Ding Dong, VF is Dead! And Doug Phillips is a Tool - Part 3

[Peas n carrots]

oh but you are wrong...Kathryn Neely ( of ATI Neely family) says everyone just didn't Pray HARD enough for him. She states that Doug Phillips is one of the greatest truth seekers/leaders ever and they should all remember that. Kathryn is all of 19/20 but still, the ability for these men to get their sheep to turn on themselves is amazing. There really is no accountability for him is there?

Of course not. But fundies aren't the only ones guilty of this either. Last night I was watching a show on Kennedy's assassination, and DH was like "why do Americans idolize this guy when it was no secret he cheated on his wife over and over again - your country is the one that is obsessed with sexual purity." You could make the same argument with Clinton to a lesser extent (although Ken Starr did try his best to take him down...but the sex scandal was more of a tool rather than the reason he went after Clinton); Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt etc.

It seems that even though as a culture we like to put marriage and purity up on a pedestal, we conveniently ignore it when it comes to beloved leaders.

[apple1]

... Last night I was watching a show on Kennedy's assassination, and DH was like "why do Americans idolize this guy when it was no secret he cheated on his wife over and over again - your country is the one that is obsessed with sexual purity." You could make the same argument with Clinton to a lesser extent (although Ken Starr did try his best to take him down...but the sex scandal was more of a tool rather than the reason he went after Clinton); Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt etc.

It seems that even though as a culture we like to put marriage and purity up on a pedestal, we conveniently ignore it when it comes to beloved leaders.

While I see what you are saying (to a degree), I don't entirely agree. Perhaps at least a portion of our world accepts that no human beings are 100% perfect, and (again, to a degree) accepts that negative behaviors in one area still do not entirely undo the positives (for example, the leadership role Jefferson played in the formation of this country). And I, by no means, am saying that the extramarital behaviors of any of the above-listed men were OK, because I think those behaviors are entirely wrong.

[OkToBeTakei]

While I see what you are saying (to a degree), I don't entirely agree. Perhaps at least a portion of our world accepts that no human beings are 100% perfect, and (again, to a degree) accepts that negative behaviors in one area still do not entirely undo the positives (for example, the leadership role Jefferson played in the formation of this country). And I, by no means, am saying that the extramarital behaviors of any of the above-listed men were OK, because I think those behaviors are entirely wrong.

It's a strange one. On the one hand I always think what public figures do in their private is not my business and as said should not have a bearing on what they accomplish. Fact is though, they are elected officials elected by their citizens in a position of trust to represent them.

Infidelity is by any other name lying and cheating. If they are capable of lying and cheating on the person they are supposed to love the most welll... :think:

Nobody is 100% perfect. I don't see lying and cheating as minor and no it does not negate the positive for me. I certainly don't see why that rule seems to apply to influential historical public figures and/or politicians, yet is maligned in those who are not so 'great.'

[Cleopatra7]

It's a strange one. On the one hand I always think what public figures do in their private is not my business and as said should not have a bearing on what they accomplish. Fact is though, they are elected officials elected by their citizens in a position of trust to represent them.

Infidelity is by any other name lying and cheating. If they are capable of lying and cheating on the person they are supposed to love the most welll... :think:

Nobody is 100% perfect. I don't see lying and cheating as minor and no it does not negate the positive for me. I certainly don't see why that rule seems to apply to influential historical public figures and/or politicians, yet is maligned in those who are not so 'great.'

I think the Doug the Tool's situation is very different than that of JFK, FDR, Clinton, etc. The tool's entire public career was based on selling a particular model of family, marriage, and gender relations. He made money by telling families that making their daughters be SAHDs was the only way to them safe. The implications at Wartburg Watch and other blogs makes it seem like the other party involved in the inappropriate relationship was a SAHD who had been taken advantage of, which invalidates everything the tool said about how the correct family structure can keep daughters safe. The reason why these patriarchal bloggers are doubling down on their support for this lifestyle is because this incident seems to invalidate everything they've been taught. Whether JFK was fooling around doesn't call into question his actions on the Cuban Missile Crisis or whether he was too cautious about civil rights legislation. It does cast a shadow over the "Camelot" image, but not about his policies as such.

[church_of_dog]

"...and I’ll be honest, it’s scary, the venom that's spewing."

Aww... She misses Doug's cute 'n' cuddly posts about executing gay people; his warm and fuzzy descriptions of ectopic pregnancy sufferers as murderers; his gentle and comforting message that God has damned the vast majority of human beings to eternal torture. "But... but... TEA PARTIES WITH LITTLE GIRLS!"

As a culture (as many cultures worldwide) we just don't seem to have the mental ability to detect and inure ourselves to certain kinds of charisma. I am reminded of the news blurb I read/watched online just moments ago before coming to FJ -- that of a 25-year-old young woman who is engaged to be married to Charles Manson. (I presume everyone even outside of the US knows who Manson is -- if not, google away, but beware, extremely graphic crime scenes involved)

The newscasters on this morning's video were shaking their heads and being openly sarcastic about this girl's feelings and actions. What fascinated me was not so much the girl's dismissal of his crimes (not to mention the age difference -- he's 79 now) but how much she reminded me of Manson's earlier followers -- almost hypnotized as she describes how wonderful he is... I do truly wish the psychologists would analyze him and attempt to figure out how he manages to captivate the young women, even now as he did 50 years ago.

To bring it back on topic, a better understanding of how and why people fall for charisma even when there is bad news underneath, might help prevent people like Doug Phillips (who, I have to admit, appears to be quite a tool) from holding such power.

[apple1]

I think the Doug the Tool's situation is very different than that of JFK, FDR, Clinton, etc. The tool's entire public career was based on selling a particular model of family, marriage, and gender relations. He made money by telling families that making their daughters be SAHDs was the only way to them safe. The implications at Wartburg Watch and other blogs makes it seem like the other party involved in the inappropriate relationship was a SAHD who had been taken advantage of, which invalidates everything the tool said about how the correct family structure can keep daughters safe. The reason why these patriarchal bloggers are doubling down on their support for this lifestyle is because this incident seems to invalidate everything they've been taught. Whether JFK was fooling around doesn't call into question his actions on the Cuban Missile Crisis or whether he was too cautious about civil rights legislation. It does cast a shadow over the "Camelot" image, but not about his policies as such.

I agree with this. (FTR, I was in no way saying that any of those political leaders' infidelities were OK. But I agree with Cleopatra's summary above).

[OkToBeTakei]

I think the Doug the Tool's situation is very different than that of JFK, FDR, Clinton, etc. The tool's entire public career was based on selling a particular model of family, marriage, and gender relations. He made money by telling families that making their daughters be SAHDs was the only way to them safe. The implications at Wartburg Watch and other blogs makes it seem like the other party involved in the inappropriate relationship was a SAHD who had been taken advantage of, which invalidates everything the tool said about how the correct family structure can keep daughters safe. The reason why these patriarchal bloggers are doubling down on their support for this lifestyle is because this incident seems to invalidate everything they've been taught. Whether JFK was fooling around doesn't call into question his actions on the Cuban Missile Crisis or whether he was too cautious about civil rights legislation. It does cast a shadow over the "Camelot" image, but not about his policies as such.

Oh totally agree. I was not talking at all or referencing the 'tool' in my reply. I think the hypocrisy of his actions are a given.

It was more the nuance of when we are willing to overlook a supposedly unacceptable behaviour in a person due to other positive actions they do. It is not a uniform answer.

JFK cheated and lied to his wife but handled an international crisis well, so we overlook the negative as it does not affect his 'job' or then us.

Moral conundrums.

[thoughtful]

Although infidelity always dismays me, I agree that the fact that Dougie's whole schtick was The Family makes it a somewhat different issue for him than is was for political figures.

I have also developed a certain (I think healthy) skepticism about anyone who wants a certain amount of power. I half-jokingly say that the first criterion for public office be that the person not want it! Once they are running for office, they are already someone whose level of ambition worries me a bit.

But we have to have people in those positions, so I vote for those who propose the ideas I think are moral and useful.

Which, now that I think of it, is another difference -- Doug basically set up his own empire. He was not chosen by majority, and was semi-answerable to very few people, rather than fully answerable to a voting public.

[hoipolloi]

Tools who live in and brag about their glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Bookworm]

As a culture (as many cultures worldwide) we just don't seem to have the mental ability to detect and inure ourselves to certain kinds of charisma. I am reminded of the news blurb I read/watched online just moments ago before coming to FJ -- that of a 25-year-old young woman who is engaged to be married to Charles Manson. (I presume everyone even outside of the US knows who Manson is -- if not, google away, but beware, extremely graphic crime scenes involved)

The newscasters on this morning's video were shaking their heads and being openly sarcastic about this girl's feelings and actions. What fascinated me was not so much the girl's dismissal of his crimes (not to mention the age difference -- he's 79 now) but how much she reminded me of Manson's earlier followers -- almost hypnotized as she describes how wonderful he is... I do truly wish the psychologists would analyze him and attempt to figure out how he manages to captivate the young women, even now as he did 50 years ago.

To bring it back on topic, a better understanding of how and why people fall for charisma even when there is bad news underneath, might help prevent people like Doug Phillips (who, I have to admit, appears to be quite a tool) from holding such power.

I've read part of The Sociopath Next Door and it's an interesting and rather horrifying book. There are various theories for why people who have no conscience are so magnetic, and I tend to think there is some truth to most of them. I feel for people who are unwittingly swept up in a sociopath's "tractor beam." This girl, though... she's definitely sick to go for someone who all the world knows is scum.

I do think that teaching children to have personal dreams and go after them (i.e., not be SAHDs) and that they are allowed to have and express their emotions and opinions freely (and with discretion) is a basic way to safeguard them from growing up to be attracted to someone who can offer them the feeling of importance they don't feel entitled to on their own, or the feeling of security from strict rules, or the feeling of "finally finding someone who understands me." Probably there is no perfect protection, but at least a basically healthy person with options is not as easy a victim as a repressed, dependent, and confused person prone to hero worship.

[twin2]

[Coconut Flan]

Life lessons that so many parents don't teach covers the Manson/Dougie worship to an extent. Many parents don't actively teach their children the signs of a con person. My father did to the best of his ability and I thank him for that and tried to pass on the lessons. The fundie sheltering and also the absent parents don't for various reasons. I think many like the Duggars are incapable of the analysis required so can't teach their offspring what they can't do themselves. Some others are grifters themselves so teach that it's the way to go. Dougie might fit in that side and Jim Bob to an extent.

[Dandruff]

I almost feel sorry for some of the VF'ers. They were paying to be part of an exclusive club, with rigid rules, expectations, and promises of safety and satisfaction if the rules are obeyed...only to find out that the main rule-maker has been breaking some of the big ones for years while accepting the people's money and loyalty. If I were one of them (not that it would ever happen) I'd feel like my bubble had burst. I'd feel scammed, angry, and forced to review beliefs and practices in my own life that I had been paying to not have to think too hard about. They had at least the illusion of full solidarity and moral superiority, while identifying with their leader and other pious followers, but what are they left with now?

[Palimpsest]

Although infidelity always dismays me, I agree that the fact that Dougie's whole schtick was The Family makes it a somewhat different issue for him than is was for political figures.

I have also developed a certain (I think healthy) skepticism about anyone who wants a certain amount of power. I half-jokingly say that the first criterion for public office be that the person not want it! Once they are running for office, they are already someone whose level of ambition worries me a bit.

But we have to have people in those positions, so I vote for those who propose the ideas I think are moral and useful.

Which, now that I think of it, is another difference -- Doug basically set up his own empire. He was not chosen by majority, and was semi-answerable to very few people, rather than fully answerable to a voting public.

To the bolded, yes agree. But in addition to that thought. . .

Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad

men."

Boulding (building on this with his dismal theory of political science): "the skills which lead to the rise to power all too frequently [render] unfit people to exercise it."

Palimpsest's lament: Why is it that in even little ponds, not just in the big seas of power, does it seem that the scum always rise to the top? :)

You can see this happen at all levels with power. In many circumstances the more power people attain the more likely they are to see themselves as not needing to obey the rules and in danger of abusing their power.

In Doug's little empire he wasn't really held accountable by anyone and surrounded himself with sycophants. That tends to make people (even initially well-meaning and benign people , which Doug almost certainly never was) develop an unrealistic sense of their own importance. They tend to become more and more arrogant (if not narcisistic) over time.

[thoughtful]

Oh, no question, Palimpsest.

I feel this way about local politicians as well as those in a larger sphere.

Heck, I feel that way about some of the teachers and principals I've worked with!

ETA -- when the news about the child abuse in the Catholic church broke, one of my employers held a workshop on the issues of power imbalance, the fiduciary relationship, etc.

I remember talking about the various reactions people have to authority figures. There are always people who just listen to the content a leader or teacher puts forth, and think for themselves about it, or ask for proof.

There are people who seem to have a strong bent towards rebelling, and always reject, get snide, do the opposite, etc., regardless of whether the leader's advice is good or bad.

Those reactions, despite the second one being a nuisance sometimes, were fine with me.

But, when teaching, I have worked with people who made me feel like they would follow me off of a cliff like (apocryphal) lemmings.

That not only didn't flatter me or make me feel good, it actually gave me the creeps.

I guess I'm just not cut out for power! :lol:

[nelliebelle1197]

As a culture (as many cultures worldwide) we just don't seem to have the mental ability to detect and inure ourselves to certain kinds of charisma. I am reminded of the news blurb I read/watched online just moments ago before coming to FJ -- that of a 25-year-old young woman who is engaged to be married to Charles Manson. (I presume everyone even outside of the US knows who Manson is -- if not, google away, but beware, extremely graphic crime scenes involved)

The newscasters on this morning's video were shaking their heads and being openly sarcastic about this girl's feelings and actions. What fascinated me was not so much the girl's dismissal of his crimes (not to mention the age difference -- he's 79 now) but how much she reminded me of Manson's earlier followers -- almost hypnotized as she describes how wonderful he is... I do truly wish the psychologists would analyze him and attempt to figure out how he manages to captivate the young women, even now as he did 50 years ago.

To bring it back on topic, a better understanding of how and why people fall for charisma even when there is bad news underneath, might help prevent people like Doug Phillips (who, I have to admit, appears to be quite a tool) from holding such power.

I think you are right. I just read the Rolling Stone article where the girl, "Star" (Manson has renamed her), announces the engagement. The writer spent a lot of time with Manson and talks about the strange charisma you have identified. He claims you FEEL it when Manson touches you. I doubt Douggie has that level, but I bet he has something similar.

BTW, Manson claims there is no engagement.

[nelliebelle1197]

I've read part of The Sociopath Next Door and it's an interesting and rather horrifying book. There are various theories for why people who have no conscience are so magnetic, and I tend to think there is some truth to most of them. I feel for people who are unwittingly swept up in a sociopath's "tractor beam." This girl, though... she's definitely sick to go for someone who all the world knows is scum.

I do think that teaching children to have personal dreams and go after them (i.e., not be SAHDs) and that they are allowed to have and express their emotions and opinions freely (and with discretion) is a basic way to safeguard them from growing up to be attracted to someone who can offer them the feeling of importance they don't feel entitled to on their own, or the feeling of security from strict rules, or the feeling of "finally finding someone who understands me." Probably there is no perfect protection, but at least a basically healthy person with options is not as easy a victim as a repressed, dependent, and confused person prone to hero worship.

And "Star" the fake Manson fiancee, was reared in a conservative Baptist home in Missouri and was heavily sheltered and basically locked away by her parents when she exhibited a personality....

[church_of_dog]

I guess I'm just not cut out for power! :lol:

Which means, of course, that you should be the one in power!

Because anyone who feels that they are cut out for power, is dangerous to give it to.

[thoughtful]

Which means, of course, that you should be the one in power!

Because anyone who feels that they are cut out for power, is dangerous to give it to.

Noooooo! Hoisted by my own petard! :lol:

[nelliebelle1197]

Noooooo! Hoisted by my own petard! :lol:

Just like Douggy!

(ducks and runs)

[thoughtful]

Just like Douggy!

(ducks and runs)

:lol:

[Kate]

Just read through most of threads 1 and 3, still more to go, yikes, Douggie, what were you thinking?

I have to agree that there will be more coming out soon, possibly the answer to "wait, a woman?" question. The board closing the ministry arm sounds, if nothing else, like a bunch of men with their own ministries who don't want to be associated with VFM when the next boot drops.

Also, VF interns, you may want to think about taking down this:

http://www.visionforum.com/browse/produ ... fault.aspx

and also this:

http://www.visionforum.com/browse/produ ... fault.aspx

Just saying.

(edited to add: from the advanced "course" 4. How to Handle Difficult Public Scenes--you may want to review your sage advice on that one, Doug :lol: )

[WonderingInWA]

Just read through most of threads 1 and 3, still more to go, yikes, Douggie, what were you thinking?

I have to agree that there will be more coming out soon, possibly the answer to "wait, a woman?" question. The board closing the ministry arm sounds, if nothing else, like a bunch of men with their own ministries who don't want to be associated with VFM when the next boot drops.

Also, VF interns, you may want to think about taking down this:

http://www.visionforum.com/browse/produ ... fault.aspx

and also this:

http://www.visionforum.com/browse/produ ... fault.aspx

Just saying.

(edited to add: from the advanced "course" 4. How to Handle Difficult Public Scenes--you may want to review your sage advice on that one, Doug :lol: )

And pssssst Interns: I'm pretty sure there's an extra zero on the price listed for both of those downloads. Or you might actually consider making them free. Just sayin'...

[DomWackTroll]

"How to Handle Difficult Public Scenes"

I'm imagining an epic Virginia Hope meltdown in a restaurant or airport and cackling with Marxist, humanist glee.

[Palimpsest]

Anyone familiar with the Diary of an Autodidact blog? I hadn't seen it before but found this article there today:

fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2013/11/douglas-phillips-affair-and-why-i.html

It is a very long post and I don't agree with everything he is saying - particularly about the need to know the identity of Doug's victim(s) - but he has some useful links and thoughts on VF and Doug, Rushdooney and racism.

He and his wife seem to be ex-ATI and the fact that he lives in Bakersfield, CA is probably just a strange coincidence. I see Ruth everywhere! :evil: