The Dark Side of "The Secret"
- Thread starter Ronnie
- Start date
The dark side of "The Secret"
I'm at a loss to see how "The Secret" is any different from Shakti Gawain's Creative Visualization back in the 1970s, or any number of YCYOR promotions before and after it. Oprah, as one of the world's richest women, no matter what her background, can hardly have a clear perspective on not having money.
<< Oprah has a reputation for doing good -- she probably has more perceived moral authority than anyone in this country >>
You know, Bernhard, when you mentioned that Oprah scares you, it struck a nerve within me. I don't know where her reputation for "good" comes from. Personally, I have always identified her as part of the problem because of the immense power she has gathered, with which she does nothing overtly political (probably for reasons of not offending anyone, and keeping the money rolling in). Now, I wonder if all that power hasn't been built up with a future purpose in mind.
the kind of confidence you get not from testing yourself, but from "believing" in yourself. ... That "Secret"-style faith, whether it's in God, or in one's own preordained destiny to be an "American Idol," >>
When I read the first sentence I immediately thought of American Idol, only to see that the author brought it up in the next paragraph. That show depicts so many people without a shred of singing talent who believe, absolutely believe to the core, that they are the bees knees and will be beloved by billions if only they can get exposure.
Well, the C's have commented on the power of belief, but I'm clearly not understanding yet what they meant.
I'm at a loss to see how "The Secret" is any different from Shakti Gawain's Creative Visualization back in the 1970s, or any number of YCYOR promotions before and after it. Oprah, as one of the world's richest women, no matter what her background, can hardly have a clear perspective on not having money.
<< Oprah has a reputation for doing good -- she probably has more perceived moral authority than anyone in this country >>
You know, Bernhard, when you mentioned that Oprah scares you, it struck a nerve within me. I don't know where her reputation for "good" comes from. Personally, I have always identified her as part of the problem because of the immense power she has gathered, with which she does nothing overtly political (probably for reasons of not offending anyone, and keeping the money rolling in). Now, I wonder if all that power hasn't been built up with a future purpose in mind.
the kind of confidence you get not from testing yourself, but from "believing" in yourself. ... That "Secret"-style faith, whether it's in God, or in one's own preordained destiny to be an "American Idol," >>
When I read the first sentence I immediately thought of American Idol, only to see that the author brought it up in the next paragraph. That show depicts so many people without a shred of singing talent who believe, absolutely believe to the core, that they are the bees knees and will be beloved by billions if only they can get exposure.
Well, the C's have commented on the power of belief, but I'm clearly not understanding yet what they meant.
The dark side of "The Secret"
Saw the following comment on a discussion list that posted the article -- puts it in better words than me:
Saw the following comment on a discussion list that posted the article -- puts it in better words than me:
That's the danger of her influence.
The dark side of "The Secret"
Ok but what the hell is "what skyler was to the zerg"? Seems like a reference to the game StarCraft, but all I can think of there is what Kerrigan was to the Zerg, who was the zerg queen. Kinda like the borg queen, who are much like the zerg - hive mind, assimilating others into "collective", and supposely all serve the collective but in reality actually just obeying the queen..
Ok but what the hell is "what skyler was to the zerg"? Seems like a reference to the game StarCraft, but all I can think of there is what Kerrigan was to the Zerg, who was the zerg queen. Kinda like the borg queen, who are much like the zerg - hive mind, assimilating others into "collective", and supposely all serve the collective but in reality actually just obeying the queen..
The dark side of "The Secret"
:) Well, it doesn't really matter, since you clearly got the idea behind the guy's statement -- maybe he made a mistake. The list I quoted from is indeed partially about gaming, about which I know nothing -- just happened to note that the Oprah/Secret article was posted there. It rings pretty true to me. What Oprah says is law to many a sleeping, obedient devotee. They could be "activated" and directed in any number of ways -- like a horror movie, methinks.
:) Well, it doesn't really matter, since you clearly got the idea behind the guy's statement -- maybe he made a mistake. The list I quoted from is indeed partially about gaming, about which I know nothing -- just happened to note that the Oprah/Secret article was posted there. It rings pretty true to me. What Oprah says is law to many a sleeping, obedient devotee. They could be "activated" and directed in any number of ways -- like a horror movie, methinks.
The dark side of "The Secret"
Joke heard on the sitcom 30 Rock last night:
"So, what religion are you, Liz Lemon?"
"Oh, I pretty much just do whatever Oprah tells me."
Joke heard on the sitcom 30 Rock last night:
"So, what religion are you, Liz Lemon?"
"Oh, I pretty much just do whatever Oprah tells me."
The dark side of "The Secret"
The whole "law of attraction/positive thinking" is an unscientific joke. It is not even testable because it essentially states, "If you do it right, it will work; if you do it wrong, it will not." Therefore, any time you don't get what you want, you must have done something wrong, and vice versa.
The whole "law of attraction/positive thinking" is an unscientific joke. It is not even testable because it essentially states, "If you do it right, it will work; if you do it wrong, it will not." Therefore, any time you don't get what you want, you must have done something wrong, and vice versa.
wilecoyote
Jedi
The dark side of "The Secret"
A simple method of testing someone's loyalty/brainwashing by Oprah:
Identify relatives or housewives who ritually record and/or watch the show, and mention to them that
1) Oprah's face cream is made from the skin cells of circumcised foreskins,
2) she is like a new age guru, almost like a cult leader.
You'll know the answer by their reactions to any criticisms about Oprah, who really strikes me as similar to Condoleeza Rice, with the whole 'feminist' vibe. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a strong independent woman, but Oprah has a hidden agenda, an ulterior motive, which seriously unnerves me, especially since i can't put a finger on it.
There seems to be a trend:
Powerful Ethnic minority woman (or any woman) = no children = no committed relationship. (feel free to modify my equation).
I don't mean to offend anyone, but why is it that many powerful women portrayed in the media aren't mothers, therefore having a more nurturing/motherly approach?
Laura Knight Jadzyck is a very powerful woman, and she's a mother, and in a committed relationship. I think the motherly/nurturer side cannot be ignored, but is deliberately being suppressed by the Mainstream media, to promote a particular type of image.
What really worries me is that so many young african-american women, young women in general, seeing Oprah as an example, could start looking down on men in general. Why wasn't Oprah's school in South Africa mixed? or why couldn't there be a separate boys school? In this day and age we're supposed to foster a climate of equality, especially among the young ones, not an elitist attitude, which i predict those girls would possess after graduating from that school. OSIT.
That's just my humble opinion.
A simple method of testing someone's loyalty/brainwashing by Oprah:
Identify relatives or housewives who ritually record and/or watch the show, and mention to them that
1) Oprah's face cream is made from the skin cells of circumcised foreskins,
2) she is like a new age guru, almost like a cult leader.
You'll know the answer by their reactions to any criticisms about Oprah, who really strikes me as similar to Condoleeza Rice, with the whole 'feminist' vibe. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a strong independent woman, but Oprah has a hidden agenda, an ulterior motive, which seriously unnerves me, especially since i can't put a finger on it.
There seems to be a trend:
Powerful Ethnic minority woman (or any woman) = no children = no committed relationship. (feel free to modify my equation).
I don't mean to offend anyone, but why is it that many powerful women portrayed in the media aren't mothers, therefore having a more nurturing/motherly approach?
Laura Knight Jadzyck is a very powerful woman, and she's a mother, and in a committed relationship. I think the motherly/nurturer side cannot be ignored, but is deliberately being suppressed by the Mainstream media, to promote a particular type of image.
What really worries me is that so many young african-american women, young women in general, seeing Oprah as an example, could start looking down on men in general. Why wasn't Oprah's school in South Africa mixed? or why couldn't there be a separate boys school? In this day and age we're supposed to foster a climate of equality, especially among the young ones, not an elitist attitude, which i predict those girls would possess after graduating from that school. OSIT.
That's just my humble opinion.
Third_Density_Resident
Jedi Council Member
The dark side of "The Secret"
Wilecoyote, you certainly bring up some interesting points, some of which have occurred to me over the past few weeks. The lack of a nurturing/mothering image, coupled with her strong "feminist" vibe, her use of face cream that contains the foreskins of mutilated baby boys, and her South African school for girls, and girls only, certainly hints at something strange "at work", although it is difficult at this stage to pinpoint exactly what. I know that girls and women in such places as South Africa are more disadvantaged than males, however, males are STILL disadvantaged. If Oprah was really that concerned about the plight of South Africa, then she would have taken a more holistic approach and given greater opportunities and education to both sexes. By addressing the problems of only one half of the population, she is hardly going to solve the problems overall.
Now, about this pseudoscientific, New Age cultic ideology that is embodied in "The Secret". I just watched an excerpt of the television version, and couldn't believe all the contradictions that are present. For a start, they say that "like attracts like", and then they use a magnet as an analogy. Well most people know that it is the OPPOSITE poles of magnets that attract, and that it is the LIKE poles that repel. Now, I totally understand that when it comes to THOUGHTS, and thinking about certain things, the "like attracts like" philosophy is more truthful than "opposites attracts". For instance, very often your friends will be like-minded people (not always, of course, but this is usually true). And when you focus on negative feelings and thoughts about yourself or others for too long, you can quite often become depressed. Occasionally this depression will lead you to NOT taking certain actions and hence missing various opportunities in life, so more negative things arise. There is nothing mystical or magical about this -- it simply follows a cause-effect type of logic. (And this is as truthful as the YCYOR idea gets, but of course it has been stretched way beyond this by the New Age movement.) The point I'm trying to make is that it is absurd to draw an analogy of THOUGHTS from magnetic attraction -- two totally different principles are at work. That "The Secret" uses magnetic attraction to try to make a point just reveals how utterly ignorant the writers are on a few very basic concepts.
In the television version of "The Secret", one person says that if you think positive thoughts, positive thoughts will come, and then in the SAME SENTENCE, she says that if you think of all the things you DON'T WANT, then those things will come to you because you're focusing too much on them. What the...??? This is totally inconsistent and illogical. On the one hand they are saying you will get what you WANT, but that you also get those things you DON'T WANT also! If you really did create your own reality, then thinking such things as "I don't want to fail this exam" would mean you WOULD NOT fail it. So herein we have a little trick which is used that exposes the whole thing as a huge con -- if you wish for something to happen, but it doesn't happen, you will always be told by the New Age "experts" that there was something else you wished would NOT happen that interferred with what you wanted to happen. So, for example, if I think "I want to be rich, I want to be rich..." but in five years' time I am no richer, the excuse will be offerred that "you were obviously thinking in the back of your mind that you didn't want to be poor at the same time".
Another lie that was mentioned was that the reason 1% of the world owns 95% of the wealth is because THEY are the ones who are in on "the Secret". Clearly, OBJECTIVE reality plays no part in the minds of these con-artists behind "The Secret". The objective reality in this case being the fact that those who own 95% of the world's wealth are very likely psychopaths or people who have been ponerized, or have inherited huge amounts of wealth from psychopathic or ponerized persons. This has NOTHING to do with those individuals thinking about wealth and wealth being "drawn to them". It has everything to do with the dynamics of the ponerization process which has been going on for time immemorial.
On the topic of wealth, the final complaint I have about this so-called philosophy is the unbelievable emphasis on materialism, which couldn't be further from spiritual behaviour. Each time I saw a reference to personal gain in the television program, I felt sick in my stomach. This, I think, is the core of "The Secret" -- to promote an STS ideology focused entirely upon the physical and upon the self. Everyone who is poor has only themselves to blame. This then leads to further STS behaviour and further shutting out of the TRUE REALITY that poverty, and evil, exists.
Wilecoyote, you certainly bring up some interesting points, some of which have occurred to me over the past few weeks. The lack of a nurturing/mothering image, coupled with her strong "feminist" vibe, her use of face cream that contains the foreskins of mutilated baby boys, and her South African school for girls, and girls only, certainly hints at something strange "at work", although it is difficult at this stage to pinpoint exactly what. I know that girls and women in such places as South Africa are more disadvantaged than males, however, males are STILL disadvantaged. If Oprah was really that concerned about the plight of South Africa, then she would have taken a more holistic approach and given greater opportunities and education to both sexes. By addressing the problems of only one half of the population, she is hardly going to solve the problems overall.
Now, about this pseudoscientific, New Age cultic ideology that is embodied in "The Secret". I just watched an excerpt of the television version, and couldn't believe all the contradictions that are present. For a start, they say that "like attracts like", and then they use a magnet as an analogy. Well most people know that it is the OPPOSITE poles of magnets that attract, and that it is the LIKE poles that repel. Now, I totally understand that when it comes to THOUGHTS, and thinking about certain things, the "like attracts like" philosophy is more truthful than "opposites attracts". For instance, very often your friends will be like-minded people (not always, of course, but this is usually true). And when you focus on negative feelings and thoughts about yourself or others for too long, you can quite often become depressed. Occasionally this depression will lead you to NOT taking certain actions and hence missing various opportunities in life, so more negative things arise. There is nothing mystical or magical about this -- it simply follows a cause-effect type of logic. (And this is as truthful as the YCYOR idea gets, but of course it has been stretched way beyond this by the New Age movement.) The point I'm trying to make is that it is absurd to draw an analogy of THOUGHTS from magnetic attraction -- two totally different principles are at work. That "The Secret" uses magnetic attraction to try to make a point just reveals how utterly ignorant the writers are on a few very basic concepts.
In the television version of "The Secret", one person says that if you think positive thoughts, positive thoughts will come, and then in the SAME SENTENCE, she says that if you think of all the things you DON'T WANT, then those things will come to you because you're focusing too much on them. What the...??? This is totally inconsistent and illogical. On the one hand they are saying you will get what you WANT, but that you also get those things you DON'T WANT also! If you really did create your own reality, then thinking such things as "I don't want to fail this exam" would mean you WOULD NOT fail it. So herein we have a little trick which is used that exposes the whole thing as a huge con -- if you wish for something to happen, but it doesn't happen, you will always be told by the New Age "experts" that there was something else you wished would NOT happen that interferred with what you wanted to happen. So, for example, if I think "I want to be rich, I want to be rich..." but in five years' time I am no richer, the excuse will be offerred that "you were obviously thinking in the back of your mind that you didn't want to be poor at the same time".
Another lie that was mentioned was that the reason 1% of the world owns 95% of the wealth is because THEY are the ones who are in on "the Secret". Clearly, OBJECTIVE reality plays no part in the minds of these con-artists behind "The Secret". The objective reality in this case being the fact that those who own 95% of the world's wealth are very likely psychopaths or people who have been ponerized, or have inherited huge amounts of wealth from psychopathic or ponerized persons. This has NOTHING to do with those individuals thinking about wealth and wealth being "drawn to them". It has everything to do with the dynamics of the ponerization process which has been going on for time immemorial.
On the topic of wealth, the final complaint I have about this so-called philosophy is the unbelievable emphasis on materialism, which couldn't be further from spiritual behaviour. Each time I saw a reference to personal gain in the television program, I felt sick in my stomach. This, I think, is the core of "The Secret" -- to promote an STS ideology focused entirely upon the physical and upon the self. Everyone who is poor has only themselves to blame. This then leads to further STS behaviour and further shutting out of the TRUE REALITY that poverty, and evil, exists.
NORDIC HEALER
Jedi
The dark side of "The Secret"
I have been wondering if I should reveal an Orpah story that I have and finally decided to put it out there. Draw your own conclusions.
I work as an actor occasionally (when I can get jobs LOL) and happened to get a small part in her movie "Before Women Had Wings" which was specifically made for TV. The movie was made in 1997 in Ojai CA.
After I got the part I along with others were "debriefed" so to speak about what constituted proper behavior and etiquette around Ms Oprah. We were all told to NEVER approach her for Anything, or to try and speak Personally with her for Any reason, unless she first approached us. That was emphasized over and over again in a lecture like manner, as if it was our first day in middle school. It was explained very, very clearly that she was one of the Biggest most Refulgent STARS in the world and needed to be treated with the respect and reverence suited to someone of that Immense Importance. We were told if we did not observe these rules to the letter we would be immediately thrown off the set and be replaced with someone else waiting on a backup list.
One day on the movie set during lunch hour, when everyone was in a pretty convivial and light hearted mood, many people being present from both the caste and crew... out of the blue Oprah "slapped" a man across the face so hard it could have knocked him down. Everyone stopped talking needless to say. No one was sure what happened...it was so sudden. Everyone was Shocked and Stunned. It was a very awkward moment, no one knew quite what to do next. Gradually the talking resumed in nervous, low tones.
I understand that anyone can get angry, but a high profile public figure that is a "Role Model" for 100's of millions of people, which Oprah is, probably should not be expressing publicly anger of that magnitude. I don't know what the man had said to her which she considered so offensive that it required physical violence, but, I think she should have probably contained herself and worked things out with him in a more private setting.
I have been wondering if I should reveal an Orpah story that I have and finally decided to put it out there. Draw your own conclusions.
I work as an actor occasionally (when I can get jobs LOL) and happened to get a small part in her movie "Before Women Had Wings" which was specifically made for TV. The movie was made in 1997 in Ojai CA.
After I got the part I along with others were "debriefed" so to speak about what constituted proper behavior and etiquette around Ms Oprah. We were all told to NEVER approach her for Anything, or to try and speak Personally with her for Any reason, unless she first approached us. That was emphasized over and over again in a lecture like manner, as if it was our first day in middle school. It was explained very, very clearly that she was one of the Biggest most Refulgent STARS in the world and needed to be treated with the respect and reverence suited to someone of that Immense Importance. We were told if we did not observe these rules to the letter we would be immediately thrown off the set and be replaced with someone else waiting on a backup list.
One day on the movie set during lunch hour, when everyone was in a pretty convivial and light hearted mood, many people being present from both the caste and crew... out of the blue Oprah "slapped" a man across the face so hard it could have knocked him down. Everyone stopped talking needless to say. No one was sure what happened...it was so sudden. Everyone was Shocked and Stunned. It was a very awkward moment, no one knew quite what to do next. Gradually the talking resumed in nervous, low tones.
I understand that anyone can get angry, but a high profile public figure that is a "Role Model" for 100's of millions of people, which Oprah is, probably should not be expressing publicly anger of that magnitude. I don't know what the man had said to her which she considered so offensive that it required physical violence, but, I think she should have probably contained herself and worked things out with him in a more private setting.
D
dhess31
Guest
The dark side of "The Secret"
Really, these ideas about Ponerology are REALLY worrying those in power. If you do some research on the author you'll see how much his work was/is suppressed.
So, they just slip crap like the above in to take the focus off of the psychopaths and give everyone a "distraction".
Don
Yeah, this is a dangerous idea I think. Look how they slip this in to try and mitigate the effects of research on Ponerology. There are no psychopaths! They just have "the Secret".Third_Density_Resident said:
Really, these ideas about Ponerology are REALLY worrying those in power. If you do some research on the author you'll see how much his work was/is suppressed.
So, they just slip crap like the above in to take the focus off of the psychopaths and give everyone a "distraction".
Don
mudrabbit
Jedi Master
The dark side of "The Secret"
Wilecoyote wrote:
snipped:
There seems to be a trend:
Powerful Ethnic minority woman (or any woman) = no children = no committed relationship. (feel free to modify my equation).
I don't mean to offend anyone, but why is it that many powerful women portrayed in the media aren't mothers, therefore having a more nurturing/motherly approach?
Hi All,
What with the population reduction issue, perhaps a childless, powerful woman is what the PTB want our girls to aspire to.
Peg
Wilecoyote wrote:
snipped:
There seems to be a trend:
Powerful Ethnic minority woman (or any woman) = no children = no committed relationship. (feel free to modify my equation).
I don't mean to offend anyone, but why is it that many powerful women portrayed in the media aren't mothers, therefore having a more nurturing/motherly approach?
Hi All,
What with the population reduction issue, perhaps a childless, powerful woman is what the PTB want our girls to aspire to.
Peg
JGeropoulas
The Living Force
The dark side of "The Secret"
I think you're being way too generous. There are few things that would justify slapping someone, especially in public. Any offense capable of evoking such a violent reaction, should've also evoked a scathing rebuke from Oprah--which would've left little mystery for bystanders, as to the nature of the offense.
To me, for a person to be angry enough to slap someone's face, yet composed enough to remain quiet, sounds rather psychopathic. Of course, "The Oprah" may just be a garden-variety narcissist enamored with her own reflection in all the glazed-over eyes adoring her.
Speaking of which, this all reminds me of a skit I saw on Saturday Night Live 10 years ago. The setting for the skit was an Egyptian palace and all the servants were excitedly squealing, "The Oprah's coming! The Oprah's coming!" Then, sure enough, "The Oprah" makes her entrance, decadently eating grapes while reclining regally on a platform being carried on the shoulders of 6 slaves!
"...should have probably contained herself"?NORDIC HEALER said:
I think you're being way too generous. There are few things that would justify slapping someone, especially in public. Any offense capable of evoking such a violent reaction, should've also evoked a scathing rebuke from Oprah--which would've left little mystery for bystanders, as to the nature of the offense.
To me, for a person to be angry enough to slap someone's face, yet composed enough to remain quiet, sounds rather psychopathic. Of course, "The Oprah" may just be a garden-variety narcissist enamored with her own reflection in all the glazed-over eyes adoring her.
Speaking of which, this all reminds me of a skit I saw on Saturday Night Live 10 years ago. The setting for the skit was an Egyptian palace and all the servants were excitedly squealing, "The Oprah's coming! The Oprah's coming!" Then, sure enough, "The Oprah" makes her entrance, decadently eating grapes while reclining regally on a platform being carried on the shoulders of 6 slaves!
