|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Physical Immortality Now" and the Media | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Physical immortality is real livingThe Media generally treats the promotion of "Physical Immortality Now" as expressed by Charles Paul Brown, James Strole and Bernadeane, among others, as either unwise and undesirable, or frivolous. In fact, that is the stance the media generally takes when it comes to reporting on any pursuit of or desire to live forever. Journalists, and the Media outlets they work for, would have us believe that they are dispassionate and objective. But whether they realize it or not, in pursuing that desire to appear objective most, if not all, of them have developed a professional cynicism and skepticism as a defense against what appears to be their worst nightmare: to be the subject of a hoax; to be deceived by a person or organization; to be seduced by an idea. This universal skepticism practised by journalists prevents them from being truly objective - either about the possibility of physical immortality, or the people who seek to live it. This is why most articles, or television programs, on the subject, question the wisdom of wanting to live forever while dismissing the concept flippantly. It's as if, because the idea of physical immortality is so at odds with the accepted wisdom that death is inevitable, it can't be taken seriously. That because there's no proof, people who claim it as a possiblity, let alone as a reality, must be either stupid or crazy, and therefore deserve ridicule, or are fraudulent or charlatans and therefore deserve to be treated as criminals. Throughout the years Charles Paul Brown, James Strole and Bernadeane have received more than their share of such treatment by the media - quite often with their background being used as a way of discrediting their message. | |
| |
|
But they were presented as guilty anyway - on the principle, I assume, that there's no smoke without fire. The media, in general, didn't like or didn't agree with what Charles Brown, James Strole and Bernadeane represented or were afraid to be fair in case they were charged with either gullibility or being biased in their favor. These supposed arbiters of public opinion seemed to be as intimidated by public opinion as anyone else is prone to be, if not more so. The reporters seemed to believe that their credibility depended on them not being seen to be in any way against the mainstream or the status quo when it came to questioning the inevitability of death. Of the articles written about Charles Paul Brown, James Strole and Bernadeane, those that don't try to discredit them by citing unsubstantiated charges of brainwashing, sexual misconduct, mind-control or fraud - none of which ever occured - essentially end up making fun of them, of the idea of living forever and, by association, anyone who thinks physical immortality now is a good idea. The same can be said for the majority of the television programs they participated in. They can't refute the assertion that physical immortality now is a reality, they can only try and discredit it by making fun of the proposition, the way it is presented or the people who are presenting it. The point isn't really whether you like or agree with anything James Strole, Bernadeane or Charles Brown say, or the way they say it - it's whether you have a feeling for yourself and other people to live. And it's pretty obvious, from the tone and language of their presentations, that most reporters don't. In fact Jeanne Marie Laskas in GQ, August 1991, actually wrote, "I wasn't even sure that I wanted to be immortal. Death, after all, is pretty intriguing. Death could be seen as an unpleasant event you have to go through like birth, before you plop into some new place, get smacked and start breathing a whole new oxygen". This pretty much sums up the prevailing rationalization of death as being the doorway to something else. The articles also frequently convey a sense of distaste for, or imply that there is something wrong with, the fact that people who want to live forever actually show some concern about their health, or care about their appearance, or have a desire to experience a greater feeling of closeness with as many people as possible. It's as if they perceive a concern for one's health or appearance as mere vanity, and physical contact with non-family members as unhealthy or subversive. One article quotes a self-proclaimed cult expert who made several accusations about Charles Brown, Bernadeane and James Strole, mostly to do with financial impropriety. What isn't mentioned is that this individual is a convicted thief and embezzler (a slight case of financial impropriety here?), he has a $7 million judgement against him for being found guilty of violating an individual's civil rights while supposedly acting as a "cult deprogrammer", and has been disowned by reputable anti-cult organizations. It seems as if research stopped when the available information fitted the story the reporter wanted to tell. Charles Brown, James Strole and Bernadeane are the first to admit that they have made mistakes along the way - unlike some prominant people I can think of. They have also moved away from a religious expression because they recognize it's limitations - dissolving the religious foundation and establishing an incorporated business in the process - but still consistently give their passion for a deathless life to all people who have a desire to receive it. Their primary concern is to make each person aware of their individual value and to show them that that value extends to them living forever - that no matter who you are, what you've done, your race or beliefs, you deserve to live. They are the only people I know who are promoting that kind of valuing of every person. And they are the only people who are devoting their energy to creating an environment in which all of us can live unlimited lives together. Does that require commitment? Of course. Do they challenge accepted beliefs and dogma? Certainly. Do they make demands of people to live greater? Continually. Do you have to comply? No. Does your non-compliance mean you can't be with them? No. But if you don't like who they are, what they speak or what they ask for you and from you, why would you be with them anyway? Although Charles Paul Brown, Bernadeane and James Russell Strole provide the greatest opportunity for people to come together and move in harmony in physical immortality, it may not be what you want, and you may not believe it's possible. But that is no reason to deprive others of that opportunity or to ridicule or discredit them for choosing it, as the media and others have attempted to do. Physical immortality is real living - it requires a strong commitment, in the face of deeply entrenched traditional beliefs, to live beyond the limits of a death-oriented world. For more information about Bernadeane, James Strole and Charles Brown, visit People Unlimited |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
||||||||||
Contact Us | Privacy Notice | © Physical-Immortality-Now.com 2005. | Powered by Site Build It |