religious bias

religious bias

Shane Jensen (guest) 16 Jan 2011 21:13

Thanks to those who responded to my concerns re the cultural politics tacitly espoused on this site. I’m guessing from the partial answers that there’s no point asking questions pertaining to anything beyond the scope of what 2012hoax.org claims to be doing. This site is apparently all about debunking – nothing more, nothing less. So if this is the case (and returning to Hand Clow’s bio), what does Hand Clow’s alleged promotion of ‘the Goddess Religion’ have to do with anything? Or, to stick to this site’s stated agenda, just what does ‘the Goddess Religion’ have to do with 2012 or ‘doomsday’? Why would 2012hoax.org object to the notion of ‘the Divine Feminine’?

Moo (guest) 16 Jan 2011 21:15

I don't know, or care, but I always hoped God was really a Goddess.

Would explain why she's so useless!

"BOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Okay, okay. Bad joke.

No, seriously. Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm taking this with a grain of salt. You should, too.

Re: religious bias

Astrogeek 16 Jan 2011 23:16

Clow's biographical information is given as a background to her claims regarding 2012, and not as an argument against her position.
It is relevant to her claims in that it helps the reader understand her position, but does not necessarily pass judgement on her claims.

An example would be that Clow speaks about "dimensions", and examining her background we find that she is an astrologer, not a physicist. Therefore her use of the word may be used in a different sense.

The people who contribute to this site come from many different backgrounds and point of view, so trying to read between the lines will most likely only confuse you. The primary author of the Clow page has a very different viewpoint on several things than I do, but I asked her to research and write about Clow, and she did a very good job.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Shane Jensen (guest) 18 Jan 2011 01:25

Thanks for your considered response. I wasn’t attempting to read between the lines but, rather, noticing certain similarities between the bios of Hand Clow and Argüelles. I disagree that the biographical information given helps the reader understand Hand Clow’s position, as simplistic categorising can get in the way of understanding. But if the reader were enabled to understand Hand Clow’s position, I suspect her ideas, however wild they may be, would not inspire fear in any sensible person. And while the facts that have been selected and juxtaposed reflect a certain kind of subjective viewpoint, the first part of the conclusion, concerning Clow’s channellings, is objectively incorrect.

TheGreatJuju 18 Jan 2011 01:48

I disagree that the biographical information given helps the reader understand Hand Clow’s position, as simplistic categorising can get in the way of understanding.

You're free to disagree, but your mere disagreement does not address Astrogeek's point that Hand Clow uses terminology that requires qualification outside the common physical science context (e.g. "dimensions").

And while the facts that have been selected and juxtaposed reflect a certain kind of subjective viewpoint

Assertion. Are the facts wrong?

…the first part of the conclusion, concerning Clow’s channellings, is objectively incorrect.

"Barbara Hand Clow is a derivative writer who takes other people’s ideas, and then adds her own twist. In 1995, the Pleiadians were focused on violence in society and not 2012. Only after knowing Arguelles, Calleman, and Jenkins, did she change her channelings."

Does Hand Clow not absorb the ideas of others and change them to suit her own ends? This is explained in some detail in the article and is, in fact, a rather major point therein.

Did the "Pleiadians" allegedly communicate with Hand Clow circa 1995 or before about 2012?

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 18 Jan 2011 01:51 by TheGreatJuju Show more

Shane Jensen (guest) 19 Jan 2011 05:17

‘Barbara Hand Clow is a derivative writer who takes other people’s ideas, and then adds her own twist.’ Hand Clow has published two groundbreaking astrological texts (1987, 1991) & a trilogy of many & diverse visionary journeys accessed via hypnosis (1986, 1989, 1992). She takes other people’s ideas, supports & promotes them, & meanwhile explores & seeks to understand them on her own terms, often arriving at highly original syntheses.

‘Her channelings reflect this.’ Her channellings reflect whatever she’s researching at the time, as anyone who bothers to read them will realise.

‘In 1995, the Pleiadians were focused on violence in society and not 2012.’ If you read The Pleiaidian Agenda (1995) you’ll find that the whole first chapter, for starters, is focused on 2012.

‘Only after knowing Arguelles, Calleman, and Jenkins, did she change her channelings.’ Hand Clow enabled the publication of Argüelles’ book The Mayan Factor (1987). She was involved in a massive cultural movement that embraced his work. Her channellings have changed continuously & reflect many influences besides these three.

If you can’t get your facts on your scapegoats straight, how can you expect anyone with powers of independent thought to believe what you believe about the big picture for 2012 etc.? It would be simple enough to debunk Hand Clow on logical grounds (i.e., without making yourselves look like insecure control freaks), but it seems that no-one here is serious enough about what they’re purportedly doing.

ThreeFangCat 19 Jan 2011 06:31

I'm not very well versed on Clow, but reading your post's first paragraph, I felt I needed to mention something. The description of her you wrote, and the one from the 2012hoax bio, don't really stand that far apart. It's really just the more positive and less positive way of saying basically the same thing. I'm terribly underwhelmed with your need to debate this sort of thing.

However, trying to spin this into a broad argument that this website doesn't understand the big picture of 2012 is invalid. Even if you were right, and the bio on Clow was not fully accurate, that does not undercut the astronomical arguments put for here in any way. It was kinda cheap of you to even try to link them in this fashion.

TheGreatJuju 19 Jan 2011 13:29

Shane Jensen, so your entire motivation for posting needling, passive-aggressive mini-commentaries disguised as questions on this website, comes down to the very subjective matter of editorial preference. You would have worded things differently, because you quite obviously have a bias toward promoting Hand Clow, as opposed to being critical, so you attack us as though there is something objectively wrong with the text. Unsurprisingly, despite your very determined whining and hand-waving, you are able to identify not a single factual error in the 2012Hoax article on the charlatan Barbara Hand Clow.

If you can’t get your facts on your scapegoats straight…

Where are these factual errors you speak of? You've had every opportunity to reveal them….

…how can you expect anyone with powers of independent thought to believe what you believe about the big picture for 2012 etc.?

I think most of the regular contributors here would agree that we don't want anyone to "believe" anything just because we do.

It would be simple enough to debunk Hand Clow on logical grounds

You haven't shown that there is anything illogical in the Hand Clow text. You've simply sobbed and thrown a tantrum because it isn't worded as you would have worded it.

(i.e., without making yourselves look like insecure control freaks),

Interestingly enough, it is you who has shown up on this board, posted a persistent string of passive-aggressive bulshytt, and generally put forth the image of an "insecure control [freak]." Project much?

but it seems that no-one here is serious enough about what they’re purportedly doing.

If that is what you believe, then you're welcome to actually point out factual errors on this website, as opposed to whining because things are written differently than you would have chosen to write them.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 19 Jan 2011 13:33 by TheGreatJuju Show more

bikenbeer2000 19 Jan 2011 13:39

Hand Clow enabled the publication of Argüelles’ book The Mayan Factor (1987). She was involved in a massive cultural movement that embraced his work.

You mean a tiny fringe movement of new-agers, unnoticed by virtually everybody else.

I think you've lost your sense of perspective.

Re: religious bias

TheGreatJuju 17 Jan 2011 01:16

Shane Jensen, if you have an agenda, maybe you should just come out with it, instead of posting these needling, passive-aggressive commentaries disguised as questions.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Shane Jensen (guest) 18 Jan 2011 01:28

To know what my ‘commentaries’ look like, you’d need to visit my blog. Re my questions, I found this site while researching (as a writer) what sorts of Mayan calendar stories are circulating in cyberspace. As others regularly consult me for my opinion re what’s likely to happen – or not – in 2011–12 etc., I make a point of passing on any relevant links. So I’ve been trying to ascertain to what extent logic applies re this site’s content & policies.

TheGreatJuju 18 Jan 2011 01:39

To know what my ‘commentaries’ look like, you’d need to visit my blog. Re my questions, I found this site while researching (as a writer) what sorts of Mayan calendar stories are circulating in cyberspace. As others regularly consult me for my opinion re what’s likely to happen – or not – in 2011–12 etc., I make a point of passing on any relevant links. So I’ve been trying to ascertain to what extent logic applies re this site’s content & policies.

Then perhaps you should make a single post with all of your questions/concerns, in a clear and concise format, instead of posting these needling, passive-aggressive [mini-]commentaries disguised as questions.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

elsgeorge 18 Jan 2011 01:40

Ahhh, right, we need to go read his blog!!

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Shane Jensen (guest) 18 Jan 2011 21:06

If what they say about assuming is true, this groupie is an ass x2.

Re: religious bias

snorks 18 Jan 2011 12:19

Since you have been harping on Hand Clow in various places, what in particular is the problem? Are you a supporter of her?
The Goddess Religion is not the problem. O.K.

What is the problem is using 2012 (or in her case 2011) to frighten people to believe in a certain point of view. Why is she promoting 2011? What does she hope to gain from it? More money from her workshops? More books sold? Why is she promoting a particular point of view? Is she desiring that we know about the Goddess? Also, she does have a particular political point of view that she is promoting. Fine, but why tie that to 2012? In short why the focus that she has on 2012 and what she hopes to achieve from it?

What do you hope to gain from discussing this with us? What do you want us to say about her? That she is correct on 2011 and we should listen to her?

I for one have read all of her books and all of her channelings. So what is your point?

Shane Jensen (guest) 20 Jan 2011 21:10

I mentioned Hand Clow because I’m familiar with her work, so the errors were obvious to me (e.g., ‘In 1995, the Pleiadians were focused on violence in society and not 2012.’). Is it possible that anyone could really be frightened by what she talks or writes about? I find this hard to believe. But I think it’s simple enough to demystify new-agespeak and point out contradictions etc. without resorting to calling Hand Clow a hoaxer. If you see only scams when you look at people with good intentions but different values to yours, then aren’t you contributing to a fearful atmosphere?

You are of course free to say what you like about Hand Clow or anyone else! As for your having read all of her channellings, I’d assume that a lot of them haven’t even been transcribed, let alone published. I don’t think she’s correct about a lot of stuff, but at least she’s imaginative and cares deeply about the natural environment.

As for what I’ve gained from discussions on this site, I’ve learned something about copyright law and had a few good belly laughs and that’s about it.

TheGreatJuju 20 Jan 2011 22:12

so the errors were obvious to me (e.g., ‘In 1995, the Pleiadians were focused on violence in society and not 2012.’).

Yet you can't identify any errors. Like so many other woo promoters who take it upon themselves to post here, you confuse the repetition of claims with defending them.

But I think it’s simple enough to demystify new-agespeak and point out contradictions etc. without resorting to calling Hand Clow a hoaxer.

Not conforming to you opinion != factually incorrect.

As for what I’ve gained from discussions on this site, I’ve learned something about copyright law and had a few good belly laughs and that’s about it.

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, because I suspect everyone else here has laughed at you also.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

snorks 21 Jan 2011 15:41

Oh don't be so prissy. You know what I meant by reading her channellings…. the published books the same ones as you, smarty.

Personally, I have nothing against the woman, just in the context of 2012, she is a hoax.