Stuart Goldman is an author and journalist whose work has been wide-ranging and had quite a bit of impact. But Goldman is also a columnist for the WND, and a thoroughly silly one at that. Goldman is very paranoid about the works of demons and black magic, which he tends to see … a lot of places – America is under attack by them, everywhere and at all levels. For instance, in 2014, he concluded that Isla Vista, California, is infested with demons (“[C]an I make a case here for my statement that the little beach own of Isla Vista is, in fact, infested by demons? I think I can”) and that crime, including murder, occuring in the area is a result of the city’s “occultism” and “aura of evil that seems to fill the air so thick that I literally become sick to my stomach.” Another example is the popularity of stories about UFOs and alien abductions:
“... the unpleasant fact is, 50,000 people can not be lying. Something is here – probing people, inspecting them, and planting thoughts in their minds, manipulating their bodies –treating them, in a sense, like so many cattle. Is it all simply a gigantic cosmic joke, or is there a more sinister plot at hand? Are we seeing the formation of a new and highly destructive cult, one whose view posits the elimination (the New Agers call it ‘spiritual cleansing’ of people who are ‘unfit’ to exist in the coming New World? Are there really demonic entities hovering about, searching for likely candidates whose brains and minds they can invade, filling them full of fairy tales and lies – fattening them for the kill?”
But yeah, Goldman is in particular concerned with New Agers (so are we, but for different reasons) and Wiccans, and he has some … outrĂ© ideas about what such people believe and desire. As evidence for his claims, he cites more or less relevant passages from the Bible. So it goes.
Diagnosis: You can find plenty of examples of Goldman’s claims and obsessions in the WND archives, but we sort of recommend against it. Otherwise, he must be pretty old by now (there are no recents columns). Hopefully retired.
I have never heard of this loon before. You do have a lot of obscure ones on your site! Any loons that you would update?
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of them that could do with serious updates, I suppose, especially among the old ones (like RFK jr.); others, like Keith Raniere or Doug Wilson, seem to have been relatively less famous when we covered them than they are today and could have used more substantial entries. I am unsure we will have time to do new entries, though, given the abundance of loons yet to cover.
Delete"Hopefully retired"
ReplyDeleteYes, and before that hopelessly retarded đŸ˜‚
No. That's really not OK.
DeleteStuart Goldman and his ilk aren't "retarded." You don't get to push them off onto the "retarded" and pretend that "normal" people like you can't be loons and that they have nothing to do with you. Stuart Goldman and those like him and their activities are 100% on you Normies.
And using that slur as a cheap insult perpetuates and reinforces the long standing and systemic stigmatization, marginalization, and Othering of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. You're contributing to the dehumanization of innocent people who have NOTHING to do with the target of your ire.
Stuart Goldman has a history of saying and doing some pretty ridiculous things. That doesn't make him "retarded". That makes him ridiculous. So ridicule *him*.
Having spent 17 years of my professional life supporting adults with intellectual disabilities, I'm with gdave on this. It is no longer socially acceptable to use "retarded" as an insult, any more than racial slurs are still OK.
Delete"makes him ridiculous"
DeleteJust be careful that one day someone won't forbid you from using the word "ridiculous" for the person you're criticizing. I don't think that time is that far away in 'Murica.
If you in America, continue to outlaw all the words you don't like, you risk being left without a language. The current world you live in is Orwellian. And it shows at every turn. Obviously.
What an utterly ridiculous reply. No one is "outlawing" anything. (And just by the way, it's mainly European countries which have actual laws against "hate speech"). No one is "forbidding" you from using any words.
DeleteYou left a public comment using a nasty slur. I responded with a public comment criticizing that. That's the way public discourse is supposed to work. Public criticism of something is NOT equivalent to "outlawing" or "forbidding" it.
And if someone publicly criticized my use of the word "ridiculous" or "ridicule", with reasons why they objected to the use of those words in that context, I'd consider what they had to say. I wouldn't just reflexively reject the criticism because "Orwellian".
And the slippery slope works both ways. Are all slurs OK in all contexts? Would it be OK if I referred to grifters featured on this blog by commenting, "What a Jew!"? Would it be OK if I referred to Black American Loons as "uppity, dumb niggers?" And if I received criticism for using those slurs, would the proper response be for me to brush aside those criticisms as "Orwellian" and claim that such criticism is forbidding me from using those words and outlawing them?
You didn't have to write a whole essay. You could have just said, "No matter what you think or write, I forbid you from using that word. And not just that one, but any word that I personally don't like."
DeleteBe more concise next time.
Cheers!
NightTrain...
DeleteI had an aunt, my mom's sister, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia in elementary school. She lived with my grandparents on the next street, until they died (2002 & 2003). When they left, she moved in with my mom and me. And she lived with us until 2017 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. We've been through a lot with her, just like she's been through a lot with us, of course. There have been good times and bad times. And I know firsthand what you're talking about.
So, while you only met people like that in your work, I lived with someone like that day and night. Which, you have to admit, is very different. And when she was dying of cancer, I was the one who sat by her bedside for four days and nights. So, I don't need to be lectured about these things.
(Of course, you couldn't have known this, but now you do. So keep that in mind in the future)
Julian Frankowski,
DeleteYou continue with utterly ridiculous comments. No one is "forbidding" you from writing anything.
And it's not a matter of a "word I don't like". You are using "retarded" as a nasty, hateful slur. And that happens to be a slur that was frequently used to bully me personally as I was growing up. And it wasn't simply "name calling." It was used a credible threat of imminent physical violence.
(Of course, you couldn't have known this, but now you do. So keep that in mind in the future.)
As to your aunt, you and your family have my sympathy.
But in describing your experience, you continue with your Orwellian Newspeak, where words mean whatever you want them to mean in support of your attempts to score imaginary internet points.
Schizophrenia is not the same thing as retardation. Not even remotely. It's also not an intellectual disability. So, no, you haven't lived with someone "like that." And, again, you and your family have my sympathy, but the fact that she died of cancer has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Making that claim is a transparently cheap and intellectually dishonest ploy on your part to score imaginary internet points.
And, by the way, I will absolutely write "essays" in response to bigoted, nasty, and ignorant comments as I wish, regardless of you forbidding me to do so.
That said, it's clear to me at this point that nothing useful is likely to come out of any further response to you, so I'll be leaving it at that, and will not be responding you any more.
Cheers!
"to score imaginary internet points."
Delete"to score imaginary internet points"
You said this twice. Why, I wonder? Are you obsessed with scoring internet points? You obviously are, and then you project it onto others, and in this case onto me. That was never my intention, not just here but anywhere on the internet or in RL. I write to learn something, to contrast my opinion with someone else's. (I learned something from you too. Namely, I learned how not to respond and how not to get into a conflict headlong). If I had intended to "score internet points," I would have written essays like you.
****
"and will not be responding to you any more."
Very good. Now stick to what you said and don't fall into temptation. Cheers! (One more time for the end.. if it is the end.. Because anything can be expected of you. BTW, work on your spelling)
(I forgot. I hope the word "loon" can still be used. And that oversensitive Orwellian wokers won't be bothered by that word and try to stigmatize it too. Otherwise, there is a risk that we will be left without a very informative blog)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete