The hypocrisy of the Aesthetic Realists
by Michael Bluejay, former
member of Aesthetic Realism
May 2010
"Hypocrisy" isn't a word I use
lightly, but sometimes the hypocrisy is so blatant,
extensive, and over-the-top that there's no other way to
describe it. That's the case with the Aesthetic
Realists, who claim their critics are liars while their own
lies would fill books, complain that their critics are
anonymous while they send me and my mother anonymous hate
mail (and edit Wikipedia anonymously as well), and charge
that their critics engage in name-calling, when it's the
Aesthetic Realists themselves who are hurling insults left
and right. This page gives some examples.
Claiming their critics are full of hate, while being
extraordinarily hateful themselves
The Aesthetic Realists claim that their critics are full of hate. For example:
"There is a tone of
hate in his writing here and on his
[Bluejay's] web site."
(source)
"We have the evidence, they
produce the vitriol."
(source)
"On the one side we have an
educational foundation teaching a fine philosophy for
many decades and on the other a small cabal of
malcontents throwing mud."
(source)
Of
course, the reader can easily peruse this website and see that it
consists of well-sourced criticism of the group's cult aspects, not
hate, and certainly not personal insults of the group's members. But
since Aesthetic Realism is a cult, its members equate criticism of it
as a crime
against humanity, so to them any criticism is
automatically hateful. They really can't see the
difference between level-headed critique and a page full
of personal insults. If Aesthetic Realism is the target, then to
Aesthetic Realists it's the same thing. But in any event,
the issue isn't whether my writing is full of
hate, it's whether the Aesthetic Realists'
writings are full of hate, at the same time as they admonish
others for being hateful. So how does their own writing
stack up? You be the judge:
"So much for
the stupid lying of Mali, Bluejay and the other
liars.... Why is he doing this? Feeling himself to be
a failure in his own life, and joining with others
also seeking revenge for essentially the same
reason--notably Adam Mali--"Michael Bluejay" seeks the
triumph of making himself important by looking down
upon others. He is attempting to assuage his feeling
of unimportance by attacking the persons and
philosophy he very well realizes best represent truth
and beauty." (from AR's
"Countering
the Lies" website, )
"I have tried to present the
facts. If the facts make these few, ill-motivated,
so-called critics look sleazy, it's only because they
are."
(Wikipedia
talk page)
This screed is particularly ironic, since the AR's big claim is that it enhances your life by teaching you how to purge your contempt for others. If the above screed is an example of how kind and loving a person becomes from studying AR, then I'll pass.
Complaining that their critics are anonymous, while they
send us anonymous hate mail, and edit Wikipedia
anonymously
Many of the former members who share their stories on this site prefer to remain anonymous. After all, it can be embarrassing for it to be known that one had been a cult member. And when critics like myself do
give their names, the Aesthetic Realists do their best to drag their
critics' names through the mud, on the Internet. One day a
reporter called me and asked, "How do you respond to the Aesthetic
Realists' claims that you're a sexual deviant?" So it's easy to
see why many former members prefer not to give their names when they
detail their cult experiences. When this happens the AR people
whine bitterly up and down the street that their critics are
anonymous. It's almost like the AR people are saying, "We demand
to know who you are so we can slander you!"
That's bad enough. But what's really wacky is that the Aesthetic Realists themselves are operating anonymously. Of course they never sign the hate mail they send to me and my mother.
Here's a fun one: Guess what all
the following complaints by an Aesthetic Realist have in
common?
"Almost all of [the
contributors to the 'AR is a Cult' site] are
anonymous."
"[The article] gives
far too much prominence to a minor bit player ... to
the anonymous voices who speak for and through
Bluejay."
(source)
"And please note that when
former students speak out they all have names--unlike
that anonymous crew of character assassins being given
far too much currency by the Bluejay
rantings."
(source)
Can you guess what they have in common? All those complaints about anonymity, were made by Aesthetic Realists, anonymously!
Another AR person complains:
"I have a rather strong
suspicion, in fact, that "Outerlimits" might well be
Michael Bluejay in one of his many anonymous guises."
(source)
Of course, the Aesthetic Realist making that
accusation did so anonymously!
Haven't these people ever heard of irony?
(And for the record, I'm not anonymous, I always write with my own name,
both here and on Wikipedia.)
Claiming their critics are liars, while their own lies
would fill volumes
AR's own mistruths include:
- "Aesthetic Realism never saw homosexuality as
something to cure." (Fact: It
did.)
- "While people did change from H by studying AR,
we never said anyone should change." (Fact:
They did.)
- "Aesthetic Realism never saw homosexuality as a
mental illness." (Fact: They
did, and still do.)
- "Eli Siegel [AR's founder] didn't kill
himself." (Fact: Did,
did, did, did, did!)
- "AR has been up front about how Eli Siegel
died." (Fact: Not
even close.)
- "Michael Bluejay was only two (or three) years
old when he was involved in AR." (Fact:
I last studied formally at age 12, and my family
didn't cease its involvement completely until a few
years later.)
- "AR critics don't want you to see the AR site,
Countering the Lies." (Fact: Then why do I
link
to it, again
and again
and again
? I'm only too happy for people to see how
fanatical the AR people are in trying to defend their
group.)
- "There are no credible critics [of AR]
at all." (Fact: Then what do you call
Harper's Magazine, New York
Magazine, noted cult expert Steve Hassan, me [I'm
an award-winning writer], and all the other former
members who now speak out against the group?)
- "There are no
'adherents' of Aesthetic Realism--that implies
an uncritical acceptance." (Fact: Aesthetic
Realists' acceptance of the group's teachings is
beyond complete, it's fanatical. They believe that
their founder was the greatest
person ever to live, that one should be "grateful
without limit" for the knowledge of Aesthetic
Realism, and that the media's disinterest in covering
Aesthetic Realism is "a
crime against humanity".
Aesthetic Realism members
One of the things the Aesthetic Realists have
their panties in a wad about these days is that I and other former
members describe ourselves as former members. Because,
according to the Aesthetic Realists, there are no "members" of AR, only
students. Here are some examples, each made by a different Aesthetic
Realist on their website:
- "Michael Bluejay writes in his article: 'they actively
recruit new members' and 'they shun former members.' First of all, it
is impossible that there exist former Aesthetic Realism 'members'
because there has never been one, to begin with. The Aesthetic Realism
Foundation provides education for whoever wants to study. There are no
members, but only students and teachers."
- "...and I’m not even discussing the fact that he uses the completely inaccurate yet charged word 'members'."
- "I also resent, object to and despise the way the trasher of
Aesthetic Realism calls students and teachers of Aesthetic
Realism--Members."
- "This attacker has stated in big bold type that the only persons
talking in favor of Aesthetic Realism are those he calls 'current
members.'...there are no 'members'..."
- "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation is not a membership
organization; it is a not-for-profit educational institution. There is
a fundamental distinction."
- "And what is this nonsense about Aesthetic Realism being a cult with members?"
- (and on and on)
Okay, and so what do we see at the bottom of this ad bought and paid for by the Aesthetic Realists some years ago?
"Members of the Society of Aesthetic Realism"
Huh.
Claiming their critics are afraid of mediation and
debate, while refusing my open offer to debate for
the last several years
Aesthetic Realist Arnold Perey writes:
"Apparently Mr. Bluejay
is afraid of mediation..."
(source)
Hello, I requested
the mediation!
They also dismiss this site with remarks like:
"[T]he Web is
the easiest place to say anything one pleases and bear
no responsibility for it."
(source)
I agree. But between them and me, they're the ones who
won't stand behind what they say. The Aesthetic Realists
have refused my offer to publicly debate these issues for
years now.
Alleging that I write under a ficticious name -- while
doing so themselves.
Aesthetic Realist Arnold Perey wrote on a
Wikipedia talk page:
"By the way, I think
Outerlimits is Michael Bluejay. He does seem to have
one way of writing for all occasions."
(source)
This is the same Arnold Perey who was later
caught writing under a second screen name on
Wikipedia. He even admitted to it.
(And for the record, I'm not Outerlimits. I've never
written on Wikipedia under any other handle than
MichaelBluejay.)
Charging their critics with censorship, while they lunge
to erase anything that casts them in an unfavorable
light
Aesthetic Realist Arnold Perey writes:
"But no one has the
right to suppress what another believes to be true, as
Mr. Bluejay has tried to do to my writing."
(source)
This is the same Arnold Perey who went on
Wikipedia and censored the fact that Eli Siegel killed
himself and the links to this website --
repeatedly. He's got some chutzpah, I'll
tell you that.
(Incidentally, my alleged "suprressing" of Perey was to
remove the non-encyclopedic cheerleading that Perey
inserted into the AR article, since such cheerleading is
against Wikipedia policy.)
And Perey isn't alone -- a whole slew of Aesthetic Realists have been
trying to censor the more unflattering aspects of Aesthetic Realism
from the Wikipedia article on the subject (with some success, I might
add).
|
|
Aesthetic Realism at a Glance |
|
Name |
The
Aesthetic Realism Foundation |
|
Founded |
1941 |
|
Founder |
Eli Siegel, poet and art/literary critic.
Committed suicide in 1978 |
|
Purpose |
To get the world to realize that Eli Siegel was the greatest person who ever lived, and that Aesthetic Realism is the most important knowledge, ever. |
|
Philosophy
|
The key to all social ills is for people to learn to like the world. Having contempt for the world leads to unhappiness and even insanity. (Their slogan is "Contempt causes insanity".) For example, homosexuality is a form of insanity caused by not liking the world sufficiently.
Also teaches that "beauty is the making one of
opposites". |
|
Location |
New York City (SoHo) |
|
Membership
|
About 106 (33 teachers, 44 training to be teachers, and 29 regular students). Has failed to grow appreciably even after 70 years of existence, and is currently shrinking.
All members call themselves "students", even the leaders/teachers. Advanced members who teach others are called "consultants". |
|
Method of study |
Public seminars/lectures at their headquarters (in lower Manhattan), group classes, and
individual consultations (three consultants vs. one student). |
|
Cult aspects
|
- Fanatical devotion to their leader/founder
- Belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness
- Ultimate purpose is to recruit new members
- Feeling that they are being persecuted
- Wild, paranoid reactions to criticism
- Non-communication (or at least very limited communication) with those who have left
the group
- Odd, specialized language.
More about cult aspects...
|
Google picks the ads, not me;
I don't endorse the advertisers.
Open offer to debate
How do you decide which side is telling the truth? I think that would be the side willing to stand behind what he says. Since 2005 I've had an open offer to debate the Aesthetic Realists publicly in a formal format at any time to defend what I've said on this site, and to answer their own charges against me. But the AR people won't do it. Their excuse is, "He's not worth debating." But if that's true, then why did they put up a ninety-six page website to try to snipe at me and to try to rebut what I'm saying? I think the answer is that they're content to hide behind the cover of the Internet, but they know how bad they'd look in a live format where anyone actually got to ask any pointed questions.
You know what's really funny? Someone went to one of their public presentations, said he'd seen this site, and asked about the cult allegations. The AR person said, "It's very easy to say crap like that on the Internet and never have to be challenged." Oh, the irony is killing me!
Anyway, Aesthetic Realists, as for a public debate, I'm ready when you are. And to everyone else, when the AR people won't stand behind what they're saying, why should anyone take what they say seriously?
|
Google picks the ads, not me;
I don't endorse the advertisers.
Google picks the ads, not me;
I don't endorse the advertisers.
|
