Biotech Boot Camp Journalism

Previously, we took a look at the Johnson versus Monsanto case, and the interactions between the reporter assigned to the story and fake skeptics.

In this follow up we are going to look at other journalists who also report on food and agriculture, and how they might be influenced by the agrochemical industry.

As mentioned before in part one, a source in one of the articles on the Johnson case, Dr. Val Giddings, helped to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Academics Review, an industry front group, that went to fund Biotech Literacy Project "boot camps". These bootcamps were intended to train journalists about how to present the debate about GMO's and pesticides.

As the name suggests the events were funded by the Genetic Literacy Project - another industry front group started by Jon Entine.

Experts, you say?

Let's start with the first bootcamp in 2014.

As mentioned in the previous blog post, Dr. Giddings was a key feature in setting up Academics Review along with Eric Sachs, the director of regulatory policy in scientific affairs at Monsanto, Bruce Chassy, professor at the University of Illinois, and Jay Byrne, the former director of corporate communications at Monsanto, and current president of v-Fluence Interactive, a public relations firm.

Dr. Giddings has helped to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that went to fund the BLP journalist bootcamps. According to a piece in the Progressive by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, "The only traceable money source is the biotech industry." He also reports that in emails, "journalists are described as "partners.""

In addition to Giddings, Sachs, Chassy and Byrne, event organizers included the former chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, Kevin Folta, who was caught (again) recently taking undisclosed consulting funds from Bayer, and consultant Cami Ryan who shortly after this event started working for Monsanto - now owned by Bayer.

A couple of the journalist "partners" in attendance at the first bootcamp were Tamar Haspel from the Washington post and Keith Kloor who was with Discover Magazine.

Probably unsurprisingly, a member of the American Council on Science and Health had a hand in the 2015 bootcamp held at the end of May in at UC Davis. "Experts" indeed. This follow up to the first event was promoted by former ACSH President Hank Campbell's on his website Science 2.0. Hank was also a presenter as part of the journalism round table and also moderating a panel related to chemicals in the environment as clearly, he's an expert in such things.

Bio accumulation is a billion dollar Big Environmental conspiracy, yo.

Another well respected, academic luminary who contributed their expertise was Yvette d'Entremont aka SciBabe as keynote speaker. Because who better than to teach journalists how to talk about GMOs and pesticides than a woman who used to work for Amvac Chemical Corporation who sells Lorsban (chlorpyrifos) and had an agreement with Monsanto to promote Roundup Ready GMO crops? I'm sure she provided an unbiased perspective.

Other presenters include, Entine, Chassy, Folta and Byrne, SciMom Anastasia Bodnar, Biology Fortified's David Tribe, Monsanto's Cami Ryan, Alison Van Eenennaam, and journalists Keith Kloor (again), Nathanael Johnson, and Brooke Borel.

Borel wrote about her ethical conundrum regarding the acceptance of the $2000 honorarium for presenting at the 2015 BLP boot camp in Popular Science.

"I was offered a $2000 honorarium as well as expenses. I wrote back and asked who would provide the honorarium and was told it would be a combination of bonds from UC Davis, USDA, state money, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

 Now, BIO is an industry group. When I saw it listed, I decided then that if I went to the conference, I wouldn't take that money, because they cover GMOs here at Popular Science as well as other outlets. Not everyone would see it this way but in my view this is especially important in a case like this because GMOs are so polarizing for many folks."

The sponsors of the second boot camp listed on the Science 2.0 site are the Genetic Literacy Project, Academics Review, the World Food Center Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy and the University of Florida.

When writing an email to scientists in 2016 Chassy of Academics Review states that, "the three day Boot Camp is relatively expensive since we pay everyone's travel and lodging as well as honoraria. Participants receive $250 and presenters as much as $2500 (journalists aren't inexpensive) ... I need to be clear upfront that our support comes from BIO, USDA, state – USAID and some foundation money, so industry is indirectly a sponsor. We are 100% transparent about sponsorship."

One has to wonder if Tamar Haspel, Keith Kloor, and Nathanael Johnson had a similar ethical dilemma when it came to taking the honorarium as did Brooke Borel?

Tamar Haspel is a freelance writer who regularly publishes articles in the Washington Post. Haspel has been quoted on the website Sense About Science USA. She states, "...STATS is invaluable to me,"referring to their advisory service to journalists.

Sense About Science has been criticized for their industry slanted position. The Intercept reported in 2016, ""When journalists rightly ask who sponsors research into the risks of, say, asbestos, or synthetic chemicals, they’d be well advised to question the evidence Sense About Science presents in these debates as well."

In addition to the BLP bootcamps, Tamar also appeared as part of a panel at an event sponsored by Ketchum PR, who have been hired by the agrochemical industry in recent years to work on the GMO Answers website along with other favorable messaging. Atlantic contributor David Freedman canceled his appearance at the same event upon learning who the sponsors were. Haspel obviously didn't have the same change of heart.

Haspel's colleague Keith Kloor, who attended both bootcamps has been noted for his enthusiastic promotion of genetically engineered crops and behind the scenes collaboration with Kevin Folta, another bootcamp alumnus. Emails have revealed Kloor communicated with both Folta and Entine after Folta's undisclosed $25k grant from Monsanto was revealed through FOIA requests by USRTK in 2015. Kloor and Folta collaborated to preemptively release the information as a form of damage control. Huffington post reports that, "Folta alerted Kloor that he was going through the emails to figure out how to deal with any bad press, including his funding. “I started going through this last night and I’m thinking a preemptive release of the materials is good, but selectively.”"

Kloor's story published in Nature insisted that "The records...do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta." Anyone familiar with the saga, already knows Kevin was less than honest about his connection to Monsanto. He publicly stated on the Joe Rogan show that "I have nothing to do with Monsanto." The records more than suggest that he was taking money from them for his outreach program and in touch with them regularly prior to this statement made on the JRE podcast on June 4, 2015.

Does this sound like someone with nothing to hide?

After the story about Folta was published in Nature, Entine contacted Kloor via email to complain about his use of 'close ties' to describe Folta's relationship with the agrochemical industry. Kloor stated that he "agonized" over the story, and that the phrase was added in the final edits. He described Folta's objection to its use as "fair." He then states to Entine, "You and I should also talk. You are in the emails."

In addition to his adventures with Folta and Entine, Kloor has earned a reputation of relying on rhetorical tactics to discredit Big Agribusiness critics. He's accused registered dietitian Carol Bartolotto who once dared to question the touted benefits of GE crops, of fearmongering and "pure denialism." Bartolotto was mentioned in one of Kloor's articles flogging the tired guilt by association maneuver of dragging out the contentious topic of vaccination. This is a favorite of people who do not want to address legitimate concerns, because shit, that's hard.

Kloor has been criticized by Professor of Anthropology Glenn Davis Stone at Washington University for his take on farmer suicides in India. Farmer suicide is a complex problem, and while myths about the causes behind it are being widely spread by both sides of the "GMO debate" Stone notes that Kloor does little to draw attention to the root causes and instead uses the suicide as an opportunity to slam environmentalists. "But Kloor’s goal was not to understand the problem of farmer suicide, but rather to use it to whip up hatred toward Vandana Shiva and “liberal and environmentalist circles,” where GMOs are unpopular. The intent was to turn a complex social science question into a moral fable." He concludes his critique stating that, "In other writing Kloor calls GMO opponents unscientific. However, I would suggest that it is articles like this, which bash one side’s irresponsible claims but not the other’s, and which aim to create exasperation rather than insight, that are the real impediments to the scientific understanding of our world."

Nathanael Johnson, the other journalist mentioned earlier who joined the boot camp ranks with Haspel and Kloor, was recruited to join in the 2015 event as seen in these emails. He's a favorite of Entine, who praised him over a 26 part series on GMOs he says "Sets Stage For GMO Science Journalism Conclave" in Forbes. He states, "How can science journalists refocus the public’s attention on empirical data and away from fear mongering? We see hopeful signs of that happening with journalist-blogger Keith Kloor, plant geneticist Kevin Folta, and young scientist-communicators like Anastasia Bodnar and Karl Haro von Mogel at Biofortified." How grand it must be, to have your reporting be praised by an infamous agribusiness apologist and atrazine defender who heads an industry front group.

Johnson also appears in the recent documentary "Food Evolution." I reviewed that steaming pile of shit and wasted time on my Twitter feed if you're interested.

I think at this point it's safe to say that the agrochemical industry is making a concerted effort to control the narrative on GMOs and pesticides. Part of this plan as we can see is to influence journalists and provide them with industry favorable talking points. Questioning where, and how journalists get their information is never a bad idea.

A Precautionary Strawman

Chances are if you've stuck around long enough, you've noticed a common theme amongst the Skeptic crowd - they aren't fans of the precautionary principle (PP).

David Zaruk waxes poetic on the PP.

The PP is a guideline for decision making when faced with scientific uncertainty. It has been described as having "four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making."

The Wingspread Statement defines the principle: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

And yet, popular Skeptic bloggers and SciMoms Alison Bernstein aka Mommy PhD and Kavin Senapathy define the PP as something entirely different in the Forbes article, "How Marketers Use Fear Of Chemicals For Profit: 3 Easy Steps"

Their statement even goes so far to imply that the PP is somehow irrational, harkening back to Zaruk's string of ad hominem descriptors at the outset of this post.

Another popular Skeptic blogger, Michael Simpson (aka Skeptical Raptor) lists the PP under logical fallacies on his website.

His rationale for including it in the logical fallacy category? "Although the precautionary principle is not a formal logical fallacy, it is very dependent on the logical fallacy, argument from ignorance, which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

In addition to creating their own definitions of the PP, another popular tactic is proposing absurd strawman applications of the principle in order to undermine it.

Of course, none of their definitions or examples are accurate when you actually compare them with the PP. Their biases are on full display here, and unfortunately this type of misrepresentation is not beneficial to stakeholders who may be affected by decisions made without due consideration to the effects on the environment or human health. But they are beneficial to the industries who are happy to shift the burden of proof to the public to prove unequivocally that their products are toxic as they continue to pump them out into the air and water only to find decades later that long term harm has occurred.

Ecomodernism - A New Ideology of the Anthropocene

Ecomodernism is a recently conceived movement that's been described as "an environmental philosophy which argues that humans can "decouple" anthropogenic impacts from the natural world."

These ecomodernists are featured often in the media, are part of academic institutions and even receive awards for their work. Their ideas are portrayed as the 'future of environmentalism' in the press, but is their philosophy one that will truly benefit humans and the environment, or is it just a lot of hot air?

The Manifesto

In April of 2015 the 'An Ecomodernist Manifesto' was released. The numerous authors include  controversial characters like Mark Lynas known for his almost religious 'conversion' to an aggressive promoter of conventional agriculture and his creative interpretation of history. Then there's aspiring politician and nuclear energy proponent Michael Shellenberger and Roger Pielke Jr. who was at one time part of a brief investigation by Democratic lawmakers (that never amounted to anything) for potential issues with research funding. And also David Keith who is a strong advocate for geoengineering.

The manifesto starts out acknowledging our impact on the planet, and stating their position on how best to manage it. In it they "affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse." They argue further that, "Natural systems will not, as a general rule, be protected or enhanced by the expansion of humankind’s dependence upon them for sustenance and well-being."

Few people will argue that humans are having a great impact on the planet, but many would question the wisdom of the Ecomodernists suggested approach to managing it. The idea that we must shrink our impacts on the environment is reasonable, but is that best achieved by rejecting the idea of harmonizing with nature? The Ecomodernists say the solution is "Intensifying many human activities — particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement — so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from environmental impacts." The idea that we can 'de-couple' ourselves from the planet we live on is so far from reality that you have to wonder where this level of hubris stems from.

An over-simplified illustration to be sure, but it still provides some much needed perspective.

The Ecomodernists believe that we must reduce our dependence on natural systems yet at the same time recognizing that we are "completely dependent on the living biosphere." We are not able to decouple ourselves from nature simply because we came from it, we are a part of it, and we depend on it for our own survival.

This sort of inconsistency isn't unusual - the Ecomodernists have been called out before on their statements about Al Gore and climate, renewable energy, climate policy, climate scientists, their track record of bad analyses as well as the failures of the manifesto.

The Breakthrough Institute (TBI)

The Ecomodernist's progressive think tank organization founded in 2003 by Michael Shellenberger, describes itself as "a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges." Senior fellows include Pamela Ronald, queen of retractions, the aforementioned Roger Pielke Jr., and Stuart Brand, co-founder of the Long Now Foundation and unrepentant purveyor of played out DDT myths.

TBI has had it's fair share of criticism over the years from its messaging on climate change to the quality of the data they present. Their blatantly technocratic worldview is on display in their magazine The Breakthrough Journal where int heir latest issue they promote technofixes like geoengineering, nuclear energy and even become apologists for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's).

'Science Mom' Jenny Splitter sings the praises of CAFOs.

Under their mission statement they proclaim that "We believe that technology and modernizations are at the foundation of human progress." and "We believe that...long-term government investment is required to accelerate technological progress, economic growth and environmental quality."

TBI is a wet dream come true for industry. At least the ones they promote anyway, like industrial agriculture, nuclear energy and the like. Let's look at one example.

Monsanto's Director of Millennial Engagement praises BTI award recipient Rachel Laudan, who "celebrates technological, industrial, “artificial” food."

Vance Crowe promotes ecomodernism quite often, alongside the other 'tribes' he is trying to connect on behalf of his employer's best interests. He is a member of Stuart Brand's Long Now Foundation (#5454) as he announces on his Twitter bio.

Vance wants to connect the Skeptic tribe with ecomodernism.

The cringey-named Trolling With Logic podcast starring Vance and Vice Chair of the Finnish Eco-modernists.

Clearly, Monsanto and the rest of the agrochemical industry is not what we'd think of as a leader in sustainability, or planetary health. Their love of all things ecomodernist should give us pause as to the direction the Ecomodernists would like to take us. Their promise of a 'great Anthropocene' is perhaps well-intentioned, but their sheer ignorance of ecology, inconsistent rhetoric, and distortion of statistics is something to be seriously wary of. Ecomodernism seems much more ideologically based than it is grounded in reality.

"Beware of people preaching simple solutions to complex problems." - Steve Herbert

Whose One-Liner Is It Anyway?

The scientific method is vital to knowledge development. It has helped the human race to save lives and do and discover many amazing things. Science is a hot topic these days. Scientific findings like climate change have been embroiled in controversy and politics, leading to more exposure in the news media also television shows like Cosmos, and events like the March for Science have helped to popularize it.

Sadly, scientific literacy is being diluted down to soundbites and axioms by the pop science Skeptic movement. How often have you heard phrases like these?

The plural of anecdote is not data

Everything is a chemical

Correlation is not causation

The dose makes the poison

Science doesn't care what you believe

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

These one-liners are designed to make the person delivering them sound sciencey and smart, but when someone is using a phrase like this it often belies a facile understanding of a complex issue.

Sigh. I feel your pain, kid.

This particular quote is often used to dismiss people's observations as having no value. While one anecdote alone isn't concrete proof of something, observational data is in fact very useful. The humorous example in the British Medical Journal of the article entitled Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials reminds us of this. That's even aside from the fact that this commonly used aphorism is being badly mis-quoted. The original version comes from a man named Raymond Wolfinger. In a 2003 email correspondence, Wolfinger relays the story behind his famed quote:

"I said 'The plural of anecdote is data' some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student's dismissal of a simple factual statement-by another student or me-as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder."

Isn't it strangely ironic then that the Skeptic crowd would popularize the exact opposite of what the phrase was meant to convey?

Buy this sticker and you too, can pretend to be science literate.

This one generally gets whipped out when people use the term chemical to refer to a synthetic or manufactured substance, food additives or those products made by the chemical industry...what do they call those things? Oh yeah, chemicals.

Yes, all matter has a chemical structure. No, not all chemicals are bad. Shouting that 'everything is a chemical' in the middle of a conversation is about as helpful as shouting 'the sky is blue' in the middle of a conversation about airplanes. It might be correct, but it doesn't really serve to inform anyone.

The louder you shout it, the more scientific you sound.

Correlation alone is not proof of causation, this is true. But a correlation is also not a claim of proof either. And many times, what is mistaken as simply correlation is actually part of a collection of data that reinforces itself statistically. A correlation is a part of scientific investigation and it is pseudoscience to demand proof before an hypothesis can be fully tested. Imagine where we would be if every time a scientist noticed a correlation in some collected data they just waved their hand and said, 'No need to research this any further, correlation does not equal causation!'

Yes, because PCBs and asbestos are the same as potatoes and pears.

This one is a classic - literally. The axiom comes from the 16th century 'father of toxicology' Paracelsus. The original quote is, "All things are poison and nothing (is) without poison, only the dose makes that a thing is no poison." Does dose matter? Of course, but keep in mind Paracelsus lived before we knew about things like low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses. Other factors influence toxicity too like individual susceptibility, timing, sequence, and accompanying exposures. The idea that low doses are always too low to be harmful betrays an ignorance of some of the most basic toxicological science. And as in the example above, it is used frequently by the chemical industry to confuse consumers and distract from the science surrounding their products that exhibit worrisome toxic effects.

A phrase so popularized, it even has its own Facebook page. It's all Oprah's fault, I'm sure. 

Science isn't a person, so no, of course it doesn't care what you believe. Don't be a fucking asshole.

Not to be confused with the poster on Mulder's office wall. 

While Sagan has done more for science literacy than he hasn't, we still could have done without his popularization of this one. First it lacks any real context. What defines an extraordinary claim? What would be accepted as extraordinary evidence?  Does this mean the evidence required to prove the existence of a new earth species is different or less than that to prove the existence of an alien life form? It doesn't seem logical that the required scientific evidence for proof of claims should be on some kind of arbitrary Skeptical Sliding Scale.

 Speaking of arbitrary and illogical...

This segues nicely into our last one-liner from Skeptic sourpuss, Chris Hitchens. "That which can be asserted with out evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." How the hell can anyone take this nihilistic shit seriously? You can't just make up your own rules as you go along and pretend it's somehow evidence-based to absolve yourself from presenting any evidence at all. This is the height of intellectual laziness, and we should pity any person who repeats this rubbish.

Science literacy is more than memorizing a series of catchy phrases, and skepticism is a discipline of thinking which cannot be accomplished by oversimplifying complex issues which is exactly what these expressions do. Make sure not to be seduced by this flashy style fake skepticism - there are no shortcuts here. Learning about science takes time and effort, but it's worth doing right.

Sham News Sites Promote False Narrative

If you've been following the controversy over the world's most popular herbicide active ingredient  glyphosate, you know things have been getting increasingly heated since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as probably carcinogenic to humans back in 2015.

During this time, a series of reports have come out of Reuters by a reporter named Kate Kelland. These 'exclusives' can all be traced back to Monsanto, the agrochemical company that made glyphosate famous with their lucrative product Roundup. As a result of this reporting, and perhaps some lobbying efforts, the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee has launched an investigation into IARC, threatening to cut funding to the independent organization. Three of Kelland's stories were cited in letters to IARC by House Science chairmen Lamar Smith and Andy Biggs. The first letter was sent in November 2017 and a follow-up in December 2017. 

Most recently, the House Science committee has held a hearing titled "In Defense of Scientific Integrity: Examining the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph Program and Glyphosate Review" wherein Andy Biggs refers to glyphosate as "glyphosphate." It was just as appalling as it sounds. But then, this is that House Science committee.

NBC reports: The article claims the science behind global warming is “in its final death rattle.”

And if you think they learned after that first go-around...well, you'd be wrong.

Despite their name, the House Science committee needs some serious work on their science literacy. The criticisms made by Chairman Smith, who has accepted thousands of dollars in contributions from the agribusiness industries, have been thoroughly rebutted by IARC Director Christopher Wild in several written responses, and yet the 'investigation' continues to drag on - much like their tweets featuring rock solid sources.

ACSH is American Council on Science and Health - a notorious front group.

While this circus has been going on, Monsanto has been rolling out their "Preparedness and Engagement Plan for IARC carcinogen rating of glyphosate." In one section of this plan, they state their first objective is to "Protect the reputation and FTO (acronym for 'freedom to operate') of Roundup by communicating the safety of glyphosate." One of the first actions in the plan is "Engage Henry Miller." The finished product of that engagement was an article on Forbes' website, which has now been removed along with all of Miller's articles. It turns out Henry submitted a draft written by Monsanto. Ghostwriting, for obvious reasons, is in direct violation of Forbes' contract with contributors. Oops.

Another part of the plan specifies "Share SM messages (Twitter, Facebook)." This is interesting considering a number of ads that people have been seeing on the social media platforms from anonymous and fictitious news sites.

The Facebook page Science News Today with posts dating back to March 18th 2015, (two days before the IARC monograph 112 was released) have since removed their reviews because so many people called them out - they had a rating of 1 star with 124 reviewers as of October 2017.

In addition to that Facebook page there are at least two more that people have noticed, In The News and Facts of Science.

This was in my news feed not long ago.

Reviews are still up.

The only three star review was an accident.

I think it's fair to say people are noticing something fishy about these accounts. They are painfully obvious.

This tweet, now deleted, was being promoted on Twitter by Facts of Science in January.

The account is really bizarre, it was created in May 2017 with a creepy-feeling focus on single mothers along with some awkward replies to certain tweets.

The Facts of Science account on Facebook has posts going back to October 2017. It has no reviews but you can still see what people are saying about this page.

Bottom line, someone is creating these accounts in an attempt to look like multiple independent sources, and are using them to buy ads on social media to promote the narrative that glyphosate the wonder chemical is being unfairly maligned by those fraudulent scientists over at IARC. This is a bunch of bullshit, straight out of the tobacco playbook and you have to wonder who is behind it.

If I had to give it a guess, I'd say, oh I don't know, someone in the chemical industry?

Updates

3/31/18

I was sent a screen shot today of another fake news outlet, sponsoring this tweet. Shared News Story have both a Twitter and Facebook account fitting the same pattern as the others.

4/26/18

The promoted tweets from Shared News Story continue...

I think it's fair to say there's a pattern here...

5/1/2018

But wait - there's more!

A new promoted tweet showed up in my feed the other day, this time it's a survey offering the chance to win a free Apple iWatch.

So, before I took the survey I decided to look at the privacy policy.

LoudDoor, LLC? What's that? I'll have to look that up in a bit. I went ahead with the survey...

I answered yes. I wonder where they are going with this???

Exactly where I thought...and I answered no to this one.

No Apple iWatch for me, I guess! Better see what's up with LoudDoor...

LoudDoor was clearly hired by someone. Do you think it's someone who manufactures and sells Roundup brand weed killer perhaps?  

Jesus Christ Poseurs (or Jesus Christ, Poseurs!)

I don't generally write about me, because that's not what this blog is about. But today, I'd like to talk about a personal experience and how it relates to what I observe within the fake skeptic movement.

I am a cult survivor. I was raised from the age of three in a fundamentalist religious cult. At about the age of 19 I made a full exit from the religion that I will refer to in this blog as The Cult, not to be confused with the band, which I absolutely adore. It took me a little time to side step out the back door, but I did, successfully, and have not ever regretted it. I credit my rebellious nature for helping me to hasten my exit. I always felt miserable and suffocated by The Cult and its oppressive rules about what to wear, how to speak, whom to socialize with, and the like. In true cult fashion, the punishment for breaking these myriad soul sucking rules is excommunication or shunning by all family and friends in The Cult. Though I was careful to make my exit on the sly, and not get caught doing all the sinning I was doing (oh so much sinning) I exited alone and without the one family member who was inside with me. Though I am not officially marked by The Cult for shunning, my close family member still practices a modified form towards me by attempting to emotionally blackmail me to reform my sinful ways and return to The Cult.

Well, it ain't gonna fucking happen.

I am gloriously free of the oppressive control of the elitist group of men who deem themselves (and only them) to be speaking for God. I won't ever give that up for anything. This feeling might be difficult to understand for someone who has never been in the clutches of a high control cult. To this day, I bristle at anyone who takes an air of authority and attempts to tell people what is true, whether they hide behind religion or science while they are doing it.

No amount of smirking or magic tricks can hide the fact that you're a nihilist in an atheist dress, Penn. 

No, you arrogant motherfucker, this life, and my beliefs or lack of is for me to figure out - it's not up to you to tell me what is true or what to think. This is of course entirely different from someone teaching people how to think by giving them practical tools. But we have among us those that say they are doing one while doing the other, much like the leaders of The Cult have been doing for decades. I don't like people's controlling bullshit and dogmatic teachings, and I would think that my comrades who also grew up alongside me in The Cult would be on the same wavelength as me here.

Sad to say, I see some of them not just gravitating towards, but enthusiastically embracing the celebrity pundits of what is known as New Atheism, which is really just nihilism in sheep's clothing. Nihilism, on a spectrum of belief and non-belief is at the opposite end of theism, but it is still belief. In between rest the agnostics and atheists like me who lack belief. From my vantage point, the two ends of the spectrum give me the same uneasy feeling bordering on total revulsion at times, depending on who is doing the speaking.

*shiver*

The thing about being and becoming a non-believer is I didn't need any guidance from the 'atheist community' to get where I am. I left the cult and I concentrated on living my own life! I gave myself a much needed break from even thinking about religion. The last thing I wanted to do was to join a club where all they do is talk about fucking religion, and more than half of them can't even articulate to me what the religion I escaped from believes with any type of accuracy! Why the fuck would I want to learn about other religions from these asshats when they can't even accurately describe the beliefs and practices of the cult I left?

This is why for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone, let alone someone making a cult exit would slobber and fawn all over guys like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. They're dicks! All they're doing is feeding you another set of beliefs - they aren't helping you to become a critical thinker, they aren't helping you to learn science, and the kicker is you don't need them. No one on this planet holds any special truths that you aren't able to find for yourself. Always remember that.

It is depressing to see friends from The Cult trading one set of men bearing beliefs for another set of men bearing beliefs. It feels to me like they haven't truly broken free of their indoctrination, and that in wanting to do so in their vulnerable state they have embraced another belief system pretending to be atheism or science-based with promises of truth, rationality and critical thinking being made by these poseurs.

My friends from The Cult aren't the only people to buy into this belief set masquerading as science and atheism, the so-called New Atheists have a fairly large following. My hope is that people will question their beliefs - no matter what end of the spectrum they happen to land on - and learn to recognize both the high control groups out there, and the groups pretending their nihilist religion is atheism in order to have real freedom of mind.