The Victims of Aesthetic Realism
by Paul R. Grossman • Originally published
in New York Native
Editor's note: This article provides fantastic
insight into Aesthetic Realism's mind-control methods. With an
expert, laser-like focus, the author nails down exactly how the group
gets its hooks into its members' heads. This is valuable not just
for researchers and the general public, but also for former members who
are still trying to figure out how they got sucked into the group in
first
place, and are trying to make sense of their experience. And
while the piece is written in the context of AR's supposed gay cure,
its lessons are important about Aesthetic Realism in general. The
article is long, but invaluable. I can't recommend it enough.
"It
was at that point that I began to see
what Aesthetic Realism
was, in fact, about. The dogmatism, the loaded
phraseology, the
Godlike reverance his students demonstrated—these spelled
out one
thing: that this was no philosophy. This was a cult, genuine and
bona
fide, employing all the subtle and manipulative techniques of
mind-control used by such masters of the genre as the Moonies [and] the
Scientologists..."
At
precisely 9:07, audience members
in the Terrain Gallery—the
Aesthetic Realism headquarters at 141 Greene Street in
Soho—crush out
cigarettes and begin to settle down. A cloud-like hush
travels
across the room as if some secret signal has been given that I, the
outsider, cannot detect. A moment later, the lights are
dimmed. The program is about to begin.
From the back of the room two men and two women begin a brisk
single-file march up the center aisle. Upon reaching the podium
in the front, they do an about-face and quickly take seats: one behind
a speaker's stand, three behind a long wooden table. Their faces
are stern and uncompromising. Their dress is strikingly
similar. Each one wears a blazer, trim and tailored, with a small
black-and-white button pinned to the left lapel near the heart.
The buttons bear a terse slogan: "Victim of the Press."
In a haunting mechanical voice, the master of ceremonies welcomes the
crowd. Tonight's feature presentation, he announces, is an
Aesthetic Realism lesson created by the founder of the
movement—the
late poet and critic Eli Siegel—entitled, "Do You Trust
Women?"
It will be followed, after a brief intermission, by another reading:
"Fourteen Things About Homosexuality: Particularly in its Relation to
Good Will."
In my lap is a pamphlet handed out by someone at the door. It is
a periodical of "Hope and Information" entitled "The Right of Aesthetic
Realism to be Known." Its banner headline reads simply: Contempt
Causes Insanity.
"Dear Unknown Friends," the pamphlet begins. "When Eli Siegel,
the founder of Aesthetic Realism said, 'The World, Art and Self explain
each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites,' he gave to man
what the centuries have searched for: an explanation true about our
lives, true about art, and true about the puzzling, contradictory,
often painful world we are in. That is why we believe Aesthetic
Realism ensures the future sanity of man."
The emcee's bland voice drones on. After proclaiming that he is
"one of the more than 150 men who have, through the study of Aesthetic
Realism, changed from homosexuality," he introduces Devorah Tarrow to
read the weekly press and media report.
Miss Tarrow slides forward in her chair. She smiles
smoewhat. Tonight she has good news to report. Finally,
after nearly forty years of silence and "contempt," the press has begun
to pay attention to the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel, to give it the
"respect" it so rightly deserves.
She refers to an article printed in the City section of the March 15 Daily
News:
"Gays Who Have Gone Straight." In it, reporter John Lewis at long
last reveals news of the unique "educational program" being offered to
homosexuals by Aesthetic Realism. The audience becomes excited as
Miss Tarrow recites a list of results already evident from this "major
breakthrough." ABC television has called, interested in a
story. Tom Snyder has called. WPLJ radio has called.
A woman has even called from Wichita, seeking help for her son. A
hearty round of applause breaks out. A sigh of
relief—of
ecstasy, almost. At last, someone has written something honest
about the "bigness" of Aesthetic Realism.
When her report is finally over, Miss Tarrow slides back into her
chair. Instantly, her face becomes expressionless, as if someone
has pulled a plug. At the same moment, the man sitting next to
her suddenly springs to life. Now it is his turn to recite.
In the
Village, one can hardly avoid noticing these stern-faced, primly
dressed individuals marching up and down the streets with their Victim
of the Press buttons. Or, for that matter, the cardboard
placards
taped to streetlights and letter boxes with names and faces proclaiming
the "truth" about their change from homosexuality.
My first encounter with the Aesthetic Realists, however, came only a
few weeks ago when I walked into the door of their gallery and
announced at the desk that I was interested in doing a story about just
how it was that they turned gays straight. A pair of oval glasses
and tightly pursed lips informed me quite brusquely that I would first
have to speak to someone from the Press Committee.
Several minutes later, not one but two members of the
committee arrived
from their offices upstairs and flanked me on either side. One
was Anne Fielding Kranz—wife of Sheldon Kranz, the man who,
back in
1941, was the first one to "make the change." My other escort was
Devorah Tarrow.
|
"It was at that point that I began to see what
Aesthetic Realism was, in fact, about. The dogmatism, the loaded
phraseology, the Godlike reverence his students
demonstrated—these
spelled out one thing: that this was no philosophy. This was a
cult, genuine and bona fide, employing all the subtle and manipulative
techniques of mind-control used by such masters of the genre as the
Moonies, the Scientologists, and yes, even the evangelical Christians."
|
For nearly twenty minutes I was subjected to a stereophonic
interrogation about the "nature" of my intentions. Besides asking
me if I was a "Moonie," they insisted on knowing: was I going to be
"fair" to Aesthetic Realism? Would I give this philosophy the
"respect" it deserved? Would I be open and realize that maybe I
had something to learn from Eli Siegel? And finally, if they did
permit me to write an article, would I be willing to submit it before
publishing to ensure that it was "fair" and "accurate"?
I told them quite bluntly that rather than being victims of
the press,
they seemed to me to be the victimizers. I had every
intention, I
said, of being open and honest—but also fully
critical. The next
day Miss Tarrow informed me that my request had been rejected.
After some time, I obtained a copy of a book by Eli
Siegel. I
studied it diligently, paying close attention not so much to the ideas
themselves but to the way in which he chose to express
them—and, in
particular, to the way his students responded to them. It was at
that point that I began to see what Aesthetic Realism was, in fact,
about. The dogmatism, the loaded phraseology, the Godlike
reverence his students demonstrated—these spelled out one
thing:
that this was no philosophy. This was a cult, genuine and bona
fide, employing all the subtle and manipulative techniques of
mind-control used by such masters of the genre as the Moonies, the
Scientologists, and, yes, even the evangelical Christians.
It was then and there that I decided if I wanted to learn more about
these people, infiltration was the only approach possible.
The following
Thursday night at one of their twice-weekly public
meetings, I ran into Miss Tarrow once again. In as solicitous a
manner as I could manage, I told her that I had read Mr. Siegel's book
and had liked it very much. I felt, I said, a kind of "inner
attraction" to it. She studied me with suspicion in her
eyes. She did notice, so she said, that a change had occurred in
me. I seemed to her less "malevolent." I shook my
head. She looked at me again. If I wanted to, she said, I
could come upstairs during the intermission. She would introduce
me to one of the evening's keynote speakers, Reg Houser*—a
man who had
"made the change." [*In keeping with my practice, names of
those who left the group (and presumably no longer wish to be
associated with it) have been changed.]
The program that night was "Homosexuality, Love and Education."
Once again, the speakers—each with a Victim of the Press
button—marched up the center aisle in paramilitary
formation.
They sat behind the podium reading papers for up to twenty minutes at a
time in voices so monotonously automatic, I found myself being lulled
toward the edge of sleep. Or, perhaps, hypnosis.
Reg Houser struck me instantly with the pallid color of his cheeks and
the mincing—if I may be so bold—manner of his
carriage.
Presenting a lengthy biography of the Russian pote Serge Essenin,
one-time husband of Isadora Duncan, he detailed how, according to the
"aesthetic theory," Essenin's homosexuality had driven him
insane. The audience groaned aloud with each account of his slip
into the hell of "contempt." They seemed genuinely sorry for
Essenin. If only Eli Siegel had been around at that time....
During the intermission I went upstairs,
where Miss Tarrow was waiting
to introduce me to Mr. Houser. He looked into my eyes and
smiled. "I think," he said, "there is something inside you that
likes Aesthetic Realism, Mr. Grossman." I smiled in return.
His eyes widened. He understood. Despite my pro-gay
attitude, he knew that, secretly, in my heart, I longed to make the
change from what, in their lingo, they simply refer to as "H."
The bait had been swallowed.
I was granted an interview for the following week. At first, I
expected it to be with Mr. Houser alone. I soon learned, however,
one of the chief modi operandi of Aesthetic Realism: never meet
one-on-one. When I arrived for my appointment, I found myself
sitting across a desk from three (count 'em, three!) Victims of the
Press—all of whom had "made the change." They were
anxious,
unbearably anxious, to make me understand that Aesthetic Realism was
not just about changing from homosexuality. It is an
entire "mode" for seeing the world.
My hour with them was a grueling experience.
"As we see it, Mr. Grossman, Aesthetic Realism is true in a way that
nothing else is. And I can tell you, as I'm sitting here talking
to you, that we are trained in a certain way. After a
while, I begin to see things, Mr. Grossman. A look in the eye,
something present in the face...."
A man who has been introduced as Mr. van Gelder* speaks to me in a
soft, sing-song voice—like Daddy reading a bedtime story to
his little
boy, except that the tales he's telling aren't very benign. He
never takes his eyes off me, letting me know, in his own absolute way,
that he understands me. All of me.
"At our first meeting," I say, "Miss Tarrow told me she thought
Aesthetic Realism was the best friend the gay community had. How
do you explain that?"
Mr. Houser responds. His voice is also Daddy's.
"You know something, Mr. Grossman, in 1971, the first time we had
trouble with what I guess you'd call the gay community—after
our
appearance on the David Susskind Show—I was very
surprised
that people wouldn't like Aesthetic Realism. Even gay
people. It might look
as if we're against gay rights, but Lord knows—we're
not! I was
once a homosexual. I know what it feels like to have someone look
at me in a funny way. We want gay people to have all
their rights: live where they want to live, have the jobs they want to
have, so that the main question can be asked: 'Is the way I see the
world good enough for me?' We don't call homosexuality 'ugly,
ugly.' We do criticize it. But if homosexuality represents
incompleteness in a person, then in questioning that, we would be being
friendly, wouldn't we?"
In Aesthetic Realism, this technique is called "Criticism as Kindness."
About halfway through the interview I finally ask something I have been
wanting to all along:
"Why do you call me Mr. Grossmn
every other sentence? All of you do that—address each
other
constantly in the impersonal."
Mr. van Gelder: "Why are you asking that question, Mr.
Grossman? In the midst of what I was saying?"
"For whatever the reason, I'm asking."
"Look, you may not like this, but we don't get anywhere if we're not
direct. You have a tendency—if I might say
so—-especially after
an important answer, to switch the subject and ask a less important
question."
"Yes. But can you answer the question anyway?"
"I can. But what I'm trying to tell you is this—this
tendency of
yours has to do with the fight that's going on inside you between
contempt and respect."
"Oh," I say.
Now, more clearly, I'm beginning to understand.
The belief system
taught by Aethetic Realism can, at best, be termed
reductional; at worst, convoluted fascism. Still, like all "modes
of seeing the world," its logic rings of a certain small truth that, in
the end, can be applied to absolutely everything.
The gospel according to Eli Siegel can roughly be said to go as follows:
Man is born with innate and natural dichotomy: the desire to
"like" the world—to "respect" it on an "honest
basis"—and,
opposing this, the desire to have "contempt" for the world, to make it
look "ugly" so that you, by comparison, seem more important than
it. Aesthetic "Reality," therefore—that which every
person longs
to attain—is the making one of these opposites. This
can be
accomplished scientifically by "knowing" the world—i.e.,
recognizing
your contempt for it and then consciously accepting that what you really
want is to respect it. Since Eli Siegel was the first and only
human being ever to recognize this, it follows that only by
incorporating his teachings can that oneness ever be attained.
|
"The Aesthetic Realists themselves are, needless to
say, the last to recognize that a catch-all system such as the above is
the perfect tool for mind-control.
|
The Aesthetic Realists themselves are, needless to say, the
last to
recognize that a catch-all system such as the above is the perfect tool
for mind-control.
"Good Christ, Mr. Grossman," exclaims Mr. van Gelder. "I do not
see myself as any kind of cultist. I dislike them very uch.
I happen to be listed in Who's Who in the Theater. I was
educated quite impressively."
That much is for sure.
Aesthetic Realism
is taught by several different methods. There
are the weekly public meetings. There are seminars offered in
art, poetry, literature, even science. But most effective are
what they call "consultations." Here, a "student" is put into a
room with an Aesthetic Realism trio—as I
was—whose singleminded
purpose it is to make him see that he has been poisoned by that ugly
thing called contempt.
"What I'm trying to tell you, Mr. Grossman, is that this tendency you
have has to do with the fight inside you between respect and
contempt."
|
"In actuality, 'consultations' are slyly packaged
sessions for mind-control—what Yale psychiatry professor
Robert Lifton
describes as 'thought-reform' or 're-education.' More bluntly
stated, it's brainwashing."
|
In actuality, "consultations" are slyly packaged sessions for
mind-control—what Yale psychiatry professor Robert Lifton
describes in
a classic study on the subject, Thought Reform and the Psychology
of Totalism, as "thought-reform" or "re-education." More
bluntly stated, it's brainwashing.
In the case of Aesthetic Realism, the student is subjected to a tightly
organized barrage of accusations—veiled by layers of
politeness—from
three separate but clearly unified voices. Lifton calls this
Identity Assault. The mesage they deliver is both existential
("You have contempt!") and psychologically demanding ("If you want to
be whole, you must learn to see your contempt.") After
some time, the "consultee" has little choice but to accept this
syllogism and begin to feel—unconsciously at
first—that, yes, his
life is permeated by contempt. Thus begins, to use Lifton's term,
the Establishment of Guilt.
As the consultations continue, any feelings of resistance on the part
of the student can be labeled as further evidence of contempt. If
what the student wants is "respect," he begins to see the criticism as
wholly necessary—in fact, begins to welcome it as an
integral part of
his "cure." At this point, the thought-reform process has been
internalized, and the work of the consultation trio is lessened as the
student adopts the belief system and takes it as his own. The new
Victim of the Press dons a button and goes out into the world to
espouse the teachings of Eli Siegel—which one of them
called, "The
summation of all human knowledge."
The
Aesthetic
Realists are not interested merely in homosexuals.
They want anyone who is seeking to perceive the world "as it really
is." However, one need only observe the audience at any given
Aesthetic Realism meeting to deduce why the "Case of H" has been so
heavily accented. Aside from the location of their headquarters
on the edge of the largest homosexual community in the world, those who
are attracted to them—particularly the men—are,
nearly without
exception, gay. Excuse me—formerly gay.
According to Eli Siegel, homosexuality is, simply, "bad
aesthetics." Like "biting one's nails, depression, excessive
gambling," it arises out of a "disproportionate way of seeing the
world," Siegel wrote.
"Homosexuality has arisen often from a son's contempt for the way a
mother showed 'love' to him. This contempt, based on an easy
conquest of the mother, changed to a contempt for, and a deep
indifference to, women."
Sound familiar? It's early Freud all over again, only
couched in
Eli Siegel-isms. (Siegel, understandably, had great
"contempt"
for any form of psychotherapy. "It doesn't work" is the usual
logic.)
"That love was had on such easy terms," continues Siegel's
revolutionary concept, "encouraged likewise a contempt for that which
was different from oneself—that is, the world."
Siegel reveals the patriarchal side of himself when he muses that while
lesbians too can change, same-gender love between females is "somewhat
more justifiable" because of the "sense of mystery" women have.
Such mystery apparently does not exist inside of men. "After
all," I was told, "there is no male equivalent to the Mona Lisa."
So men who wish to "make the change"—but for a few instances,
it is
always men—can accomplish through Aesthetic Realism what no
amount of
psychotherapy ever will: by admitting they have contempt for
their mothers, they can turn that contempt into respect and live a
normal life. Excerpts from Aesthetic Realism's manual on
homosexuality, entitled The H Persuasion, illustrate how a
student is made to see how deep his contempt really is.
Q. When don't I trust myself the most?
A. When I am in the presence of H people or in an H
relationship. Also, when I am in the presence of my mother.
Q. Do I have contempt for women?
A. I don't have contempt for all women. Only my mother. She
encourages the weakness in me.
Q. Aside from the fact that I know H isn't good for me, what about it
do I dislke most?
A. The slickness, the insincerity, the cultness, the sex act, and the
fact that it takes two to tango.
Q. Am I frightened of being alone?
A. Yes
Q. Is being alone and death synonymous?
A. Yes.
Q. Does H encourage a feeling of aloneness, thus encouraging a feeling
of death?
A. Yes. After sex I have the desire to be by myself, to feel
sorry for myself. It certainly doesn't help me like the world
more.
The manipulation used by Siegel and later adopted by all consultation
trios—guided questions designed to provoke not introspection
but a
learning of the "technique," is even more clearly exemplified from this
excerpt of Reg Houser's first Aesthetic Realism lesson:
Eli Siegel: What do you think is your greatest
conflict?
Reg Houser: My greatest conflict?
Siegel: Which would you rather do, fool the world, or know it?
Houser: I think I'd rather know it.
Siegel: Are you sure?
Houser: I'm not positive.
Siegel: That's what we're talking about—where you're
not
positive. So how do you fool the world?
A mere two weeks after his first consultation, Houser wrote the
following letter home to his father in Alabama:
. . . I have hated myself since I was sixteen years
old and first realized I had questions. BUT I DON'T HATE MYSELF
ANYMORE!!! Eli Siegel and the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism see
changing the way I are changing the way I see the world. Mr.
Siegel has shown me that I have contempt for women, and that when I was
young, it was so easy for me to please Mother that I now do not see it
as a challenge to try for a woman. The lesson was kind, and at
the same time critical. This is the basis of how you change the
way you see the world—criticism with kindness. I am
grateful to
Eli Siegel for this and I want more and more to show that
gratitude. Aesthetic Realism must be known by everyone in America
and the world!
Mr. Houser, obviously, was a very rapid learner. [He also
later fell off the wagon—leaving the group and divorcing himself of it.]
|
"The question of whether Aesthetic Realists have
actually 'changed' their sexual orientation is best answered by the
facts. Nearly a third to one-half of all who make 'the change'
engage and marry within several months after their 'conversion.'
Of these, not a single case of which I am aware involved an
'intermarriage' with someone who wasn't an Aesthetic Realist."
|
The question of
whether
Aesthetic Realists have actually "changed"
their sexual orientation is best answered by the facts. Nearly a
third to one-half of all who make "the change" engage and marry within
several months after their "conversion." Of these, not a single
case of which I am aware involved an "intermarriage" with someone who
wasn't an Aesthetic Realist. A statement made by Anne Fielding
after fourteen years of marriage to Sheldon Kranz sums up their
relationship: "What I love most in my husband is his love for Eli
Siegel and Aesthetic Realism."
Reg Houser, in an unusually revealing document, acknowledges in the
H Persuasion that even after the "change" is made, it isn't all a
bed of roses.
"At various times since I began to study Aesthetic
Realism," he
confesses, "I found that I wanted to have an H experience again.
As I see it now, this is because I thought Eli Siegel was taking
something away fro me. I felt that I had to show that I hadn't
lost power."
Houser hit the nail squarely on the head. What Eli Siegel took
away from him was not his homosexuality. It was
his power—and his ability for critical, independent
thinking. By
now his ego has been intruded upon to the extent that he has been
reduced to a child-like state of unthinking powerlessness. Big
Daddy is doing all the thinking.
Houser explains how this is accomplished—how he takes part
in his own
self-reduction:
"The desire for contempt that is in every person was
strong in
me. I sadly enough wanted revenge for having to respect
something more than I wanted. Fortunately, the desire for
contempt is well understood by Siegel. He not only made it
possible for me to change from H, he also understood and criticized the
resentment I had about changing, so that the change could be complete."
|
"This sense of coercion—of feeling made to
respect something more than he had wanted to—is, in fact, a common
symptom of mind-control victimization."
|
This sense of coercion—of feeling made to respect
something
more than he had wanted to—is, in fact, a common symptom of
mind-control victimization. Houser must now convince himself that
he has been made "complete" by surrendering into the hands of
Siegel. Using the techniqe of repetition, he fulfills his
self-delusion:
"I used to think I was born a homosexual and that it
would never
change. It has changed. I am no longer a homosexual and I
am more myself, the way I was meant to be, truly want to be. I
belong in this world and I like being here more than ever. I like
the world more, and as I was promised, I also respect myself
more. I got what I came for and I am rejoicing."
I must believe; therefore, it must be so.
As with any group
of
zealots, religious or otherwise—the Aesthetic
Realists need an outside enemy against which they can muster and
channel the anger caused by the stifling clutch of their own rigid
dogma. It is for this reason that the press—which has,
until the Daily News article, universally ignored
them—has been
singled out as the oppressor. Hence, the Victims of the Press
crusade.
According to the Aesthetic Realist doctrine, the press has refused to
recognize them and aid in their mission to spread the Word because it
is afraid of the "bigness" of Aesthetic Realism. Afraid that it
might have something to learn from Eli Siegel. It is plagued with
what, in Aesthetic Realism, is called "Terror of Respect."
Not only does each individual Aesthetic Realist "choose" to identify
himself every single day by wearing a Victim of the Press button, but
they have, en masse, gone so far as to picket institutions such as the New
York Times, demanding their right "To Be Known."
|
"Like all cults, Aelthetic Realism reduces the
wonder and complexity of
the world to a strict polarity of black-or-white reality. By
cultivating an individual's sense of negative identity, the program
weakens the ego enough to gain admittance and eventual control over a
person's mind. "
|
"The students of Aesthetic Realism understand the terror of respect,"
says their exposé, which is entitled The Press Boycott of Aesthetic
Realism. "We too have resented our respect for Eli
Siegel. We are ashamed of this resentment, proud to end it, and
use our knowledge to stop the greatest cruelty we know....
Aesthetic Realism is the God-given right of every human being."
But the God-given right of every human to do what? To slander
homosexuals? To plead victimization while turning confused
individuals from self-reliance to a robotistic subsistence?
Like all cults, Aelthetic Realism reduces the wonder and complexity of
the world to a strict polarity of black-or-white reality. By
cultivating an individual's sense of negative identity, the program
weakens the ego enough to gain admittance and eventual control over a
person's mind. Put most succinctly by a woman whose friend had
"made the change": "I liked him better when he was gay. At
least then he was a person. Now he's just an Aesthetic Realist."
I have saved the
most personal and ultimately, the most revealing
aspect of this article for the end because I feel—for gay
people,
anyway—that it is the most important. Despite some
advance
knowledge of the manipulation process that I subjected myself to, I did
not, in fact, go home from the Aesthetic Realists totally unscathed.
After my grueling hour-long session pitted against three "reformed"
homosexuals, I found myself walking toward my Christopher Street
apartment wondering: Maybe this is true. My mind began to
interpret things around me in terms of "contempt" and "respect."
I passed a person on the street and thought, "He has contempt."
Or overheard a conversation: More contempt. Eventually,
the question became internal: Do I have contempt for
women? Am I, in fact, "indifferent" to them because of the way my
mother showed me love? Suddenly I found myself quite
frightened. Had they managed to persuade me? I wondered.
After only an hour—and with everything I knew?
Finally, after a long and thorough conversation with a friend who knows
me quite well, I recognized something terrible, yet intriguing in my
self-identity. I saw that I did, in fact, have deep contempt
inside me. Not for the world. Not for women. But for
myself still—for being gay. They had not
persuaded me of
anything; they had only plugged into a belief that I myself agreed with.
The news was rather shocking—to realize after five long
years of
working on a positive gay identity that part of me still wanted to be
straight. It was doubtless the same part of me that still
believed being gay to be naughty.
When I considered my life in relation to the world, though, the
revelation became less shocking—when I remembered, for
instance, all
the years of denial. Of hatred. Of believing I was
naughty. Then, my contempt made total sense to me.
Gay people—all of us, I believe—to some
extent or another have
internalized the values of homophobia. In a fundamental way, this
is what I learned through the study of Aesthetic Realism.
If we want to "like ourselves" (to borrow a bit from Eli Siegel), our
personal liberation must extend beyond the realm of the
intellect. It must touch us in the deepest possible emotional
way, transcending even time to cleanse the scars of the distant
past. Otherwise, we will always be vulnerable, subject to the
will of those who would rid us of the way we love.
*Names marked with an asterisk
have been changed, since those people have left Aesthetic Realism and
presumably no longer wish to be associated with it.
This article originally appeared in the New York Native, April
6, 1981.
It will surprise no one that the author is a
critically-acclaimed writer.
What's on this site
|
|
Cult Aspects
|
|
What is Aesthetic Realism? An explanation about both the AR philosophy and the group that promotes it.
Cult aspects of Aesthetic Realism Fanatical devotion to the leader, cutting off relations with families who aren't also believers -- it's all here.
AR and Homosexuality The AR group used to try to "cure" people of being gay. They stopped that in 1990 because high-profile success cases kept deciding they were gay after all and leaving. AR has never said their gay-changing attempts were wrong.
AR's founder killed himself AR's founder Eli Siegel killed himself, but the AR people have been trying to hide that fact. They can't hide any more, since enough former students have come forward to confirm the truth.
Attempts to recruit schoolchildren Some AR members are public schoolteachers, and yep, they do try to recruit in the classroom.
Mind control tricks This article explains AR's use of Directed Origination, a classic tool for brainwashing. Also see the article where someone infiltrated the group to learn about their mind control methods.
Five reasons you can't trust an Aesthetic Realist One reason is that most people who were in AR eventually woke up and got out. See more about this, plus four other reasons.
Lies Aesthetic Realists tell They say they never saw homosexuality as something to cure. They say the leader didn't kill himself. They say my family left the group when I was an infant. These and more are debunked here.
Hypocrisy of the Aesthetic Realists It takes some serious brainwashing for the members to not realize that they're guilty of what they accuse others of.
Aesthetic Realism glossary We explain the real meanings behind the loaded language that AR people use.
|
|
|
AR in their own words
|
|
Actual AR
advertisment
The AR people spent a third of a million dollars
for a double-page ad in the NY Times to tell the world that the
press' refusal to cover AR is just as wrong as letting hungry people
starve to death.
Ad for the gay
cure
AR bought huge ads in major newspapers to trumpet
their ability to "fix" gays.
Actual
letters from AR people
When a theater critic casually dissed Aesthetic
Realism in New York magazine, the AR people responded with hundreds
of angry letters, calling the article "a crime against humanity".
Actual internal
meeting
The AR people blunderingly made a tape recording
of a secret meeting they had, where they lambasted a member who had
supposedly been "cured" of his gayness, but then found to still be
cruising for gay sex. Their screeching hostility towards him is matched
only by their fear that the secret will get out.
Actual AR
consultation
For the first time the public can see what really
happens in an Aesthetic Realism "consultation" (thanks to a former
member sharing his tape with us). In the session the AR counselors
tried to help the member not be gay, explaining that the path to
ex-gayness was to express deep gratitude to AR and its founder.
Actual AR lesson
I had a lesson with the cult leader, Eli Siegel, when I was two years
old, which, like everything else, they made a tape of. The highlight is
Siegel taunting me with "Cry some more, Michael, cry some more!"
Ad in the Village Voice from 1962
The AR folks try to deny that they're a cult in this ancient ad -- showing that people were calling them a cult as far back as 1962!
AR
responds to this website
The AR people have tried to rebut this website
with their own site called Countering the Lies, whose title
ought to win some kind of award for irony. Here we explain the story
behind that site.
|
|
|
What former members say
|
|
Aesthetic Realism
exposed
The ultimate statement by a former member, who
was involved for well over a decade.
A tale
of getting sucked in.
This former member describes exactly how he
initially got drawn in, and how he then kept getting more and more
involved.
Growing up in a cult. An ex-member who was born into AR tells what it was like growing up in the group, and how she got out.
Aesthetic
Realism ruined his marriage. "I consider my 'study' of
Aesthetic Realism to be one of the factors that led to the eventual
breakup of my marriage, to my eternal sorrow."
On
having all the answers. A former member explains how AR
members think they have all the answers, and feel qualified to lecture
others about how they should view personal tragedy.
Kicked
out for remaining gay. A former student describes how he
was kicked out of AR because he couldn't change from homosexuality.
"If I
disappointed them, then I now consider that a badge of honor."
A former member tells how AR try to change him from being gay, and
convinced him not to spend Christmas with his family.
"...people
were controlled and humiliated if they stepped out of line...".
The experiences shared with us by a member from 1974-80, now a Fortune
100 executive.
|
"I want
Ellen Reiss questioned!" This former member wonders why there
hasn't been a class-action lawsuit against the foundation yet.
They
took his consultation tape. Describes how the AR people
kept his consultation tape with his most intimate thoughts on it, and
told him he couldn't study any more unless he incorporated AR more
radically into his life.
"There isn't any question: Eli Siegel killed himself." A former member who had sought AR's "gay cure" explains how the group's leaders admitted that the founder took his own life.
Confirms
all the criticism. A former member from 1971-80,
confirms that AR students don't see their families, are discouraged
from attending college, and shun other members. He also offers that he
was mistaken when he was involved about thinking that AR had changed
him from homosexuality.
Michael Bluejay's
description. Your webmaster describes his own family's
involvement.
Members
interviewed in Jewish Times. This lengthy article in
Jewish Times quotes former students of Aesthetic Realism extensively.
NY Post article.
A series of articles in the NY Post quotes many former members who are
now critical of the group.
Aesthetic
Realism debunked. A former student explains the cult
aspects of AR. Posted on Steve Hassan's Freedom of Mind website.
|
| Other Goodies |
|
Thinking of leaving AR? If you're thinking of leaving the group, you're not alone. Let's face it: Most people who have ever studied AR have left -- and not come back. There's got to be a reason for that. Curious about what they figured out? Worried about the fallout if you do decide to leave? Here's everything you need to know.
Recovering from your AR experience. People who leave cults often need special therapy to cope with what they went through. Whether you decide to seek counseling or choose to go it alone, here's what you need to know.
|
Media Reports NY Mag called AR "a cult of messianic nothingness" and Harper's referred to them as "the Moonies of poetry". We've got reprints of articles, plus some help for journalists researching AR. (And here are shortcuts to the landmark articles in New York Native, the NY Post and Jewish Times.)
Site News / Blog Here's some news and commentary that I add from time to time.
|
|
|
|
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...
|
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.
| What former members say... |
| They reeled me in like a brook trout... Guilt was introduced into the experience. They told me I was "not showing respect for this great education I was receiving" by [not getting more involved]. |
| If there is anything the Aesthetic Realists are good at, it is convincing people that if they think they see anything wrong with Siegel, AR, Reiss or how the organization is run, there is really something wrong with them. Any time I began to question things or think I saw something amiss, I had been programmed to think that what it really meant was that something was terribly wrong with me. |
| My new AR friends were starting to apply the hard sell a bit more so the word "cult" did come to mind , but I naïvely believed that it couldn't be a cult because it wasn't religious in nature. |
| They get you to actually control yourself. A lot of people's lives have been hurt --ruined. |
| So, there was Eli Siegel, who came up with all these rules, but to whom none of the rules applied, and there was everybody else. |
| [Eli Siegel] was a hurtful person. He was a sociopath. He was a control freak, and he was a cult leader. |
| Poor John then would be the subject of an onslaught of criticism to help him see his own contempt for Eli Siegel.... This is merely one example of the way people were controlled and humiliated if they stepped out of line or didn't conform to accepted behavior. |
| We all had to present ourselves as essentially miserable failures whose lives were in shambles until we found the glorious "answers to all our questions" in AR. |
| It was very difficult for me to surrender to AR in the total fashion they seemed to want. |
| I received a call from one of the AR bigwigs asking me to donate money to the foundation. When I told him I was low on cash I received a considerable verbal drubbing. |
| I consider my "study" of Aesthetic Realism to be one of the factors that led to the eventual breakup of my marriage, to my eternal sorrow. |
| I felt a bit raped psychologically.... if you are thinking of getting into the AR consultation process, realize that they could end it all suddenly, and that you could find your most intimate thoughts on tape in someone else's possession. |
| They flatter you to death and tell you that you're so wonderful, and you have all these qualities that others have never seen. And then there's this horrible criticizing. |
| That's when I finally knew for sure: AESTHETIC REALISM IS A CULT. I swore on that moment that if I was ever given the opportunity to tell the world what these people did to me, I would. |
| When I left I was definitely shunned by other students. I would meet people in the NYC streets -as I still do to this day - and they would turn the other way to avoid me, or some even made derogatory comments about me. |
| [New AR students] would be shocked if they knew that the lives of the people they are supposed to learn from are very different from the principles they are taught in consultations. Even though publicly the AR foundation preaches respect for people and like of the world, inside the organization the message is very different. The underlying feeling is, "People who do not study AR are inferior to us, and the world is our enemy, out to get us." We had contempt for outsiders and were scared of the world. We huddled together for safety, secure in our sense of superiority. |
| When I was studying, we were allowed to associate with our families only if they continuously demonstrated that they were grateful to and respectful of Eli Siegel and AR. This did not include going to visit them if they lived far away because then we would have had to miss classes, and that would have meant we were "making our family more important than AR." |
| Some of the students I remember going at most intensely and viciously to stop them from associating with their families, (and whom we succeeded in stopping for many, many years), are people who are now bragging on the AR website about how great their relationships with their families are and writing as though that was always the case. |
| There were even instances of students refusing to visit their parents when one of them was dying because the parents did not "express regret" and renounce their unfairness to Eli Siegel and AR. There were parents who literally begged their son or daughter to relent so they could see them one more time, but the child refused. The parent died without ever seeing their child again. Far from being criticized for such behavior, students who went this far were seen as heroes in AR. They received public praise from Ellen Reiss. |
| While I was in AR, I did believe that Eli Siegel was greater than Christ.... It would have been accurate to say I worshipped him. |
| People were told that if their families did not support aesthetic realism, they were not their families. |
| Some of the people with statements on the Countering the Lies website claiming that AR students do not shun former students have actually passed me on the street, looked straight at me, and pretended they were seeing right through me. This includes people in the highest positions in the organization. |
| More and more the AR zombies demanded that I express gratitude to ES and AR. Every paper that a student wrote had to end with the obligatory "I am so grateful to ES and AR for..." along with "I deeply regret that I have met this great knowledge with contempt..." |
| Eli Siegel was an evil person. And I don't use the word evil lightly. |
| See former members' statements in their entirety |
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?
|
|