Waco

Rolling Stone has long been a rag not worth the paper it’s printed on. But I found this article that asks an interesting question:



—



This article mentioned the 2016 documentary, Holy Hell, written about the West Hollywood cult, Buddhafield (never heard of it).

A couple problems regarding any such debunking. These are often produced by (as with this one) someone who fell out with, or got out, of a cult. Disillusionment is not a bad thing in regards to cults. And you’d think they’d have a good perspective, and I think they often do. But I don’t think the fish ever really see the water they were swimming in. For example, how many of these enlightened debunkers are willing to call the Environmental movement or Progressivism a cult? I think in regards to mind and emotion control, they both fit. And the Democrat Party, for the most part, is the governing structure (with The New York Times, as Dennis Prager says, their holy texts).

So, anyway, what is and is not a “cult” is a big subject. We know from our present experience that if you reject the dominant cult (Progressivism) you are considered a kook…or very well a member of some weird anti-government cult of wackos.

To the point is the author, who quoted Adam Szetela, “Throughout history and across the world, pockets of people have organized because their desires were not accessible through dominant cultural, economic and social models.” That’s what we are doing here. I know of no other internet site I would ever want to be a part of. Normalcy and truth, by and large, are not accessible through the dominant culture other than by creating a pocket. Your thoughts?

Personally, I stay with the Marx philosophy, Gracho not Karl. I don't want to be a part of any group that wants me in it.

In the early days of Facebook, I had someone explain it to me in detail, showing me all the different things that people could do with it. I didn't quite understand everything he tried to explain, perhaps because the thing was so foreign to my way of thinking. My response was basically two-fold, 1)Why would anyone want to have so much personal information out their? 2) If you really want to stay in touch with someone, why don't you go see them or pick up the phone and talk?

Since then I have given the thing little thought. It made little sense to me then, it makes less now. 

If you want a gruesome double-feature, Amazon Prime Video has an “Amazon Original” about Ted Bundy: Ted Bundy Falling for a Killer

Despite Bundy having connections on the Left Coast, I didn’t follow this story at the time any more than the later O.J. story. Most of the details were new to me.

This is a bit of a feminist presentation. It’s comprised mainly of interviews from women. But out of the blue they’d interview this female cop who was connected to the case and you’d get a long rambling account on how things were stacked against women.

But because Bundy beat up, raped, mutilated, and killed a lot of women, this is an appropriate place for a little man-hating. The odd part is that you see this whole thing through the eyes of women. They keep bemoaning the fact that women are the nurturers, they’re kind, they just want to help people, and Ted Bundy preyed on this.

The unstated conclusion from some of these man-hating feminists seems to be that women should be cold, distant, and self-centered if they want to make it in the world. And who can say that many have not succeeded at this? How else could you get women (the natural nurturers) to be strident for killing their unborn?

Also, you (at least I) get the impression that there would be no justice in the world if women ran the world. Not once in this series did anyone use the word, “evil,” to describe Ted Bundy. Most just referred to him as having some kind of illness. And when it came time for the death penalty, despite what Bundy had done to so many women, nearly all of them interviewed in this said they were against the death penalty.

But there was one stout woman who was a friend of one of the women who was murdered. She also may have escaped him. Several did, and there were so many women in this, I tended to forget who was who. But she was very much relieved that Ted Bundy had been executed. One of the women there had the lame line of, “It’s just another mother losing a son.” But the woman sitting next to her in the interview was honest enough to admit that her husband would have cut his balls off if he could have got his hands on him.

At the end of the day, the series is information-filled but shallow. We learn nothing about what might have turned Bundy into a monster. It can be no coincidence that Bundy’s hunting ground tended to be college campus. Is that not where you will find the most gullible women? Anyone can be conned by an honest-looking face into a dangerous situation. But there was no talk in this series (despite the man-hating, which I admit is justified in this case) of the problem of women not being on guard.

Even today, women are told that they have every right to walk down a dark alley in the most provocative clothes. And indeed they do. But is that a smart thing to do? I was left with the general impression that had more women been taught to be more careful and use common sense, Bundy would not have found it so easy to prey on them. But it is indeed a terrible tragedy that he was able to in such perverse abundance.