Why do some people just have to put others down?

casualtiger2 said:As if ideology isn't the biggest thing for the right wing?!
Look, here in the US, the Democratic Party has been a major political player for decades, and I don't see the country falling apart.
What's with this constant obsession with mentioning the left, progressives, and atheists?
Do you have some kind of utopian vision in mind involving conservatives and religious folks?

I'm staying out of the commentary on American politics since I only know it superficially—but if it's anything like what we see in Mexico, then talking about leftists or socialists is just absurd.

Of course they are. Honestly, the leftists and the right-wingers are practically two sides of the same coin, and that’s exactly where they trip up. They both suffer from this total inability to grasp that neither side holds a monopoly on the truth—there is no such thing as a single "correct" path.

What exactly do you mean by constantly bringing up the leftists, the progressives, and the atheists?

By that logic, if we’re going by the textbook definition of what being a leftist actually means, they should all technically be considered "progressives."
I honestly don't see anything "progressive" about this. There is nothing forward-thinking about the way they are mocking, belittling, and essentially using the media to tear down Dr. Željka Markić—a mother of four and a dedicated community activist—simply because she identifies as a conservative Catholic.

I really meant to get back to you and Joseph Bailey41—our resident "experts"—about this a couple of months ago, but life simply got in the way and I never found the moment.
To be honest, I can't quite remember which specific thread this was on—searching for it right now just feels like too much effort—but I’ll try to get the gist of what I meant across:

You and she have always been staunch advocates for women’s rights and their status in society, consistently calling out that outdated, chauvinistic mindset held by many men in this country—a mentality that, unfortunately, still lingers quite heavily here in America.
If I understood you correctly, your main argument was that women are doing just fine, while men are actually the ones struggling—and that women aren't being oppressed or pushed around in this country nearly as much as people claim.

That all sounds wonderful and honestly, a solid ten out of ten. I actually wanted to pick your brain about something earlier, but I just didn't get a chance—so the timing of this post is perfect!

So, I wanted to get your take on something: why does the progressive left seem to have this specific mindset—almost like an aggressive, old-school mentality—where they just relentlessly tear into Dr. Željka Markić through the media?
I usually try to stay out of the political fray—it’s just not my thing—but this isn't even really about politics anymore. It’s more about basic decency and, quite frankly, destiny. WOMEN It seems like, from the perspective of the "progressives," her biggest flaws in life are simply being Catholic and having been the one to organize that referendum.

It’s funny how things work—whenever Dr. Željko Markić is being put through the wringer, you suddenly notice that Tomić, Klauški, casualtiger2, and Joseph Bailey41 all go completely silent. 😉

I’ll just share one little detail that doesn't get talked about enough. Whenever the liberal media outlets cover Dr. Željka Markić, they always seem to pick these specific, unflattering shots. It’s like they go out of their way to find those split-second photos where she isn't smiling or just looks caught at a bad angle. It's a pretty obvious pattern if you look closely.
That’s just one more example of fake news and psychological manipulation playing out on the American public stage.

It’s a similar situation when you look at... A concert pianist. Regarding that fellow Ilčić.
In the media, that’s just what they call him. nedrk . 🙄

If a media outlet decided to swap out "homosexual" for a slur like "faggot" or some other vulgarity, people would immediately scream foul, calling it pure bigotry and low-class gutter journalism.
Whenever Klauški or Tomić bring up Ilčić, they always throw around that "NEET" label—and honestly, it feels like the one thing that defines his entire identity.

Honestly, the sheer hypocrisy of these so-called progressives is just plain nauseating.

Do you have any vision for a better world involving the right-wingers, conservatives, and believers?

Well, I actually do, and I base it on Ken Wilber’s philosophy.
Since nobody is quite foolish enough to be 100% wrong, nor wise enough to be 100% right, the only way forward is the INTEGRAL PATH. That means walking a razor's edge, balancing the tension between what holds true for the right and what holds true for the left.

Essentially, the right advocates for eternal, unchanging, classic values—which is perfectly fine. On the flip side, the left pushes for change and progress, which is also perfectly fine.

True wisdom lies in knowing when something is timeless and shouldn't be touched, but it also means recognizing when we shouldn't force change just for the sake of being "progressive" or to satisfy some thirst for provocation.

The approach you're taking isn't really an "integral" one; in fact, your question already contains its own answer.
You’ve framed this as if being a conservative, a right-winger, or a believer is somehow regressive or "incorrect." It seems our friend casualtiger2 assumes it's common knowledge that the only valid path is to be a leftist.

It’s almost as if you’re implying—and it’s pretty obvious from how you phrased this—that while it's perfectly acceptable to follow a secular progressive ideology, being a Catholic is somehow backwards and unprogressive.

Personally, I disagree. I think it's perfectly okay to be a Catholic (or a Buddhist, or a Muslim), and it's just as okay to be a staunch secular progressive.

That Ken Wilber guy wrote all about the spiral of ascent—you know, spiritual evolution...
The top two levels? They’re basically a literal quantum leap.
A whole different order of things.

hiddenpuma75 said:...WHEN doctor Željko Markić gets humiliated, then Tomić and Klauški and casualtiger2 and Joseph Bailey41 all go silent.

Never heard of this Markicka person in my life—so I can't really weigh in.
Idiots are everywhere; honestly, we could use a few more changes there. I'm guessing you don't react to the endless nonsense pushed by right-wing outlets regarding other people, either.

Regarding the historical global oppression of women—I've laid out about ten arguments now, and I don't recall you giving me a single coherent response, other than clinging to the old-school patriarchal order—man hunts, woman stays home.

hiddenpuma75 said:

Do you have any vision for a better world involving the right-wingers, conservatives, and believers?

Well, I actually do, and I base it on Ken Wilber’s philosophy.
Since nobody is quite foolish enough to be 100% wrong, nor wise enough to be 100% right, the only way forward is the INTEGRAL PATH. That means walking a razor's edge, balancing the tension between what holds true for the right and what holds true for the left.

Essentially, the right advocates for eternal, unchanging, classic values—which is perfectly fine. On the flip side, the left pushes for change and progress, which is also perfectly fine.

True wisdom lies in knowing when something is timeless and shouldn't be touched, but it also means recognizing when we shouldn't force change just for the sake of being "progressive" or to satisfy some thirst for provocation.

The approach you're taking isn't really an "integral" one; in fact, your question already contains its own answer.
You’ve framed this as if being a conservative, a right-winger, or a believer is somehow regressive or "incorrect." It seems our friend casualtiger2 assumes it's common knowledge that the only valid path is to be a leftist.

It’s almost as if you’re implying—and it’s pretty obvious from how you phrased this—that while it's perfectly acceptable to follow a secular progressive ideology, being a Catholic is somehow backwards and unprogressive.

Personally, I disagree. I think it's perfectly okay to be a Catholic (or a Buddhist, or a Muslim), and it's just as okay to be a staunch secular progressive.

This is such naive ideology, even if it looks like a "middle ground" at first glance.
Every society has various groups with numerous—often conflicting—interests.
The wealthy, the poor, farmers, laborers, civil servants, intellectuals, the elderly, the youth, women, men, parents, retirees, professionals... you name it.
The bipolar power split we see in most countries is, in my opinion, schizophrenic and broken. There's always a massive chunk of the population—maybe 20, 30, 40, or even 49% (and probably even more considering voter turnout)—that isn't actually represented in decision-making.
One party steers the ship in one direction for four years, then the opposition takes over and yanks it in the opposite direction.
What would be realistic—much like direct democracy in Switzerland—is having at least 4 or 5 major parties (and maybe 2 or 3 smaller ones) collaborating to share power, finding the best possible compromise for the widest number of citizens. Sure, you can't satisfy everyone at once, but that's the absolute ceiling of what you can expect from democratic politics (though looking at your posts, I get the sense you aren't exactly a fan of democracy either).
So, what's your vision for a happy society?
Maybe something like this exemplary conservative Republican and man of faith— Rick Snyder
Rick Snyder (born August 19, 1958) is an American politician, business executive, venture capitalist, lawyer, and accountant who served as the 48th governor of Michigan from 2011 to 2019. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Flint water crisisFlint water crisis[/url]
Between 6,000 and 12,000 children were exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead.[2] The water supply change was also the cause of an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in the county that killed 12 people and affected another 87.

casualtiger2 said:Never heard of this Markicka person in my life—so I can't really weigh in.
Idiots are everywhere; honestly, we could use a few more changes there. I'm guessing you don't react to the endless nonsense pushed by right-wing outlets regarding other people, either.

Regarding the historical global oppression of women—I've laid out about ten arguments now, and I don't recall you giving me a single coherent response, other than clinging to the old-school patriarchal order—man hunts, woman stays home.

This is such naive ideology, even if it looks like a "middle ground" at first glance.
Every society has various groups with numerous—often conflicting—interests.
The wealthy, the poor, farmers, laborers, civil servants, intellectuals, the elderly, the youth, women, men, parents, retirees, professionals... you name it.
The bipolar power split we see in most countries is, in my opinion, schizophrenic and broken. There's always a massive chunk of the population—maybe 20, 30, 40, or even 49% (and probably even more considering voter turnout)—that isn't actually represented in decision-making.
One party steers the ship in one direction for four years, then the opposition takes over and yanks it in the opposite direction.
What would be realistic—much like direct democracy in Switzerland—is having at least 4 or 5 major parties (and maybe 2 or 3 smaller ones) collaborating to share power, finding the best possible compromise for the widest number of citizens. Sure, you can't satisfy everyone at once, but that's the absolute ceiling of what you can expect from democratic politics (though looking at your posts, I get the sense you aren't exactly a fan of democracy either).
So, what's your vision for a happy society?
Maybe something like this exemplary conservative Republican and man of faith— Rick Snyder
Rick Snyder (born August 19, 1958) is an American politician, business executive, venture capitalist, lawyer, and accountant who served as the 48th governor of Michigan from 2011 to 2019. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Flint water crisisFlint water crisis[/url]
Between 6,000 and 12,000 children were exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead.[2] The water supply change was also the cause of an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in the county that killed 12 people and affected another 87.

Check out this latest "pile-on" by the resident "intellectual hitman for hire," Klauški, as he takes aim at Dr. Željka Markić.

It's funny to watch how Zoran Milanović—now that he's the President—is suddenly preaching the "integral path" 😉 and playing defender for Dr. Željka Markić.

Basically, his argument is that while he might be everything she isn't, she still isn't some kind of enemy of the state. It's almost as if he's saying, "Look, even though I'm a liberal, I can't just surround myself with fellow leftists because I'm the President for EVERY AMERICAN." And since "integral" basically means looking at the whole picture... 😉

hiddenpuma75 said:Of course they are. Honestly, the leftists and the right-wingers are practically two sides of the same coin, and that’s exactly where they trip up. They both suffer from this total inability to grasp that neither side holds a monopoly on the truth—there is no such thing as a single "correct" path.

What exactly do you mean by constantly bringing up the leftists, the progressives, and the atheists?

By that logic, if we’re going by the textbook definition of what being a leftist actually means, they should all technically be considered "progressives."
I honestly don't see anything "progressive" about this. There is nothing forward-thinking about the way they are mocking, belittling, and essentially using the media to tear down Dr. Željka Markić—a mother of four and a dedicated community activist—simply because she identifies as a conservative Catholic.

I really meant to get back to you and Joseph Bailey41—our resident "experts"—about this a couple of months ago, but life simply got in the way and I never found the moment.
To be honest, I can't quite remember which specific thread this was on—searching for it right now just feels like too much effort—but I’ll try to get the gist of what I meant across:

You and she have always been staunch advocates for women’s rights and their status in society, consistently calling out that outdated, chauvinistic mindset held by many men in this country—a mentality that, unfortunately, still lingers quite heavily here in America.
If I understood you correctly, your main argument was that women are doing just fine, while men are actually the ones struggling—and that women aren't being oppressed or pushed around in this country nearly as much as people claim.

That all sounds wonderful and honestly, a solid ten out of ten. I actually wanted to pick your brain about something earlier, but I just didn't get a chance—so the timing of this post is perfect!

So, I wanted to get your take on something: why does the progressive left seem to have this specific mindset—almost like an aggressive, old-school mentality—where they just relentlessly tear into Dr. Željka Markić through the media?
I usually try to stay out of the political fray—it’s just not my thing—but this isn't even really about politics anymore. It’s more about basic decency and, quite frankly, destiny. WOMEN It seems like, from the perspective of the "progressives," her biggest flaws in life are simply being Catholic and having been the one to organize that referendum.

It’s funny how things work—whenever Dr. Željko Markić is being put through the wringer, you suddenly notice that Tomić, Klauški, casualtiger2, and Joseph Bailey41 all go completely silent. 😉

I’ll just share one little detail that doesn't get talked about enough. Whenever the liberal media outlets cover Dr. Željka Markić, they always seem to pick these specific, unflattering shots. It’s like they go out of their way to find those split-second photos where she isn't smiling or just looks caught at a bad angle. It's a pretty obvious pattern if you look closely.
That’s just one more example of fake news and psychological manipulation playing out on the American public stage.

It’s a similar situation when you look at... A concert pianist. Regarding that fellow Ilčić.
In the media, that’s just what they call him. nedrk . 🙄

If a media outlet decided to swap out "homosexual" for a slur like "faggot" or some other vulgarity, people would immediately scream foul, calling it pure bigotry and low-class gutter journalism.
Whenever Klauški or Tomić bring up Ilčić, they always throw around that "NEET" label—and honestly, it feels like the one thing that defines his entire identity.

Honestly, the sheer hypocrisy of these so-called progressives is just plain nauseating.

"Just because"? I wouldn't go that far. The target here isn't her identity, it's her specific views—views that even many conservatives or Catholics wouldn't agree with. (For instance, some conservatives are gay, and some Catholics are just huge dog lovers.) If we follow your logic, we could claim that Franjo Harmon was "media-bullied" by Feral, or that Carlos Castaneda was humiliated by hiddenpuma75, and we could keep going forever.

I get that you probably want to pick a fight right now since you couldn't quite prove your point over the last few months, but I’m honestly not feeling up to it, and even casualtiger2 doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about it either. Maybe give the I Ching a try instead?

ps. (just for those who aren't following along or might be out of the loop)

I am being very DELIBERATE and perhaps a bit tedious when I write DOCTOR Željka Markić, and here is my reasoning.

The liberal media will NEVER use positive descriptors when talking about Željka Markić; you’ll certainly never see them referring to her as, say, DOCTOR Željka Markić.

But whenever there is a story about someone like Mimi Simić, they always make sure to include titles like "author" Mimi Simić or "film critic," and so on.

So, on one hand, we have the agitators Ilčić and Markićka, yet we never actually read about them as

concert pianist Ilčić 🙂

or DOCTOR Željka Markić 😉

These little media nuances are the subtle hallmarks of fake news that my eagle eye catches every single time. 🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:ps. (just for those who aren't following along or might be out of the loop)

I am being very DELIBERATE and perhaps a bit tedious when I write DOCTOR Željka Markić, and here is my reasoning.

The liberal media will NEVER use positive descriptors when talking about Željka Markić; you’ll certainly never see them referring to her as, say, DOCTOR Željka Markić.

But whenever there is a story about someone like Mimi Simić, they always make sure to include titles like "author" Mimi Simić or "film critic," and so on.

So, on one hand, we have the agitators Ilčić and Markićka, yet we never actually read about them as

concert pianist Ilčić 🙂

or DOCTOR Željka Markić 😉

These little media nuances are the subtle hallmarks of fake news that my eagle eye catches every single time. 🙂

Who even cares? The people actually interested in this stuff spend all their time camping out on Politics, not Spirituality.

Joseph Bailey41 said:"Just because"? I wouldn't go that far. The target here isn't her identity, it's her specific views—views that even many conservatives or Catholics wouldn't agree with. (For instance, some conservatives are gay, and some Catholics are just huge dog lovers.) If we follow your logic, we could claim that Franjo Harmon was "media-bullied" by Feral, or that Carlos Castaneda was humiliated by hiddenpuma75, and we could keep going forever.

I get that you probably want to pick a fight right now since you couldn't quite prove your point over the last few months, but I’m honestly not feeling up to it, and even casualtiger2 doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about it either. Maybe give the I Ching a try instead?

I can't quite recall what that was about. Do you have a link, or could you elaborate a bit? 🤔

Joseph Bailey41 said:Who even cares? The people actually interested in this stuff spend all their time camping out on Politics, not Spirituality.

Look, life isn't just one thing—it's multidimensional. Please don't try to force us into your narrow little categories.

As progressives, 🙄 we can certainly explore the intersection of spirituality and the political influence of public figures like Dr. Željka Markić, and specifically discuss why she is being treated the way she is. 🙄

hiddenpuma75 said:I can't quite recall what that was about. Do you have a link, or could you elaborate a bit? 🤔

You mentioned it back in post number 21. Honestly, I don't really keep track of all the little arguments on this forum.

hiddenpuma75 said:Look, life isn't just one thing—it's multidimensional. Please don't try to force us into your narrow little categories.

As progressives, 🙄 we can certainly explore the intersection of spirituality and the political influence of public figures like Dr. Željka Markić, and specifically discuss why she is being treated the way she is. 🙄

Fine, go ahead and write it. Just don't expect me to join the conversation.

Joseph Bailey41 said:"Just because"? I wouldn't go that far. The target here isn't her identity, it's her specific views—views that even many conservatives or Catholics wouldn't agree with. (For instance, some conservatives are gay, and some Catholics are just huge dog lovers.) If we follow your logic, we could claim that Franjo Harmon was "media-bullied" by Feral, or that Carlos Castaneda was humiliated by hiddenpuma75, and we could keep going forever.

I get that you probably want to pick a fight right now since you couldn't quite prove your point over the last few months, but I’m honestly not feeling up to it, and even casualtiger2 doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about it either. Maybe give the I Ching a try instead?

Well, this whole thing is such a mess that we might as well start with him.

It wasn't some peer like Sisyphus or hiddenpuma75 who exposed Castaned; rather, it was his own famous lover and student, Amy Wallace, who pulled the rug out from under him.

Since Amy came across as vulnerable, pathetic, and even "foolish" in that devastating testimony, it actually makes me feel—as someone acting as a juror here—that what she said was the truth.

Amy essentially sacrificed her own dignity just to pass along the truth and serve as a warning about a truly repulsive individual and his bizarre, dangerous cult of followers.

So, all I did was do my part: I bought the book, read it, 🙂 and then shared the ugly, dirty, foul, and slimy reality regarding Carlos Castaneda’s private life, his lies, his cruelty, and his eccentricities with the dreamers back in the States.

The bottom line? Castaneda is a literary genius when it comes to fiction and psychology, but he clearly learned absolutely nothing from his own books because, at his core, he remained a terrible human being.

At the end of the day, real-life practice and lived experience matter far more than theory and fiction, don't you think? 😉

Joseph Bailey41 said:"Just because"? I wouldn't go that far. The target here isn't her identity, it's her specific views—views that even many conservatives or Catholics wouldn't agree with. (For instance, some conservatives are gay, and some Catholics are just huge dog lovers.) If we follow your logic, we could claim that Franjo Harmon was "media-bullied" by Feral, or that Carlos Castaneda was humiliated by hiddenpuma75, and we could keep going forever.

I get that you probably want to pick a fight right now since you couldn't quite prove your point over the last few months, but I’m honestly not feeling up to it, and even casualtiger2 doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about it either. Maybe give the I Ching a try instead?

What exactly are you trying to prove by throwing these exceptions in my face? Please, walk me through the logic here. 🤔

I could easily fire back and say that some gay men are Christians.
But how does that actually serve as an argument?🤔

Sure, men are generally stronger than women, but they aren't stronger than Sandra Perković.
But again, what is the point of that comparison?🤔

I haven't seen any mainstream media outlets mocking leftists just because they happen to be leftists. Nor have I seen people attacking a respected figure like Ilinčić with slurs, just as we don't see people mocking a concert pianist like Ilčić for his appearance.

Look, if it's perfectly normal to be gay and also be a smart, decent person like Ilinčić—and if it's wrong to mock someone based on their sexual orientation—then why isn't it equally normal to have a certain look? Why is it that Klauški, Tomić, and their whole crew feel fine making fun of a brilliant concert pianist like Ilčić just because of how he looks?

That is the essence of a double standard, and I’d appreciate it if you addressed that directly instead of clouding the discussion with these irrelevant outliers, like pointing out whether certain Catholics have beards or not. 🤦

hiddenpuma75 said:Well, this whole thing is such a mess that we might as well start with him.

It wasn't some peer like Sisyphus or hiddenpuma75 who exposed Castaned; rather, it was his own famous lover and student, Amy Wallace, who pulled the rug out from under him.

Since Amy came across as vulnerable, pathetic, and even "foolish" in that devastating testimony, it actually makes me feel—as someone acting as a juror here—that what she said was the truth.

Amy essentially sacrificed her own dignity just to pass along the truth and serve as a warning about a truly repulsive individual and his bizarre, dangerous cult of followers.

So, all I did was do my part: I bought the book, read it, 🙂 and then shared the ugly, dirty, foul, and slimy reality regarding Carlos Castaneda’s private life, his lies, his cruelty, and his eccentricities with the dreamers back in the States.

The bottom line? Castaneda is a literary genius when it comes to fiction and psychology, but he clearly learned absolutely nothing from his own books because, at his core, he remained a terrible human being.

At the end of the day, real-life practice and lived experience matter far more than theory and fiction, don't you think? 😉

In my opinion, she gave up her dignity a long time ago by agreeing to his vague, nonsensical demands in the first place. What do you guys think—why do some people actually go along with being humiliated like that?

hiddenpuma75 said:What exactly are you trying to prove by throwing these exceptions in my face? Please, walk me through the logic here. 🤔

I could easily fire back and say that some gay men are Christians.
But how does that actually serve as an argument?🤔

Sure, men are generally stronger than women, but they aren't stronger than Sandra Perković.
But again, what is the point of that comparison?🤔

I haven't seen any mainstream media outlets mocking leftists just because they happen to be leftists. Nor have I seen people attacking a respected figure like Ilinčić with slurs, just as we don't see people mocking a concert pianist like Ilčić for his appearance.

Look, if it's perfectly normal to be gay and also be a smart, decent person like Ilinčić—and if it's wrong to mock someone based on their sexual orientation—then why isn't it equally normal to have a certain look? Why is it that Klauški, Tomić, and their whole crew feel fine making fun of a brilliant concert pianist like Ilčić just because of how he looks?

That is the essence of a double standard, and I’d appreciate it if you addressed that directly instead of clouding the discussion with these irrelevant outliers, like pointing out whether certain Catholics have beards or not. 🤦

You're the one who kicked up all this dust in the first place. Just give it a moment to settle. 😉

Joseph Bailey41 said:You're the one who kicked up all this dust in the first place. Just give it a moment to settle. 😉

Well, fine then. Since you’re just posting fluff, I guess I’ll toss in something equally trivial just so my word is technically the last one and I can claim I "responded." 😁

==

Now, let's get serious and jump straight into the thick of it.

I’d like to ask the jury to step in here. Could someone please explain to themselves, to me, and to Joseph Bailey41 why the media loves to drag Markić and Ilčić through the mud, yet seems to completely ignore Ilinčić? 😉

It surely isn't because Markić and Ilčić happen to be Catholic, is it? 😲 🤔

hiddenpuma75 said:I can't quite recall what that was about. Do you have a link, or could you elaborate a bit? 🤔

I’d suggest looking into a PDF on the subject. It's all just part of the usual American political theater.

Joseph Bailey41 said:In my opinion, she gave up her dignity a long time ago by agreeing to his vague, nonsensical demands in the first place. What do you guys think—why do some people actually go along with being humiliated like that?

To quote mravac88:

I’m actually tied up right now and heading out, but I’ll get back to this later. 😁

By the way, I’ve honestly lost interest in psychology lately; it feels like nothing more than dwelling on trivialities and engaging in a sort of mental sado-masochism.

Once you realize that psychology is essentially just daydreaming about our own internal daydreams—fantasizing about our emotions and thoughts—that dark cavern of psychological theory starts to look pretty terrifying compared to the freedom of living outside of it.🙂

That said, for those who are still trapped within the cave of their own minds and emotions—deep inside that psychological grotto—I have to admit that psychology can be quite useful.👍

But only if they eventually realize they aren't defined by their thoughts and feelings, allowing them to finally leave that cave behind and step out of their mental loops and into real life.🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:Well, this whole thing is such a mess that we might as well start with him.

It wasn't some peer like Sisyphus or hiddenpuma75 who exposed Castaned; rather, it was his own famous lover and student, Amy Wallace, who pulled the rug out from under him.

Since Amy came across as vulnerable, pathetic, and even "foolish" in that devastating testimony, it actually makes me feel—as someone acting as a juror here—that what she said was the truth.

Amy essentially sacrificed her own dignity just to pass along the truth and serve as a warning about a truly repulsive individual and his bizarre, dangerous cult of followers.

So, all I did was do my part: I bought the book, read it, 🙂 and then shared the ugly, dirty, foul, and slimy reality regarding Carlos Castaneda’s private life, his lies, his cruelty, and his eccentricities with the dreamers back in the States.

The bottom line? Castaneda is a literary genius when it comes to fiction and psychology, but he clearly learned absolutely nothing from his own books because, at his core, he remained a terrible human being.

At the end of the day, real-life practice and lived experience matter far more than theory and fiction, don't you think? 😉

Being a brilliant artist doesn't automatically make someone a decent human being.