Marianne Williamson

I tried to read “Return to Love” perhaps 5-8 years ago, right around the time I realized both my parents were most reasonably labeled narcissistic. I was seeing narcissists behind every tree and stone. And I concluded she, too, was a narcissist, and stopped reading.

I might now be more open, but I doubt it. Here is my thing: she talks about love, but views as evil, as “demonic”, people who question the motives of people from countries suffused with violent radicalism, and who view traditional American values of mutual respect, diversity of thought, tolerance and common sense as essential to a vibrant and healthy national life.

In effect, by framing things as she has, she has cast her lot in with the emotionally detached zealots, cultists, and aspiring terrorists.

This, itself, bespeaks to me an emotional shallowness. She uses the words, like love, but they are abstractions to her. This implies people are abstractions to her, which to my mind validated my initial gut instinct. My gut instincts are usually accurate, even if in the spirit of competence I am always willing to question and scrutinize them.

Yesterday I spoke of, I forget how I put it, but in effect plastic, ersatz, superficial love as something I specifically reject. Using words is so easy. Manipulating symbols is so easy. Being your message is much harder, and I would suggest as a general principle that no one who evidences the drive for guruhood that Williamson manifestly has should be trusted.

Anyone who cannot grok the answer to “why Trump” is lacking something essential, something without which it is not possible to be a fully present member of society.