I do understand why people are angry. The emphasis on "tear him down" was on the word "tear." (Wow that makes a great double entendre). Also, I meant that tearing down M is certainly not my primary purpose. M is followed by consenting adults and I think by and large, the overwhelming percentage of people involved in his cult (that I associate with anyway) take it with a grain of salt -e.g. no one anymore quits their job to go to festivals, gives up their children, etc. I am interested in my understanding. If I have some clarity, it is my pleasure to share it. And I can always get more clear, I can use the input.

I think a process of demystification works better than direct attack, because a large part of M’s attraction is through his mythological status and the "magical" thinking that his followers need to indulge to remain a part of the cult. Many people leave through a series of drips. For me, a small one was M talking about how his favorite actor was Clint Eastwood. Now, I’ve got nothing against Clint, and I like some of his movies, but there was something particularly low-brow about that comment (he used the ugly "make my day" comment). This went hand-in-hand with a comment he made a few years ago about how he thought abstract art was stupid or ugly, or something like that. I like abstract art and music - it took me years to be able to appreciate Charlie Parker. All of a sudden I see M as propagating the sort of anti-intellectualism that Mussolini fascism stood for. It’s hard to get around that, to worship it.  So maybe it’s not the big outrages, but the little chinks in the armor, the little revelations that allow people to move on.