go.

Okay. So:

1. Not only should you never think about any disease or affliction, but you should not talk to people who are sick because they are yicky and will make you sick even if the disease is not what society considers "contagious."
2. If you listen to them talk about their illness, you'll get sick because, of course, everything is about you all the fucking time.
3. Showing your sick friend any sort of sympathy or providing any emotional support throughout an illness is not helpful. Do not so much as provide them any reassurance, or you're both fucked. You should display to them that you are emotionally unavailable and socially inept by changing the subject to something like how cute your stupid pug is. Or, shit, just walk the fuck away. Because that's what real, non-shitty friends do for friends with serious illnesses.

I skimmed over the next few pages, which were largely composed of boring testimonials. People who consider testimonials to be hard evidence are pretty much lost causes, which I know from personal experience and will tell you about in my upcoming book for only $24.99.

Every once in a while these glowing lines pop out of The Secret: "Sometimes less information is better!"


I dunno about that. Ignorance is bliss, yada yada, and certainly I've learned about certain things and grimaced and thought, "Ugh, I can never un-know this."

But after some time passes, I have never regretted letting go of any ignorance or naivete, and I look forward to letting go of much, much more. Sure, I can come up with a few circumstances where less information might lead to better results, but that sentence, to me, is Rhonda Byrne openly embracing her own ignorance. And worse--encouraging it in others.

Secret Summaries: 


The placebo effect is an example of the law of attraction in action. I just can't even touch this, it's too fucking ridiculous.


"Focusing on perfect health" is something we can all do within ourselves, despite what may be happening on the outside, which is definitely not anything that can be verified through direct observational proof, so don't look into it.


Laughter attracts joy, releases negativity, leads to miraculous cures, plant a little seed and nature grows. IT JUST FUCKING GROWS


Disease is held in the body by thought, by observation of the illness, and by the attention given to the illness. If you are feeling a little unwell, don't talk about it--especially if it's something like suicidal ideation, because we ALL know that telling someone you trust that you are afraid of hurting yourself never leads to getting any help. If you listen to people talk about their illness, your attempts to be a decent, sympathetic, and non-selfish human are actually making them sicker, because when people feel that their close loved ones offer them support it makes them feel shitty. 


Beliefs about aging are all in our minds, so release those thoughts from your consciousness. Think about pets you might have owned--did they age? Of course not, because animals have no developed concept of "aging" vs. "youth."

Do not listen to society's messages about diseases and aging. Society's messages include things like "use condoms" and "avoid smoking and tanning beds" and "stay away from addictive drugs" and "don't just eat random things that you find," but those are negative messages and do not serve you. So you can just ignore them. Really. 

RSAnimate talks about The Secret, and I continue my rant.

For those of you who can't watch, Barbara Ehrenreich talks about how "mandatory optimism" isn't such a good thing.

Her two issues with positive thinking:

1. Delusion is a mistake
2. It's cruel to tell people who are having great difficulties in their lives that it's all in their heads.

She mentions The Secret at 5:30 and refers to its "moral callousness" in regard to the tsunami of 2006. Her "very radical suggestion" is REALISM. Changing the world by examining the problems in a rational way and then zeroing in on solutions through trial and error. I know she was being somewhat ironic when she said it was radical, but the especially sad bit is that people who ascribe to these beliefs think they are the realists. After all, they have the Super-Secret Key to Life, don't they?

This may seem a bit like evoking Godwin's Law, but when friends of mine speak of The Secret's truth I bring up the shocking and heartbreaking rape statistics in The Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am not trying to exploit rape as drama--these stories strike a nerve with me and it's an issue I consider very personal.

Oh, okay then.  Your "Like" circlejerk proves your point.

No one has given me a straight answer. None of Rhonda Byrne's acolytes have the cajones to come out and tell me that yes, the victims of rape did attract it. If they even acknowledge that I asked the question, they tell me I am taking the law out of context, taking it to extremes, taking it too seriously, misunderstanding how it works.

I've already touched on the moral callousness in my last post on The Secret. I could probably go on about it some more, because it's just such a goddamn stupid concept that only a privileged moonbat white lady could come up with, but I'd like to expand on what Barbara Ehrenreich says toward the end of her video.

 By examining the ugliness that lies in the DRC's rape problem, we can see the roots and catalysts with very little effort. The superficiality of mandatory positive thinking (I just love the way she put that and hope she doesn't mind that I use it) dictates that its adherents must not examine the ugliness. They must simply, if they want to reduce the statistics in the Congo, just think about it in positive terms (e.g. "I want these women to feel secure in their bodies and be safe"). It's the very definition of shallow. You aren't required to do any research on the conditions that enabled this terrible culture. You aren't required to take any real action.

So the efforts of those who do examine the roots are undermined. The strength of the Congolese women who have had enough, who will not live with their fear and trauma forever, is ignored. And when (not if, because I too can put positive thinking in action) their hard work succeeds and Congolese people no longer live in fear that their bodies will be violated and they will have no justice, those who sat around and did nothing but practice their mandatory optimism will pat themselves on the backs.

As a non-Christian, were I an oncologist, you can believe I would give my patients an earful if their cancer went into remission and they had the audacity to thank God but say nothing of the treatment they received. Believing in the power of prayer or the law of attraction, if that's your thing, is your business. But its nature often means that its adherents utterly disregard or misattribute the sources of positive change. Funnily enough, Rhonda Byrne's book uses the placebo effect as an example, but certainly not in a way I would call self-aware.

This is dangerous. Very dangerous. It's bad enough that so many people do not understand the mechanisms of social change, or don't think social change is worthwhile, but this? This is an excuse for apathy that won't even acknowledge itself.

Rhonda Byrne's book, thus far, has not addressed utilizing the law of attraction for social change in any meaningful sort of way. This is telling, to me, of Rhonda Byrne's selfishness. Here's The True And Real Secret of Making Everything The Way You Want It Using Quantum Something-or-other, and there's really no mention of how to turn the world around you into a goddamn utopia with the power of your mind?

Many of her acolytes state that social change, theoretically, is effected when people apply the law of attraction because their positivity uplifts those around them. All right, then, let's do some math real quick.

Wikipedia says the book has sold over 21 million copies. Let's round it down to 21, and leave out copies of the movie for simplicity's sake. We'll also leave out those who have not read The Secret but still apply the law of attraction. We'll also leave out those who borrowed the book from the library or from a friend. This will, in other words, be an EXTREMELY conservative estimate.

Let's assume 10% of these purchased copies did not get read--either they were a gift for someone who did not want it, or bought by someone who never got around to it. From that number, we take another 25% for people who read it and thought it was crap. Let's say that, out of those remaining purchases, 35% of people read the book but for whatever reason, did not or could not apply the law of attraction in their lives.

That leaves us with just over 9.2 million, out of the original 21, who read the book and took it to heart. We'll round down again to 9.

So if 9 million individuals read the book, and each individual is able to interact with 3 people in their lives in a meaningful way, their positivity will be multiplied by that much. 3 people isn't much--most of us have at least that many close friends or family members (and those who don't can blame it on their "frequencies," I guess).

That means The Positive Squad is adding 27 million to its ranks. That's more people than originally bought copies of the book. So, let's style this like a pyramid scheme--each of these 36 million people then pass their happy thought-energy onto three totally separate people. That means 108 million more people are now utilizing the power of the law of attraction. If this happens just 3 more times, it's finally reached nearly all 7 billion people on the planet. (Feel free to correct my math if I did this wrong, but as far as I know these numbers should be accurate.)

It's stated in the book that what you want--and here, we're looking for a perfectly happy utopia--will take no time because time is meaningless and the Universe has already granted it if you can think it. Even if only one person takes on this idea, the theory that they can uplift others around them still applies and ends up with the same result. So where the fuck is my utopia, Rhonda?!


The more I read this, and the more I explore the idea, the angrier I get. The more conversations I have with personal friends who won't come right out and say it, but believe in a law that would blame victims of rape for attracting their rapes, the angrier I get. The more I think that some stupid blonde lady is getting rich off of people's need to believe in shallow, toxic shit like this, the angrier I get. I don't take kindly to pseudoscience, and I don't take kindly to false meritocracies. Fuck The Secret, and fuck Rhonda Byrne.

Self-interest isn't all that rational.

I don't really understand how to deal with children and I don't expect that I will reach an age where I am ready to raise one anytime soon, if I do at all. But I'm around them every once in a while, and I can't help but notice: kids are kind of amazing to watch.

The "children are our future" tack is trite, but it's true: kids are the cornerstone of social change. Children internalize whatever abstract ideas adults find important, then shape these ideas further based on how we teach them and how they evolve as beings. In this banal spectacle of a culture, the most valuable thing we can spend our lives on is raising a rational, empathetic, inquisitive child. I consider it a high priority to make sure that future generations suck less than this one. That's how we go from Jersey Shore fans to the badass cancer-curing space-exploring motherfuckers we are meant to be.

I find the state of discourse deplorable but I'm obviously not going to do my part to produce a better generation. I can't present a coherent philosophy to challenge the upsurge of Randian egotism that dominates the conservative side of politics. I don't plan on taking to the streets, mobilizing, dialoguing, mic-checking, or voting in a goddamned presidential election.  My favorite methods of sparking discussion of social issues involve spray paint and therefore legal problems. Apathy, an enemy even greater than stupidity, is simply not an option.

So what's a frustrated armchair philosophette to do? I take to the internet like every other dickhead with an opinion. The power of our connectedness is just as crucial as the power of our spongy-brained spawn. Without even leaving the house we can gain the perspective required to question the fundamentals of everything that our spongy brains once soaked up.

As a person in the process of self-educating (read: a dropout), I'm been free to pursue whatever ideas and subjects catch my interest. I've swapped indoctrination for good ol' personal bias. Naturally, I find this pretty agreeable. For one thing, I can convince myself I'm a true Rennaissance woman with a titanic intellect, even as I expose the depths of my own ignorance.

There is no yardstick of progress here. No one is telling me what to read or what questions I should answer after I read it. It's just me, my books, and the online resources I use to decipher them. Besides the ego boost, this educational shift has brought about a slow and subtle change in my perception of the world--particularly, the things adults assured me really mattered.

To be free of Eurocentrism, and free of the underlying assumption that rational self-interest is an unquestionable principle, is crucial to the development of a good citizen. This isn't to say that being a fan of Ayn Rand, or preferring Western philosophy to Eastern, is wrong; just that once in a fucking while our kids should be exposed to the alternative. I sought out my own exposure. I decided on what made the most sense to me. It's integral to my current level of happiness, and without it, where would I be?

Liking Ayn Rand isn't wrong, per se, but really, you have bad taste.

Those who develop our educations in the crucial formative years seem to think that global perspectives and shades of grey are so complex that they shouldn't even be introduced in a meaningful way to a minor. I didn't even consider the idea of Eurocentrism until I was out of high school, and it took a lot of independent reading to flesh out my ideas of why it was harmful. I chewed out a college professor in an essay for devoting exactly one (1) day to a philosophy/art style that wasn't purely white and Western. But I didn't get these ideas from my institutions of education, which means my peers didn't either.

I read a comment on Reddit recently (in r/paleo, of all fucking places--oh Ron Paul acolytes can I never escape you): "Libertarians are most concerned about the smallest and most commonly overlooked minority, the individual."

Cough, splutter. I'm sorry, did you really just say most overlooked? Fucking hilarious.

I'm not incredibly well-traveled--maybe things are different where this commenter grew up--but I'm pretty sure that the bulk of my education emphasized nothing but the importance of the individual. I am special, I have the power to (whatever), the Bill of Rights exists to protect my individual rights, the only rights that are God-given are individual rights that are granted to me, and if anything interferes with my rights then it is wrong as fuck. There is nothing wrong with protecting the rights of the individual, except that in practice it tends to interfere with human rights, it tends to justify overconsumption, it tends to favor privileged groups. If we lived, as the individual-rights crowd seem to believe, in a world where everyone is truly on equal footing and our impact on the world around us is constructive rather than destructive, perhaps glorifying the self over all would be okay. But we don't.

Self-interest is an integral part of our sapience that crosses cultural and chronological divides. We are a well-meaning, but largely self-absorbed, species. And we should be--the ego's need to ensure its own future is one of the driving forces behind the continuation of our species.

I am, however, a believer of most things in moderation (though my bar tab will tell you i'm a non-practicing believer). The glorification of the self has taught us to consider the world to be here for us rather than the other way around. Altruism is dismissed and activism is deemed futile. What good is bettering the world you live in when you will only live in it for a comically brief window of time? Why extend a hand to a fellow human in need when there are other, less draining ways to feel good about yourself?

Because that's childish, short-sighted bullshit, that's why. We are taught that the noblest pursuit is that of individual happiness, that we are special and unique, that the world around us is something to conquer and use. This doctrine of the self is what teaches us to consider the implications of our existence and explore our minds, but our selfishness is taken to destructive extremes all throughout adulthood.

Relentless emphasis on individual liberties allows us to shirk responsibility for the state of the world and the suffering of other beings. If injustice is detected, it is some inherent and unavoidable flaw within an individual or system. We can put a Somebody Else's Problem field around us and get back to life, liberty, and the pursuit of plastic shit.

Humans are able to convince themselves that social change is only worth it if the effects are experienced in our lifetime. Altruism is only worthwhile if it eases the conscience. It's no wonder that the environmental crisis continues to spiral out of control, class divides grow deeper, and xenophobia persists.

We don't see the value in bettering the world if we may not get to experience the effects. Hell, we don't see the value of anything if we can't tie it back to our egos. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is out of the question; the only question worth asking is "Why should I care?"  Sometimes, that's a totally valid question to ask. Other times, it's a stupid fucking question to ask.

Christopher Hitchens died the day before my birthday, and I had a drink for him. I did, however, take issue with a lot of the things he said. In particular:

Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish.

To annihilate the self is to recognize that what you think of as your "self" is just a collection of every moment, thought, action, interaction, etc. and that it is constantly changing. To annihilate the self is to accept growth and to shed the constant fears that hold us back: "Will I get what I want?" "Am I Doing It Right?"

And why are compassion and dignity mutually exclusive? Is it so alien to us to consider the idea that you can both respect yourself and feel sympathy or empathy toward the suffering of others? And who the fuck put self-respect on a pedestal when both are crucial to our humanity in different ways? I will never be proud to be called selfish or arrogant. Humanity does not need more selfish, arrogant people. And it's amusing to me that Hitchens, who spoke of the arrogance of organized religion, thinks it's any different when taken out of the religious context.

The other thing I find interesting to observe in children is how they act like little sociopaths. As their concept of the "self" develops, it manifests as extreme selfishness: I don't care how busy you are, what it takes to get it, or whether I even need it--I like that motherfucking toy and I want it. Louis CK illustrates it well:

This is part of our development, and part of our survival. But it's a part that we grow out of. It's not necessarily true that we have to cling to a certain percentage of that original self-absorption until we die.

Self-interest has served us in many ways, but ultimately it's a step to a higher form of rationality. In Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, self-interest is the second stage of six, most commonly found in children. Each stage is crucial to the development of, in this case, a collective consciousness. Considering the rapid growth of technology and the expansion of our global interconnectedness, the time to step up our game is now.

Bear with me here--I'm about to delve into some major hippy-dippy shit.

In order to find peace and be truly free, each of us must de-emphasize the importance of "one" and seek to understand the "all." A temporary dissolution of the self allows for a more accurate sense of scale. It's what draws us to mountaintops and ocean beaches--that brief feeling of insignificance resonates with a part of us that we do not often access. It reminds us that the universe is a big place, much bigger than we are, and we are a part of it whether we like it or not.

But these reactions are involuntary. To strip away the ego takes discipline, and to pull on the strings that connect us to our surroundings takes a lot of mental energy. But we don't really have a choice in the long run. Understanding the connection between us and our surroundings is the only way to evolve as a species. When we are offering crackheads in the street time and care instead of vitriol and punishment, we might see less crackheads in the street. We care for one another or we self-destruct, because it is very much "we" rather than just "a collection of I's." And it's doable if we are given encouragement from an early age to think critically, to argue well, to seek knowledge for its own sake, and to get the fuck over ourselves.