Tulsi Gabbard grew up in a cult called "Science of Identity:, run by a guy named Chris Butler, who calls himself “Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa”. They pretend to be Hindu, but in fact, the cult revolves around Butler and the members’ worship of him. Gabbard went to SoI schools her entire life, and didn’t leave the cult until she joined the Army. She is still a member, and her husband, eight years her junior, is a member. One of her campaign officials, whose campaign business cards don’t list his position with the campaign organization, is the right hand man of Chris Butler. The cult is anti-gay and anti-Muslim, which explains a lot of Gabbard’s policies.
Which of Gabbard’s policies does it explain? Be specific.
Her policy of being a total whackjob.
There was a New Yorker article about this a while back. The detail I can’t unsee is that cult members would eat Butler’s toenail clippings in order to…absorb his holiness or something.
Yeah…no. If this thread is going to be an actual discussion then I’m gonna need specifics. If it’s just gonna be a circle jerk then just come out and say so.
Already jerking it. I hope this has helped inform your decision on how to proceed.
Yep. I’m out. Enjoy…whatever this is.
Eeeeeeew. Fingernail clipping I could get, but toenail clippings? That’s just gross.
I haven’t bothered to read up on Gabbard. I’m pretty much “vote Blue no matter who” in 2020. In the unlikely event Gabbard gets the nomination, is she just a little better than Trump, or is even she a lot better than Trump?
So much of this sounds like rumor & gossip about a politician with an unusual religious background.
I keep thinking, “How is this different from claiming that Ilhan Omar married her brother? Or that Barry Obama was part of Al Qaeda?”
That said, I did find one piece on Medium by someone who claims to have been in Butler’s cult:
So, yes, that’s scary if true.
Her anti-gay views, for one.
Her past anti-gay views.
No, it is 100% true. Tulsi Gabbard grew up in the cult ‘Science of Identity’, which is a rogue splinter of Hare Krisha, headed by a charismatic leader named Chris Butler. His followers call him Jagad Guru, or “teacher of the world.” Sect members describe remembering him thus:
Gabbard has in the past opposed LGBT rights and abortion. I’ve read reports that she has fallen in line with Democrats on this, at least as far as policy and legislation, but she’s never personally repudiated her cult’s anti-gay views.
Gabbard is at best an eccentric candidate of maybe some entertainment value. But if she was a serious candidate then … meh.
Her disqualifications are what her views are, how she would govern (badly), and her lack of electability, not what religion she was raised in or even currently practices.
You can find very very odd things in every religion.
She would perhaps be the closest to being Trump bad (still not there) but not because of this.
Personally I find some very concerning signs that her strings are pulled by whoever is pulling Trump’s (Russia and or Republicans).
First, there is her strange hesitance to criticize Assad, a Russian ally. The ostensible reason is her anti-interventionist stance. Russia is of course a beneficiary of that stance, but it’s a reasonable stance in itself. However she seems strangely hesitant to call Assad a tyrant or a dictator or even an adversary.
Second, she seems to have gone all-in on Republican and Russian talking points regarding Russian interference. Consider this YouTube video where she hits these notes:
[ul]
[li]The Mueller report revealed no collusion[/li][li]America needs to put it aside[/li][li]It’s good for America because a Trump indictment “could have led to a civil war”[/li][li]“We must move beyond this divisive issue”[/li][/ul]
It’s remarkable enough for a Democrat to repeat Republican Party talking points before the ink is dry on the Mueller report, but what really raised my eyebrows was the implied but very clear threat that indicting Trump could lead to a civil war. This echoes Russian propaganda floated by people like Vladimir Zhirinovsky suggesting that a vote against Trump is a vote for nuclear war. I mean, wow.
She does also thread the needle by suggesting America should see the report, that elections should be made secure against interference. This would seem to be anti-Republican/anti-Russian, but we all know this is a risk-free position given that the Republicans in power (Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr) are never going to let it happen.
If your concern with Trump is that he’s a vulgar moronic narcissist, then Gabbard will be preferable to Trump. But looking past that superficial concern, Gabbard seems equally as dangerous as Trump. Perhaps more so, given that she’s more poised and polished and would presumably have more bipartisan support.
If I were the party pulling Trump’s strings, for 2020 I’d tweak my strategy and run my puppet to the center. Gabbard seems to fit that pattern for now.
Is there a more effective way to absorb someone’s holiness?
Like you, I don’t give her any odds of making very far into the primary season, but she’s dangerous in the sense that she could linger around just long enough to be noticed. One problem with the gargantuan Democratic field isn’t the sheer number of candidates themselves; it’s the possibility for the field to fragment into different little camps with very myopically-focused, obsessive, almost cult-like followers who refuse to vote for anyone outside of their political sect. We obviously have that danger with Bernie Sanders, but we could apply that to Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard as well. It’s not necessarily clear how committed to beating Trump some of these voters really are. I suspect there still exists a not-so-insignificant “Screw the system, they all suck! Burn it all down” contingent.
Sorry for the thread-creep
Oh those people are there I’ve no doubt. But are they there any more or less because of the presence of these sorts of candidates? Or do more of them merely divide them up more into different camps?
I’d suspect that come the general election and a Warren, Biden, or Harris as the nominee, the same fraction will either stay home or vote against Trump whether there have been three screw the system primary candidates or one …
The antiwar candidate will always be slandered. It has been true for the entire history of the United States.
Yes, but we’re talking about the pro-war candidate here.