leadership (5)

QUOTE: Maybe you remember Marianne Williamson warning about a “dark psychic force” and claiming that while Donald Trump had harnessed fear for political purposes, she was going to harness love. (wrote J. Geraghty, Feb. 1, 2023).

USA has its Presidential election going on right now, with the final voting in Nov. 2024. I have followed Marianne Williamson's campaign for leader of this country since late 2018. After five years study, and evidence from voters coming in this last month in the "Primaries" (New Hampshire, S. Carolina, Nevada) is is clear that the voters (Democratic ones) do not buy that a Williamson presidency of a "politics of love" is what the country needs. Marianne just announced yesterday officially she is dropping out of the race because of her big defeats and that Joe Biden (incumbent president) is slated to sweep the country and win the nomination for Democratic Leader for the Nov. election. 

There's another book to write here, as my first book in 2021 on her campaign and her intellectual biography is a good summary of this leader and what happens to them when they go into the arena of 'the big boys' on the political landscape of America. It ain't pretty. The second book I'll write will be based on my research of the 2024 campaign and what happens after yesterday; that is, where will Williamson and her followers go as a cultural phenomenon of such major defeat of love. Of course, Williamson and many of her followers would claim there is no defeat, no ending of this politics of love, and that it is only a beginning, etc. There is much new agey philospophy to be spilled out as that is always part of her campaign and her charismatic motivational leadership. She has over 40 years of practicing this kind of rhetoric. She's good at it. However, the dice have been cast and I would trust that a lot of good critical reflection go into the learning from the critiques and wounds and mistakes made running a LOVE Campaign in today's world. 

If you want to hear her final 2 min. speech declaring her ending of running for leadership of the Democratic Party, go to: https://mariannewilliamson.substack.com/p/much-to-be-grateful-for?r=3zkfe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

According to a Politico article by Britanny Gibson today: 

"Williamson has not said whether she will seek another run for office. But she will return to the literary world with a new book set to be released in May. Williamson delayed the publication of The Mystic Jesus: The Mind of Love last fall, when the book’s announcement attracted accusations that the campaign was a “grift” to promote the book." 

 

-----------

In Summary:  [go to my in depth talk with Layman Pascal on the MW Phenemenon and Love vs. Fear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9FE5ObwcEs]

 

I am aware of a growing critique myself, that Williamson always knew she wouldn't lose anything in this campaigning 2018-2024 because she is a 'preacher' with a message campaign. And the presidential platform is a great stage of a lot of free promo space to share her spirituality and politics of love. I suppose that is nothing wrong itself. I suppose it is a good case of how that goes over for the public however--another message, another non-intended consequence of a good venture with perhaps more nasty consequences still yet to unfold.

 

That said, MW has left us with a good website Marianne 2024 that she will keep up she said, for those who want to borrow political ideas from it for the future. A noble gesture. And, to be sure, all evidence shows me that Marianne will never run in politics again. 

 

Read more…

I'm glad to announce that I have been hired on as an online course developer and faculty instructor at Southwestern College, graduate school program, Visionary Practice & Regenerative Leadership. Barbara (my life-partner) also will be co-developing and teaching with me this fall, 2023. It's an exciting chance to be involved in this fascinating program. 

Read more…

Marianne Williamson's Hypnosis of the Masses

8538950865?profile=RESIZE_400x

Marianne Williamson is deeply serious... about the future. In this talk recently on Wisdom 2.0, she takes the host of the program and the audience through a 30 second exercise which is clearly a hypnotic induction but does so without telling anyone that is what she is doing. She would likely justify this is her love-based good intentions, and so on... but, what is unethical [1] to me is her assumption that people want to be both de-hypnotized and re-hypnotized by her use of FEAR, AUTHORITY, WORDS [2] in this intervention. Clearly, she is criticizing (especially, young) people for 'wanting to not have children because of the not so good future that is coming'. [3] 

See the full demonstration of this manipulative pedagogy she induces in the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zQkIDdPUbA

What is so contradictory in Williamson's pedagogy (preaching) at times is just this reality that she for one knows about and teaches about the mass hypnosis of all people (media, etc.) as propagandizing. She knows we are in a 'trance' (an illusionary state) re: reality. But, she also is not teaching people about the process of hypnosis and then asking them, if this is what they want to go through with her because she feels called to 'help them' out of their delusions (?). Yikes, this is where she gets off the rails as far as I am concerned and assumes way too much, is way over-confident, and missionary zeal takes over rather than really respecting the people sitting in front of her. 

I have just written a book on Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon --an intellectual biography and critique (her strengths and weaknesses as a leader) go to: 

https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/marianne-williamson-presidential-phenomenon-new-book

Notes

1. "Unethical" has many layers of meaning which I will not be outlining further here in this short blog, but to say the least, it is therapeutically and philosophically 'off the rails' to be so confident that you know people's intentions when you asked them a question (e.g., about the future and having children). In other words, that you know them so well that you can call their choice "deeply, deeply aberrant" (i.e., pathological by any other name). Sorry, that's bad practice, even if it is partially true. There are so many kinds of justifications a person may have for raising their hand that they don't want a child in this world, including the fact that IF one lives in a so-called highly developed (First World nation) the environmental cost of that child on the planetary ecology is outlandishly excessive relative to other nations (e.g., Third World). Unfortunately, Williamson gives us no real reason for her pathological ascription (and dramatization of it with such serious and confident commitment) as "aberrant." It all comes across to me as her fear and her ideology rather than really level-headed analysis and 'good practice' therapeutically and philosophically.

2. The CAT-FAW/N (meta-cognitive) model and theory of Four Arrows, an Indigenous-based educator-philosopher and trained hypnotherapist, has long been a part of my work and you can look his name up on the FM ning---and/or see my book (an intellectual biography) "Fearless Engagement of Four Arrows" (2018).  

3. Of course, she would likely defend herself here and say 'I am not diagnosing people as pathological [i.e., aberrant], but the society that makes them that way." Ah, yeah, right. As if they are not intimately related and part of a co-evolving dialectical dynamics of self/system.

 

Read more…

8004025484?profile=RESIZE_584x

 

[a fav quote from Marianne]: She wrote in her latest Twitter (Apr.16/23): "We will be a violent society until we decide to be nonviolent."

Marianne D. Williamson, (1952- ) is an American spiritual teacher, activist, leader, political critic and Democratic progressive living in the USA. She has been documented historically as an important woman "mystic leader" amongst other icons over the last three centuries [1]I have followed her work for over 30 years off and on, and recently have studied her work and her campaign to run for President of the U.S. in 2020, and have a new book coming out soon on "The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution in Dangerous Times" (Peter Lang, 2020). As well, my deep interest has been in her thinking and writing about Love and Fear. For a most recent (2022) interview MW gives and explains her philosophy of Love and Fear and real worldly applications go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSwbox4LZhg

Caroline Myss, (1952-) the famous contemporary American spiritual teacher, in a recent interview on Williamson's new podcast, called for a "visionary humanity" that truly transcends the old humanity imaginaries which have brought so much injustice and violence for centuries; Myss acknowledges her friend and colleague, Marianne Williamson in the interview at one point with emphatic tone: 

"I really do want to say, that I deeply believe you have made such a dent in the turning point of this country....Even though you didn't make it to the White House.... your message reverberated and I think what you did was, you implanted an archetype, [2] that spiritual consciousness needs to be part of the governmental dialogue, you did that.... you inserted it." 

What Myss is saying in general, is that Williamson is fully re-introducing a mature and complex spirituality into the political scene--what Williamson calls a "holistic" and/or "integrative" politics, more practically articulated for the common people as in her latest (2019) book "A Politics of Love" [3]. She is telling Americans (and beyond that), we have to heal our souls, individually and collectively--we have to 'heal the nation' or we likely are not going to make it and the world collapse is near upon us. 

In this FM blog, I merely wanted to have one place where people could quickly access the References that refer to my writing and speaking and publishing on Williamson in the last few years. Although this is not the total complete list of my works on her, it is a good starting place to understand why I say I am 'voting' for her, because she is no longer running a political campaign [4] but I am voting for her as one of the best leaders we have today in North America (if not beyond) to guide our societies to more sustainable health, sanity and growth that is in tune with the limitations of our ecological partners on this planet. I salute her as a 'great' leader to be studied and engaged, as you see fit. I think she will improve, mature and become an even greater leader in the future. Although, as I point out in many of my publications below, there is also the susceptibility in her leadership to 'miss' or 'deny' or simply go down a road which I believe will be ineffective to meet her higher aims [5]. Of course, this is all debateable and I encourage dialogue amongst us all to pursue understanding better this leader, and ourselves, and where our societies are going. 

 

My Publications List [all available online free] re: Marianne Williamson

Fisher, R. M. (2020). How to best define 'the enemy: Tips for Marianne Williamson & other emancipatory leaders. Technical Paper No. 113. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 

_________ (2020). Marianne Williamson's dubious 'be courageous' prescriptions need a 21st century upgrade. Technical Paper No. 112. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 

_________ (2020). The Marianne Williamson presidential phenomenon: Cultural (r)evolution in a dangerous time. NY: Peter Lang.

_________ (2020). Marianne Williamson’s educational mission: Curriculum for ending suffering. Technical Paper No. 110. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

__________(2020). Coronavirus and Marianne Williamson: Teachings for fear management education. Technical Paper No. 92. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

__________(2020). Marianne Williamson phenomenon: Chapter six reading. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xesF3CTWz40

__________(2020). Marianne Williamson: New book dives deeper. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBo66hjxMWg

__________ (2019). Near-fearlessness women leaders and their shadow: U. S. presidential candidate Marianne Williamson. Technical Paper No. 87. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

___________ (2019). Marianne Williamson 3: Love and fear. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJzLb6ALHPg

___________(2019). New ethical leadership: Marianne Williamson 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHDlATRUYLM

___________ (2019). Marianne Williamson: Fearmongering herself. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Satev8F7K14

___________(2019). New ethical leadership: Marianne Williamson 1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyENboIzxc

 

****

END NOTE

1. "Marianne Williamson, presidential candidate and preacher of the New Age Gospel of Love" (according to Scott, 2020). Scott, L. (2020). An American covenant: A story of women, mysticism, and the making of modern America. Topple Books/Little A. Scott, a journalist, author, activist and mystic herself, wrote this book as a "scathing queer feminist history" of five women who ought not be forgotten "who inspired the nation in their own times." 

2. As much as I agree with Myss re: the major contribution of "inserting" a new spirit into politics today, I did not hear Myss in this interview define or name fully the "archetype" that Myss is referring to. I think that is unfortunate. In my book (Fisher, 2020) I have independently from Myss's analysis given a detailed account of the archetype of Williamson but have done so in contradistinction to Trump's archetype (and in dialectical relatonship with him)--as "phenomenon," which I put in ancient mythological terms as "The Twins" (Good vs Evil, Love vs. Fear, Light vs. Darkness etc.). My point is, there is no one archetype (as Myss seems to suggest) that is articulating the current Williamson project in the world, in leadership, and in America. My further critique of Myss-Williamson from this interview is to watch how contradictory their high consciousness articulations are for a 21st century "visionary humanity" and how they operate from a 'gut' expositional discourse as "patriots" (pure and simple American-lovers). What happened to higher consciousness and the evolution of global citizenry as so many great and compassionate evolutionary minds have written about this for hundreds of years. It trully seems Myss-Williamson (as very successful millionaires in American culture) have a 'strange' morality hybridization, which as a Canadian looking on, it has to be called a pattern of deep-conditioning in American exceptionalism (and romanticism). It is this kind of thinking that will hold back, in my view, the maturation of the growth of Williamson as a great world leader but that's not a criticism of disparagement, more an encouragement to be the 'best' she can be. She, like any great leader, needs a lot of support and honest critical feedback too. 

3. See Williamson's two overt political books: Williamson, M. (1997). The healing of America [later titled Healing the soul of America]. Simon & Schuster; and Williamson, M. (2019). A politics of love: A handbook for a new American revolution. HarperOne. 

4. I am predicting she will either run again for Democratic Party leadership (or some other '3rd' option party) in 2024--and, if not, before then, she'll even run for a Congresswoman position; or she'll be esconced into some position even in the Biden Presidency (if he wins, and at this point in time, polls are showing that'll likely be the case).  

5. One of the worst mistakes, is her evolution from calling her opponents (enemies) "sociopathic" as in the current predatory economic system that runs America, to a degrading literalization of people (something she said in earlier speeches in her campaign, and going way back in her spiritual teachings she would not do)--see her recent Twitter (amongst other evidence I have collected on her unbecoming personalizing and demonizing agenda of political leaders): 

"The core of the problem is that only a government dominated by genuine sociopaths could have the heartlessness to ignore that much fear and suffering in our midst."  

Tweet Oct. 7/20

 

Read more…

Who Legitimately Can Call Who Fearful?

I've always been interested in the question: Who legitimately can call who fearful? What I mean is, who is qualified to do so? Who is allowed to by the other person (or by society) that is so being labeled "fearful"? And who of course is actually fearful? Are they admitting they are fearful or are they covering the fear up with bravado (for e.g.,)? Is the one labeling the other fearful, actually the fearful themselves and only projecting fear onto another? Is only a 'transcendent other' the 'one' to truly know the fear in the human soul(s)... and resolve it? The questions grow... like weeds... but I think they have philosophical, sociological, psychological and political merit. As a society we ought to reflect on these questions and others like them.

I'm concerned we don't talk about fear enough for the challenging times we live in. I'm concerned we remain largely unconscious of the great "force" of fear to influence us. And, thus, you can see I am an advocate for feartalking and fear management/education, and fearology and so on. 

I recently was in a conflict with an acquaintance who was insistent I listen to a set of videos on 'end of the world' scenarios via extreme climate change. This is a growing topic in our world, at least in the West. I said, I won't likely get to them because I have interest in other topics rather than the science of climate change. This person became incensed and bullying in response and tried to find ways to intimidate, make me feel guilty, etc. for not doing what he wanted me to do. Now, this was not an adolescent or a three year old child of mine, it was a 45+ yr old man and a very intelligent and sensitive and aware man. What was going on? I snooped out it was his fear (and fearfulness around survival of the end of the world) that was pressing on me to be informed of what he was informed on that he thought was so important to survival. I guess, in the moment I wasn't concerned about survival and the future that much. I'm more interested in other aspects of extreme climate change, like the perceptions and psychology of such events and realities. That greatly interests me. 

So, under pressure of his personal attacks on me for not cooperating with his desires for me to watch these videos, I told him bluntly, but respectfully, I heard his concern, and I wasn't ignoring it but I was more concerned with the way he was approach me and trying to get me to do it. I told him he was using fear tactics to teach, if not convert, me. This raised the level of his anger and he denied he was doing so. 

I suppose it was very hard for him to hear my message of communication, that both he wasn't effective in his communication and he was using fear tactics and that cannot be a way to wisdom. His rage went on and on and many many emails he sent. I stopped reading them. He was unloading a whole lot of distress. I told him so. He again, resented my view because it felt like a judgement upon him. Was I judging him because I said he was using fear tactics? Which, in a way I suppose I was but I wasn't trying to make him into a horrible person necessarily at all. I just was standing up for what I believe is unethical (or just not effective)--that is, to use fear tactics, some call fearmongering to make your point and to try to change people to your view. 

This all was hurtful to me and disappointing this person would treat me so disrespectfully--he treated me suddently from friend to enemy. No doubt many of you know this experience I am talking about. It felt like the 45 year old person became a young angry adolescent quite irrational--that is, fear-based in their relationship with me, rather than connecting and respectful--even if we had our differences. This is a common problem in our world. People disrespecting people with differences and for having a right to be different and to not be coerced or threatened to change. 

Anyways, I'm most intrigued by my calling him out and labeling his approach to communication as a "fear tactic." I was saying he is using fear implicitly because he is fearful. Why else would he be so insistent and stubborn and disrespectful to my free choice to do as I saw fit? Fear has to be ruling that kind of behavior, so I surmised, and I do believe this is the case as well. One could go into the theory behind my thinking, and some evidence perhaps from knowledges available but that is not what I want to do here in this blog. I merely want to have readers think about this in terms of why did this person, knowing I was a fear expert for 30 years, not want me making my observation of his fear tactic? It seems he couldn't stand it that I was discerning something he didn't see or feel? Did he not feel fear in himself when I refused to follow his orders of insistence to watch the videos he sent to me? Perhaps not, perhaps he was quite unconscious of his feelings and only trying to correct my behavior with his behavior of writing all the disrespectful emails. Later, he did apologize for trying to "force" me. 

Point being, what is more important is that he would not trust or respect all my knowledge and experience with fear and thus when I labeled it onto his activity in a particular way he rejected it completely and more or less threw back comments to try to make me fearful of his vengeance and power etc. He tried to say I was fearful to not watch these videos. I did wonder if that was true of myself? I had bits of doubt. Then it took time to get over my hurt and fears of his abusive language toward me and find out that no I was not avoiding anything, I was merely chosing a different priority of where I put my time and energy than he would. 

This person is like so many I have met, and often when in conflict--I will say, if I sense it, "you're coming from fear" or you seem to "be afraid" etc. Most people resent me saying that, no matter how soft I deliver that message or observation. I guess they don't like me interpreting them. I am not saying I am highly skilled in effective communication around this touchy issue. I have lots to learn so I can be more effective. But nonetheless, I keep doing it and will because I think it is so important as part of my teaching to point out fear and its mis-uses on others (and/or on me). I see people hate being called out on it. 

They fear being seen through--seeing their fear when they don't even seem to see or feel it. They are fearful and won't admit it. They attack me or others you label the fear in them and their actions. The attack is meant to transfer the unacknowledged fear in them onto me (or another target who names the fear). They attack the messenger, in that sense. 

Yes, very very common and very destructive this dynamic is. It is like they don't give persmission to me (or others) to so name their fear, except maybe they would do so if the person was someone they trusted a lot or was a clinical psychologist for example. Maybe. 

I wonder about this phenomenon of legitimacy to call out fear when it is there. Of course, maybe I was 'wrong' in my interpretation. That's possible. But I trust my skills in detecting fear. Anyways, it's a problem that won't go away and I have lost good friendships with many people over this issue of my naming fear when I see it in them. 

Another e.g., comes when I am not with someone I know per se in person. They are not a friend or colleague in my close connections, but I may still want to point out and name the fear I see in them, and feel they are not acknowledging, and/or feel they are abusing fear against others--e.g., in fearmongering. This is what I have done with the famous Jordan Peterson. I have done a few youtube videos on his life and work from what I gathered studying him and his work [1]. He tends to come across in his lectures and interviews as very "brave" or "courageous" (some might call "fearless")--and, yet, I don't see him that way when I watch him and listen to him speak on videos. I don't get his fearlessness--he seems quite fearful and anxious.

Now, this is subtle. But recently a psychoanalyst in Holland pronounced that J. Peterson is quite an anxious and fearful person because he mainly is a traditionalist [2] and Peterson cannot stand loss of traditionalism (a lot of it anyways)--and thus, Peterson attacks the postmodern thinkers who are rejecting traditionalism. Long story. I have made a poster below to make my inquiry visible: 

3715227018?profile=RESIZE_710x

So, if you don't know, Peterson is a clinical psychologist himself, he does therapy with people, some 30+ year competent career, etc. So, why is he so fearful? Oh, but first, the question is: Do I have a right to call him a fearful person? Does Dr. Jan Derksen, from Holland, have a right to do so, even if he is a trained psychoanalyst? On and on it goes. Is the fear pathological, neurotic, or near-psychotic (at times)? Is Peterson in need of psychological treatment for his excess fear and use of fearmongering? Lots of questions could be asked. My point is, not to diminish him and his work. My purpose is to ask if I (or anyone, like Dr. Derksen) has a right to call out Peterson on his fear-based ways of approaching things in his communications? This is just like the question of my calling out my friend recently that he was using fear tactics to try to convert me in some manner. I resent such coercion and worst, it is unethical to use fear tactics or fear-based perceptions and thinking to try to change anyone. At least, that would be a working pivot point for further philosophical discussion. This blog is not the place for that. I just wanted to raise all these issues. 

Dr. Derksen, rightly I think, nails it down quite well in talking about how Peterson has become the icon (of one sort) today for defense of Tradition. Sure, I know he doesn't like everything about tradition, but he is one of its remaining advocates, and yes, he's a privilege white old male to boot--which makes many skeptical of his motivations. I say, his motivations are often quite fear-based in his defence of Tradition (and himself). That said, you can see my videos on him and his work for more nuance. But to close here, I'll give the explanation Dr. Derksen gives (interprets) re: Peterson, as Derksen is here discussing the deep roots of fear that are being raised rapidly in a society of "political correctness" around identity politics and how our culture and society and law are all grappling with the new emergence of identity politics and "difference" overall. Dr. Derksen says in the video: 

"... it shakes people, it pulls at their roots... then it gets more emotional than rational, so it's [identity] a topic that will stay with us for many years... the most important intellectual topic will be, are we culturally and politically [able] to manage that anxiety [fear] that rises out of the fact conservative principles [values] are being broken down. Is there enough leadership... to organize their emotions about that in a productive way?" 

The host of the panel came in and said: "I think for many he [Peterson] is seen as a manager of anxiety [himself, for much of the society, especially white young males]." Dr. Derksen said, "yes." At one point Derksen says (paraphrasing), that Peterson's best-selling book "12 Rules for Life" is not science it is religion, it is all about Peterson's preaching his gospel of Tradition in his own unique way as a clinical scientist/psychologist, but it is not justified in the field of clinical psychology itself it is something else Peterson is trying to accomplish. The philosopher on the panel says (paraphrasing) it is Peterson's 'new mythology' guide for especially those who have lost their way, lost their identity and pride in this postmodern world of multiple and complex identities and their conflicts. The question in the panel's mind, seems to me always implicit in its rightful questioning of just how 'healthy' is Peterson himself to be teaching this way to 'health'? I think we should ask that of any teacher, especially one who makes their living in the human services field and who trafficks in authoring self-help advice in videos, talks, books etc. How healthy is Peterson, or how fearful is Peterson? [3] These are important questions, and questions I ought to also have hurled at my own teaching and life.

So, all this comes around to the importance of fear (anxiety) management, individual to collective. Our challenging times require a tremendous up-grade of how we manage and will manage fear. My own estimate, is that Peterson doesnt' do a great job of it. Albeit, I say that knowing he's made millions of dollars on his approach to fear management (unfortunately). The discussions must continue to challenge even Peterson's approach just like my friend's approach-- we have to look at when fear-based means are used for good ends, for good teaching, for morals, etc. I am a great skeptic and will be until I see a fearlessness-based approach invoked. 

 

Notes: 

1. Go to: https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrVk.IRk89dvksA3BAXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=youtube+r.+michael+fisher+and+jordan+peterson+and+fear&fr=yhs-Lkry-SF01&hspart=Lkry&hsimp=yhs-SF01#id=1&vid=c3e2964bb0e8876f8326dc648887b306&action=view

2. Go to youtube.com/watch?v=Y5LrxSKGW5Y for a great 2019 conversation on Jordan Peterson by a panel of scholars, including Dr. Derksen. Also see just how "fragile" (fearful, anxious, sensitized) Peterson is in recent times with this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0P6H7cm0E4

3. I suspected from the first moment I watched Peterson in a lecture on video, from several years ago, his approach is very preacherly, he has a tone and style that reminds me of many preachers I have observed and how they are very fearful of many things (like "chaos") and are trying to teach as a way to manage this fear. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but fear used this way can accumulate and multiply and become 'fear' in a cultural discourse which is far beyond Peterson's personal fears. I don't think he truly understands what it is he is doing with his fear, and so my video (note 1) is precisely my challenging of him to be more aware, and likewise with his followers. The fact that it is public knowledge that Peterson has suffered with severe depression in his life off and on and has been taking certain meds to deal with his emotional problems, he has become addicted to the meds (apparently) and in coming off those meds he is struggling even more emotionally and one can see this at times in his recent interviews, it is very obvious he is 'on edge' and highly hurting and anxious and fearful just below his tough and sharp intellectuality (the latter, which so many people admire as his strength). 

 

 

Read more…