A Browne Fan Speaks Up

[Kuko 4000]

Very interesting letter, thanks Robert!

Assuming that the person who wrote this was serious and not just pulling your leg, of course.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>

Also, didn't Sylvia Browne lie about having a Masters Degree in English from a University that doesn't exist? I know I've read that somewhere.

Yes you did. On www.stopsylvia.com of course.

 

[Trent Wray]

Robert how do you seem to stay so calm and objective about all of this? Seeing these people get taken advantage of time and again .... seeing them make the same errors in thought time and again .... assuming this or that ..... being exploited, etc and so forth. One after another thinking SB has some truth she's locked into.

Honestly ... what makes you keep at it so persistently and seemingly calmly? Am I missing something about your method? Was it always so calm and rational? Was there a time you wanted to blow the world to bits over this nonsense? I mean ... I can be around psych patients and those with dementia and addicts and those who literally poop on you while laughing and in the next breath have to deal with the most arrogant physicians this side of Saturn and do it all rationally because I have a goal and underlying focus. But I would turn into a vigilante doing this I think after two weeks LOL What is your "secret"? What keeps you so even-keeled? Honestly?

If I may ask ...

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I sometimes wonder how come us Scandinavians seem so prone to woo? This Norwegian woman is a common, or garden, Scandinavian. And I assure you she is as common in Sweden as in Norway. (I'm not so sure about Denmark though, someone with better knowldge of Denmark needs to answer that)

Is it because we are mainly secularized and the same people who would have taken the preacher's word for it 200 years ago are now taking Sylvia Browne's word for it.

I see a lot of this "reasoning" on Swedish forums and chat boards both from Swedes and Norwegians.

Maybe, just maybe, the explanation of the explosion of woo that has happened in the last 25 - 30 years can be spelled Margit Sandemo.

Margit Sandemo is a Norwegian/Swedish language author (she writes in both languages, but mainly in Norwegian) and an immensly succesful paper back writer. She has written hundreds of paper backs both with and without supernatural themes.

It's not "great" literature, but she has a charming, unassuming way with words and an ability to hit the spot for the average paper back consumer. (At some point she states herself in an uncharacteristically post modern aside that a lot of her books are crap and that the reader likely already knows which ones.)

She actually does quite a bit of research and she has a sweet sense of humour. She is a good holiday read, if you don't expect Tolstoy, and well worthy of the success she has reaped. But her fans are slightly nutty. (As most of them would admit to themselves)

Her greatest success was The Isfolket Saga - a 47 volume supernatural romp that spans four centuries and some 8-9 countries. (She introduce horcruxes when Harry Potter wasn't even a glimpse in J.K Rowlings note book)

This series has had an enormous impact on, particularly, women born after 1945. I don't think you can correctly estimate how influential she has been on the spiritual development on almost three generations of women to date. The first generation read these books as adults, but there are two generations who grew up on them. The books span reincarnation and past life regression, black magic, the Barbados coffin mystery, the pied piper, shamanism, judeo-christian mythology, demons, ghosts - you name it, she's sniffed it. Of course it is any author's right to use all this and as for Sandemo herself the most prevalent trait of her writing is her humanism. In the end the entire suite becomes an angry showdown with a cruel and disinterested god on one side and a passionate Lucifer, representing the humans who have suffered under a wilful god, on the other. There is a theme of abuse running through the entire series.

Part of the "mythos" around The Isfolket Saga is:

* Margit herself is psychic and suffered for many years being shuttled in and out of institutions until she "realized" she wasn't sick. Only psychic.
* Margit herself has had past life regression therapy and found out she was a thoroughly uninteresting peasant.
* While writing the Isfolket Saga Margit felt "a strong presence" who was urging her on and felt compelled to write day and night so that there was a new volume published every other month. (Standard paperback format, ca 200 pages per volume) "Someone or something" wanted this saga written according to her.

These days Sandemo is very cautious speaking about psychic powers and no longer claims to have them. I don't think that she was deliberately misleading her readers - although her publicist probably didn't mind cynically abusing her confusion. I think that it felt real to her and that she has had the proper help since. Unfortunately her high profile has given young women of generations the idea that the paranormal is real.

The last book of the Isfolket Saga turns into a kind of Manifesto about the afterlife that is very similar to Sylvia Browne's ideas. (Similar, not carbon copy though) That means that these ideas already have a foot hold in Scandinavia - especially in Sweden and Norway - where Sandemo is much loved. Sandemo is the honestly deluded, and extremely likeable, face of similar thoughts as the cynically abusive Sylvia.

So in Scandinavia anyone coming across Browne writings will assume that she is as nice as Margit and buy her crap. Now, through all her ramblings and claims, Sandemo has never pretended to be anything but a fiction writer. Still, young, mostly women but some young men as well, have bought the universe she paints. She has an ability to keep it on a level that people who aren't readers can identify with. Like: "why can't dogs live as long as humans?" Like JK Rowling she has been credited with getting non-readers to plow through 47 books without stopping to breathe, and along the way she touches on history and anthropology as a back drop to her story, inciting interest in people who wouldn't normally care. (I am mentioning all this, because this post is not intended to bash Margit Sandemo personally, but to try to explain how she has permeated N and S society on a very deep level) There are rpgs, LARP groups and cosplayers dedicated to Isfolket but there are also people who have built their entire philosophy on it. I know several personally. Kids are named after her characters and wannabee-witches seriously use her descriptions as scripture. I know someone who seriously went to a church yard at night to "try to find a mandragora".

Unfortunately this means that a lot of people have got their spritual schooling from fiction and it also means that they are ripe for Browne's ideas.

Even though Brown has been active for longer than Sandemo, she has been mainly unknown in Scandinavia until now.

Sorry for the long post, feel free to skip.

 

[ExMinister]

Interesting post, whatthebutlersaw.

 

[TheDaver]

Assuming the letter was written in all seriousness, I think the appropriate response would be to point out that there’s nothing paranormal about Sylvia Browne’s abilities, and to ask whether she thinks taking the magical claims of a stranger at face value isn’t really underselling her abilities – critical thinking, for one.

 

[headscratcher4]

I too was struck by the line comparing Sylvia to a schizophrenic...and positively. So strange. Clearly, she is one who doesn't fully understand/and or believe in mental illness. Perhaps she sees schizophrenia as some sort of estatic disorder that allows the deluded to somehow tie into deeper supernatural truths...i.e. the schizophrenic as somehow shaman and visionary.

All of which leads to a deeper propblem the writer poses. She is empathetic to Sylvia, but she has no real empahthy for those who Sylvia might hurt (or, for that matter, the suffering, dislocation, fear and disorientation that a schizophrenic might feel). She want Robert to just let Sylvia "make her money". She fails completely to deal with the question of "at what cost?" Her assumption seems to be that Sylvia, at best some sort of devine fool, hurts no one by her actions BECASUE she believes that Sylvia has somehow tapped into something greater. How could it be wrong?

But clearly, the writer doesn't think of the many who Sylvia hurts and hurts directly either by telling demonstrably false stories about them and their demise. Providing demonstrably wrong diagnosis and medical advice via the paranormal. Outright lying that essentially gives her believers permission to continue engaging in behaviors or believes that are not just demonsterably false, but that may and often are contrarry to their best interests.

When she tells someone whose child is dead that the child isn't dead or that the child is speaking to her and wants her to do certain things...it is a lie. She should not be rewarded with money.

When she tells someone that there missing sister's body will be found when it isn't...it is a lie and shouldn't be rewarded with money.

When she tells someone that daddy is happy in heaven and sorry that he was a bastard in life, it is a lie and shouldn't be rewareded with money.

on and on and on.

Essentially what our Norweagian friend is advocating is to allow Sylvia's grossest frauds and personal assaults (for how else can you charachterize telling a parent his child is dead when in reality that child is being repeatedly rapped and molested as anything other than an assualt?) be rewarded.

Robert: this writer needs to understand that for everyone who visists Sylvia and walks away with a good feeling...there are at least as many victems. Victems lied to. Victems assaulted. Victems who have provided money for something they didn't get...ultimately...and that is truth. Paying for a lie is a fraud. Letting someone get away with a fraud is abetting a crime.

Robert, you are standing up and saying "no" to an on-going criminal conspiracy. You are standing up for the victems ... both those who know themselves to be Sylvia's victems as well as those who don't yet realize it. Keep up the great work.

 

[readme.txt]

Guys, ever noticed that SB (Sylvia Browne) is BS backwards? Coincidence? =D Just kidding.

Very interesting reading, I'd like to read the response too.

 

[easycruise]

A good example of a book that was thought to be non-fiction but turned out to be complete fiction was that book Oprah endorsed on her show. I forget the name of it, but she highly recommended it in her book club, had the author on her show, and it was at the top of the NYT bestsellers list, and then it was discovered that the author had made up many of the stories in the book, if not all of them. This is proof positive that it is possible for an author to state a book is completely accurate and real, when it is in fact complete fiction.

Better yet, how about winning the Nobel peace prize with a book based on proven false claims? Rigobertha Menchu, anyone?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Unfortunately this means that a lot of people have got their spritual schooling from fiction and it also means that they are ripe for Browne's ideas.

Even though Brown has been active for longer than Sandemo, she has been mainly unknown in Scandinavia until now.

Sorry for the long post, feel free to skip.

Wow. That is *extremely* interesting, and I think you may have hit upon something.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Robert how do you seem to stay so calm and objective about all of this? Seeing these people get taken advantage of time and again .... seeing them make the same errors in thought time and again .... assuming this or that ..... being exploited, etc and so forth. One after another thinking SB has some truth she's locked into.

Honestly ... what makes you keep at it so persistently and seemingly calmly? Am I missing something about your method? Was it always so calm and rational? Was there a time you wanted to blow the world to bits over this nonsense? I mean ... I can be around psych patients and those with dementia and addicts and those who literally poop on you while laughing and in the next breath have to deal with the most arrogant physicians this side of Saturn and do it all rationally because I have a goal and underlying focus. But I would turn into a vigilante doing this I think after two weeks LOL What is your "secret"? What keeps you so even-keeled? Honestly?

If I may ask ...

I can't speak for Robert but I've done a lot of research for more than 3 years for the site and I found this task quite grueling, very emotionally taxing, very angering and very depressing. To say the least.

Yes, I did want to "blow the world to bits over this nonsense".

What works: being able to put them into the open for people to see, sharing the fruits of your labor on a forum of like minded people who appreciate your efforts, hitting a piece of furniture once in a while, taking long breaks from it until you want to do it again.

 

[RSLancastr]

Robert how do you seem to stay so calm and objective about all of this?

Thanks, Trent. I firmly believe that a calm and fact-based approach is the best way to reach people, and to get them to consider the evidence. I find the ability to remain (outwardly) calm by remembering that letting my rage show on the site would do nothing to further my objective. It would only serve to give Browne's supporters more reason to discount the evidence I present. And, while I try to show both sides of the coin, I make no pretense of being unbiased. The evidence long ago convinced me that Browne is a fraud, or I would not have created the site.

Seeing these people get taken advantage of time and again .... seeing them make the same errors in thought time and again .... assuming this or that ..... being exploited, etc and so forth. One after another thinking SB has some truth she's locked into.

I try to see their emails as opportunities to reach out to them, further supporting the evidence. This makes any frustration easier to take.

Honestly ... what makes you keep at it so persistently and seemingly calmly? Am I missing something about your method?

I think my "method" is pretty obvious: Present the facts, back them up with sources, and invite the reader to come to their own conclusion.

Was it always so calm and rational? Was there a time you wanted to blow the world to bits over this nonsense?

Prior to creating my Stop Sites, I was far more sarcastic and snarky when discussing purveyors of "woo" and those who support them. When I created the StopKaz site, I chose the calm, fact-driven approach because I felt that a snarky approach would offend the very people I hoped to reach: members of congregations where Kaz had appeared, or would later appear. And, since my ownmother, who I would be showing the site, believed Kaz, I found I could not use the "what kind of idiots could believe this woman's nonsense" approach.

This made me examine other skeptical sites, leading me to wonder "Why do outspoken skeptics so often come across as such jerks?" Their approach seemed to only serve to alienate those who could most benefit from their message, and left the skeptic only "preaching to the choir."

Actually, this "kinder, gentler skeptical approach" had served me well even earlier, when I was the "token skeptic" on a John Edward fan forum. I was pleasantly surprised at the number of "believers" I got to thinking again about Edward, by simply being polite, empathetic, and presenting the skeptical viewpoint in a calm, rational and non-judgemental (towards his fans) manner.

I mean ... I can be around psych patients and those with dementia and addicts and those who literally poop on you while laughing and in the next breath have to deal with the most arrogant physicians this side of Saturn and do it all rationally because I have a goal and underlying focus. But I would turn into a vigilante doing this I think after two weeks LOL

I think you hit it exactly with what I highlighted above. knowing that blowing my top" would be to lose sight of my goal and my focus, keeps me from doing so.

What is your "secret"? What keeps you so even-keeled? Honestly?

Another large part of what keeps me "even-keeled" is the love and support of my wonderful "Better Half", Susan. Knowing that she once believed inBrowne's and Edward's "psychic powers" (see my "I Married a Woo" thread) helps me to keep a more generous attitude towards Browne supporters.

I hope this has answered your question.

If I may ask ...[/QUOTE]

 

[readme.txt]

<snip response to Trentwray>

Wow, I'm impressed by your attitude

 

[kerikiwi]

.....

Sorry for the long post, feel free to skip.

Well, that's a little late, don't you think?

 

[Minarvia]

Agreed. How do psychic powers work anyway? God whispers in Sylvia's ear? Francine tells her where missing bodies are? Dead people do? Dead people in heaven? Ghosts? All of them do?

Hey, wait! Francine used to post here! Where has she gone??? Let's call Sylvia and ask her where she is...oh, wait. Never mind.

 

[Minarvia]

Thanks, Trent. I firmly believe that a calm and fact-based approach is the best way to reach people, and to get them to consider the evidence. I find the ability to remain (outwardly) calm by remembering that letting my rage show on the site would do nothing to further my objective. It would only serve to give Browne's supporters more reason to discount the evidence I present. And, while I try to show both sides of the coin, I make no pretense of being unbiased. The evidence long ago convinced me that Browne is a fraud, or I would not have created the site.

Also, Robert, I believe you once stated somewhere that when you began your Site that you admired Randi even more because he's been practically a saint from what he's gone thru for so many decades. He's not snarky too often and I find that amazing.

And you and Susan are amazing at it, too.

 

[ExMinister]

Hey, wait! Francine used to post here! Where has she gone??? Let's call Sylvia and ask her where she is...oh, wait. Never mind.

I miss our forum version of "Francine," though. I was disappointed when she stopped posting.

 

[ExMinister]

Agreed. How do psychic powers work anyway? God whispers in Sylvia's ear? Francine tells her where missing bodies are? Dead people do? Dead people in heaven? Ghosts? All of them do?

I missed this until Minarvia just quoted it.

Sylvia claims Francine doesn't help her do readings. Not to be cynical (OK, I am being cynical) but I bet that's because it's easy to explain how she could be only 87% correct rolleyes but not so easy to explain how Francine, up there residing in the presence of God, could get stuff wrong.

She claims to be able to read people's charts. According to her everyone has a chart or blueprint they are predestined to follow and she can pick up on what that is. She also says people have free will to go off track, so if you go off track and don't do what she predicts, that's not her fault.

And it's not her fault if the timing is off because psychics aren't any good at timing.

And it's not her fault if she's close to you and can't read for you because she cares about you.

Oh, and it's not her fault if she gets something wrong because there's a dark entity involved because she can't read for them since they don't have charts.

Sometimes I think being a successful psychic is all about anticipating criticism when you fail and coming up with an excuse your fans will believe.

 

[Minarvia]

I missed this until Minarvia just quoted it.

Sylvia claims Francine doesn't help her do readings. Not to be cynical (OK, I am being cynical) but I bet that's because it's easy to explain how she could be only 87% correct rolleyes but not so easy to explain how Francine, up there residing in the presence of God, could get stuff wrong.

She claims to be able to read people's charts. According to her everyone has a chart or blueprint they are predestined to follow and she can pick up on what that is. She also says people have free will to go off track, so if you go off track and don't do what she predicts, that's not her fault.

And it's not her fault if the timing is off because psychics aren't any good at timing.

And it's not her fault if she's close to you and can't read for you because she cares about you.

Oh, and it's not her fault if she gets something wrong because there's a dark entity involved because she can't read for them since they don't have charts.

Sometimes I think being a successful psychic is all about anticipating criticism when you fail and coming up with an excuse your fans will believe.

Bingo on all of that! But John Edward (McGee) finally resorted to just plain bullying. Sylvia pretends that she can't hear you or just says some other bull or Montel pushes on to the next victim, er, person to be read.

 

[Chris Hegarty]

I've been reading StopSylvia for years (it's a regular on my bookmarks list through three different computers) and I've always been incredibly impressed with your ability to take down all this woo without getting acrid. It's definitely a skill and thank goodness for this.