Often when we read study history or listen to lectures, we find that there are certain pieces of information "colored" by rhetoric, skewed by bias or fractured by lack of recording skills. This is the case for Julius Cesar's writings about the Druids, whom may or may not have performed human sacrifices.
It's the same for modern occurrences as well. I have been in my share of spats on YT. Some were cordial, like my disagreements with EClovesanimals as well as many videos directed back and forth from one religious point of view to the next. There were some that got ugly.
The viewpoint of the individual on this history is different. I know what happened in my mind because it happened to me. It's history without hearsay. But for others who weren't directly involved or hear about it after the fact, the stained glass window metaphor applies. All people unfortunately have prejudices, especially against other religions. Out of respect for the past, I usually keep what's in the past, the past. I see no need to drudge up painful memories and opt to look forward. Some, however, just aren't built that way. It's not for me to criticize them until they step into my history.
Recently a youtube user criticized me for my defense against Shamanshadow. For those who don't know-and I tell you the Goddess honest truth-Shamanshadow was a Pagan-a family tradition witch-with leanings on folk magick and native american beliefs also, to my knowledge, he is involved with the Catholic church. In addition, he hunts Big Foot with a concoction made from menstrual blood and on more than one occasion, has filmed himself cursing people for which he had no personal connection. He had spoke of a troubled childhood including abuse and neglect. Shamanshadow also had a problem with Wiccans. Among other things, he called Wiccans the "McDonalds" religion of Paganism, he also referred to us as NAZI's and claimed we were trying to impose a new world order on all witches.
Obviously, this bothered me and I responded, at first cordially, in a text comment. At which he said some nasty things, called me little girl, and called me stupid and then blocked me. He said I can't be trusted because I'm "one of them." This irked me. He then made a very demeaning video saying that Wiccans were trying to take over and that we "stole" our beliefs from his family tradition.
Obviously I took offense to this and responded with a video, which may have had a sacrastic tone, but wasn't nearly as insulting. I explained a bit about Wicca's history and that just because two belief systems have a lot in common doesn't mean they have to be rivals. He was obviously upset that Wicca had become so popular and that his own tradition had not become mainstream or anything close to mainstream.
Many other Wiccans and Pagans saw my video and were also outraged at the claims that he was making. Shamanshadow had also latched on to the idea that Wiccans were all like Gavin and Yvonne Frost-most Wiccans I know disagree with the Frosts view of Wicca-they wrote a book called "The Good Witch's Bible" which included passages on sexualizing children for rites of passage. This is vile and I am abhorred that someone would claim to be Wiccan and write such garbage. This doesn't mean that I adhere to it. Shamanshadow claimed that the Frosts were the end all be all of American based Wicca and that any and all traditions in the US started with them.
So obviously, many people were upset by this. He got alot of responses independant from my own. Because I was one of the first, and of course, one of the largest accts on YT to disagree with him. He had then designated me as some sort of leader within this movement. I was not directing people to make videos or instructing people to include information. We did however chat together and many people, myself included, discussed how ridiculous his claims were and proof that debunked them. This is natural of course as many people in the YT community disagreed with him.
Shamanshadow had a few supporters, but not many. Mainly people who were also wary of Wicca but some who just respected Shamanshadow. He had told people that he was the victim and that he was just stating his beliefs and that I was attacking them. I told him that it wasn't a question of his beliefs, but his hate speech. And his lies about Wicca. I could care less what his religious beliefs were.
I did try to end it peacefully with a debate. 45 Pagans and Pagan Supporters were in that chat room-Shamanshadow was a no show.
It got nasty. Shamanshadow called my friend George a pedophile. He also used many gay slurs to some of my pagan friends from the GLBTQ community. Eventually Shamanshadow got his account suspended for terms of service violations.
I do not regret the videos that my friends made against him. After all-it's not up to me to regret what someone else has done. I don't regret flagging videos that actually do break Youtube's terms of service.
He attemtped to come back a few times and is currently on YT under the account witchenpoo. He hasn't attempted to remake the videos that he's done although he has taken a few personal jabs at me.
A user recently accused me of organizing a front to "shout" shamanshadow off YT. I did no such thing. I applauded videos I agreed with, but I was no ringleader. He said he was "wary" that the group would descend into chaotic drama because of me. I am not, nor have I ever been a drama queen. My position as an outspoken Wiccan will occasionally get me crticized and I have to defend myself, but I do not-with few exceptions-resort to drama. (those exceptions are usually done in good fun without serious intent to harm)
I resented him trying to drudge up the past but then I realized that all this time I have been silent, and on shamanshadow's blog, you can read his version of the events. This stained glass window. Fractured, colored with bias, you can hardly see the truth on the other side.
I hate having to make this blog. The past is the past. And while I have not forgiven shamanshadow for his actions, I also don't think bigots deserve forgiveness without repentance. I look at it this way, if you defend a bigot for his bigotry, you're either unaware of his bigotry, or a bigot yourself. The only exception would be pity-the "he doesn't know any better" defense. I don't think this applies to shamanshadow.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Hypocritical Egotistical Irrational Oneness
It all started when I watched a video by Tannhaus about a Cowboy preaching Oneness. Apparently, he'd gotten bent out of shape with Tannhaus because Tannhaus rejected his insistance that real belief is based on experience and that his experience was that of Oneness.
Tannhaus, who is a Thelemite and believes in Self Love, is on the opposite end of the spectrum favoring self love to selflessness.
In my conversations with the Cowboy ad nauseum, he takes a position that he knows all and that you know nothing. He expects you to completely believe and validate his point of view and discount your own. He's insulting, while claiming the upper hand. In short, he's a hypocrite.
Tannhaus explained that he believes that the philosophy of oneness is the "metaphysics of mediocrity," and that's his right to say so.
The cowboy made a video explaining how upsetting it was that Tannhaus would insult his beliefs. The funny thing was that later in that video, he said he believed Self Love to be selfishness, which perpetrates the same action that Tannhaus did when discounting the belief in Oneness.
I explained this to the Cowboy myself. He ignored my comment and continued to criticize Tannhaus, all the while, claiming he hadn't criticized anyone.
Then the email:
Dear BFW,
I made a video about the need for experience over belief. If you look again you will see that. I did not mention Tannhaus. I also mentioned a young woman who trashed Christianity. Tannhaus said nothing about her as he was too busy protecting his ego. I used those examples to show how belief defends and attacks. And you all proved my point in spades.
Ok, so I have to respond to these parts. First, he didn't make a video about experience over belief, but if he had, I would have pointed out that experience is the predecessor to belief. One must validate their beliefs somehow, right. Would you have a genuine belief if someone just told you the sky was blue, or if you experienced it yourself?
Second, his video was a direct attack on Tannhaus. Just because you don't mention someone's name, doesn't mean it's not an attack video. In fact, it's even more insulting if you don't name the person because it takes away their sense of validation.
Third, the Christian trasher was mentioned as a correlation to Tannhaus' actions. You can't claim you didn't attack someone and then show your evidence for attacking them. This is crazy talk.
"And you all proved my point in spades," You've all? Does he think I'm on some sort of team? Because I was simply pointing out the flaws in his logic. Delusional? I think so. Also, anyone who wants to try and save face will claim that the other side lost by proving their point. The funny thing is, he never mentions just exactly how we proved his point, he just says it. It's an empty statement.
Ironically, he did in fact prove all of my points. #1 That he's a hypocrite. #2 That it's impossible to live and still have universal or total oneness. #3 That he has mental issues.
I have made no personal attacks on anyone, or their beliefs. I just stated my own ideas, which are apparently very threatening to Pagans. I have been met with questions about my mental state, had my life threatened, and been subject to ridicule and hate. Nice Community you hang around in.
As we have already shown, he has made personal attacks on people, namely Tannhaus, me and Amberthinks too. Check the comments on his vid. His own ideas are ideas that I happen to disagree with and instead of accepting that people can disagree, he personally attacks them and plays the martyr. I believe the questions about his mental state, although until this blog and my subsequent video, I'd made no allusion, so I'm not sure why he's telling me that, except to try and make me feel bad for him. He did the same thing to Tannhaus by bringing up his homosexuality, As if being gay, gets you a Get a free Argument Victory. I understand that being gay isn't easy. Neither is being a Witch in a small town. It doesn't mean people can't disagree with you.
I don't believe anyone threatened his life. When he can prove it, I'll believe him. This is something people use to say "Your side has gone over the line, so you should just stop and apologize to me." It's a tactic to get pity and gain the upper hand. This chick and her 159 IQ recognizes patterns quite well. You know who uses this one? Shockawenow. (not saying this guy is shock, but that it's a fake and callous attempt at guilting one's opponent.)
I'm not sure who has ridiculed or hated on him, I've seen none of that, just disagreements. On the other hand, he feels the need to qualify my ideas with the fact that I'm Pagan, regardless of the fact that Tannhaus, Amberthinks and myself have very different paths with different belief systems. We are all grouped together because it's easier that way.
Tannhaus, on his own Website, states that direct experience of divine Knowledge is the goal of a Gnostic Bishop. That's what Gnosis is all about. Yet to me, who has experienced that knowledge and attempted to help him understand that you have to get away from self for that to happen, he says "that sort of metaphysics leads to mediocrity" That's hypocrisy with a capitol H.
Tannhaus never said personal experience wasn't a good thing. He said self love is important. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, personal experience is PART of self love. He then claims he understands that you have to get away from self to attain knowledge. This is the very idea that Tannhaus and I and Amber reject. Because experience is personal and relatable to the individual. The idea that one can't have self love and still attain knowledge is ridiculous. It's like saying that everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Balance is key. Saying that personal experience is attained from absense of self is well, contradictory.
On his website, is a link to the "saints" accepted by the organization he belongs to. Among these is Ramana Maharshi, a teacher of Advaita, which is what I talk about. He is on my Website. Ramana teaches "the sort of metaphysics that leads to mediocrity."
I quote Aleister Crowley on my website. That doesn't mean I adhere to all of his philosophies. The idea that because someone admires someone means that they are in complete agreement is foolish.
Tannhaus does not even know what he is talking about. He is all ego. Only humility and selflessness leads to enlightenment. You, and many of the haters that trashed me are too full of yourselves to see that Oneness can't happen with yourself in the way. Look at his website. Read what's there. Gnostics share my ideas.Do not write again.Peace,
Didn't he claim a few paragraph's ago that he didn't personally attack anyone? How is saying someone is all ego, not a personal attack? "Only humility and selflessness leads to enlightenment." That's an exclusivist attitude and where we disagree. Balance to me leads to enlightenment. Pagans, and free thinkers don't appreciate people who try to indoctrinate or proselytize. Who claim they have the only way. They are usually bullshitters.
I love at the end how he commands me not to write again. How egotistic for someone claiming humility is the answer.
Hypocrite to the max.
Tannhaus, who is a Thelemite and believes in Self Love, is on the opposite end of the spectrum favoring self love to selflessness.
In my conversations with the Cowboy ad nauseum, he takes a position that he knows all and that you know nothing. He expects you to completely believe and validate his point of view and discount your own. He's insulting, while claiming the upper hand. In short, he's a hypocrite.
Tannhaus explained that he believes that the philosophy of oneness is the "metaphysics of mediocrity," and that's his right to say so.
The cowboy made a video explaining how upsetting it was that Tannhaus would insult his beliefs. The funny thing was that later in that video, he said he believed Self Love to be selfishness, which perpetrates the same action that Tannhaus did when discounting the belief in Oneness.
I explained this to the Cowboy myself. He ignored my comment and continued to criticize Tannhaus, all the while, claiming he hadn't criticized anyone.
Then the email:
Dear BFW,
I made a video about the need for experience over belief. If you look again you will see that. I did not mention Tannhaus. I also mentioned a young woman who trashed Christianity. Tannhaus said nothing about her as he was too busy protecting his ego. I used those examples to show how belief defends and attacks. And you all proved my point in spades.
Ok, so I have to respond to these parts. First, he didn't make a video about experience over belief, but if he had, I would have pointed out that experience is the predecessor to belief. One must validate their beliefs somehow, right. Would you have a genuine belief if someone just told you the sky was blue, or if you experienced it yourself?
Second, his video was a direct attack on Tannhaus. Just because you don't mention someone's name, doesn't mean it's not an attack video. In fact, it's even more insulting if you don't name the person because it takes away their sense of validation.
Third, the Christian trasher was mentioned as a correlation to Tannhaus' actions. You can't claim you didn't attack someone and then show your evidence for attacking them. This is crazy talk.
"And you all proved my point in spades," You've all? Does he think I'm on some sort of team? Because I was simply pointing out the flaws in his logic. Delusional? I think so. Also, anyone who wants to try and save face will claim that the other side lost by proving their point. The funny thing is, he never mentions just exactly how we proved his point, he just says it. It's an empty statement.
Ironically, he did in fact prove all of my points. #1 That he's a hypocrite. #2 That it's impossible to live and still have universal or total oneness. #3 That he has mental issues.
I have made no personal attacks on anyone, or their beliefs. I just stated my own ideas, which are apparently very threatening to Pagans. I have been met with questions about my mental state, had my life threatened, and been subject to ridicule and hate. Nice Community you hang around in.
As we have already shown, he has made personal attacks on people, namely Tannhaus, me and Amberthinks too. Check the comments on his vid. His own ideas are ideas that I happen to disagree with and instead of accepting that people can disagree, he personally attacks them and plays the martyr. I believe the questions about his mental state, although until this blog and my subsequent video, I'd made no allusion, so I'm not sure why he's telling me that, except to try and make me feel bad for him. He did the same thing to Tannhaus by bringing up his homosexuality, As if being gay, gets you a Get a free Argument Victory. I understand that being gay isn't easy. Neither is being a Witch in a small town. It doesn't mean people can't disagree with you.
I don't believe anyone threatened his life. When he can prove it, I'll believe him. This is something people use to say "Your side has gone over the line, so you should just stop and apologize to me." It's a tactic to get pity and gain the upper hand. This chick and her 159 IQ recognizes patterns quite well. You know who uses this one? Shockawenow. (not saying this guy is shock, but that it's a fake and callous attempt at guilting one's opponent.)
I'm not sure who has ridiculed or hated on him, I've seen none of that, just disagreements. On the other hand, he feels the need to qualify my ideas with the fact that I'm Pagan, regardless of the fact that Tannhaus, Amberthinks and myself have very different paths with different belief systems. We are all grouped together because it's easier that way.
Tannhaus, on his own Website, states that direct experience of divine Knowledge is the goal of a Gnostic Bishop. That's what Gnosis is all about. Yet to me, who has experienced that knowledge and attempted to help him understand that you have to get away from self for that to happen, he says "that sort of metaphysics leads to mediocrity" That's hypocrisy with a capitol H.
Tannhaus never said personal experience wasn't a good thing. He said self love is important. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, personal experience is PART of self love. He then claims he understands that you have to get away from self to attain knowledge. This is the very idea that Tannhaus and I and Amber reject. Because experience is personal and relatable to the individual. The idea that one can't have self love and still attain knowledge is ridiculous. It's like saying that everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Balance is key. Saying that personal experience is attained from absense of self is well, contradictory.
On his website, is a link to the "saints" accepted by the organization he belongs to. Among these is Ramana Maharshi, a teacher of Advaita, which is what I talk about. He is on my Website. Ramana teaches "the sort of metaphysics that leads to mediocrity."
I quote Aleister Crowley on my website. That doesn't mean I adhere to all of his philosophies. The idea that because someone admires someone means that they are in complete agreement is foolish.
Tannhaus does not even know what he is talking about. He is all ego. Only humility and selflessness leads to enlightenment. You, and many of the haters that trashed me are too full of yourselves to see that Oneness can't happen with yourself in the way. Look at his website. Read what's there. Gnostics share my ideas.Do not write again.Peace,
Didn't he claim a few paragraph's ago that he didn't personally attack anyone? How is saying someone is all ego, not a personal attack? "Only humility and selflessness leads to enlightenment." That's an exclusivist attitude and where we disagree. Balance to me leads to enlightenment. Pagans, and free thinkers don't appreciate people who try to indoctrinate or proselytize. Who claim they have the only way. They are usually bullshitters.
I love at the end how he commands me not to write again. How egotistic for someone claiming humility is the answer.
Hypocrite to the max.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
