Five reasons you can't trust an Aesthetic Realist
by Michael Bluejay •
Original: Feb. 2010 • Updated April 2011
Aesthetic Realists say their critics are liars. In fact they have a whole website called Countering the Lies. (Hypocritically, that site contains their own mistruths.) But here's a laundry list of reasons why it's hard to trust what an Aesthetic Realist says about their organization.
1. They're out of their friggin' minds.
Don't take my word for it, listen to what they have to say themselves. (Emphasis added.)
"Eli Siegel [AR's founder] was the greatest man in the history of the world." (from their NY Times ad, and their Spring 2008 presentation at a NYC library) ▶ Play the audio
"When we see how much [Siegel] was able to do without recognition or acclaim, imagine what he might have done if he had had them! He thought, for example, if he had been able to work with doctors, he could have found the cause of cancer." (introduction to AR's Self ond World book, p. xi)
"I believe Self and World is the greatest book ever to have been written. If you think I'm saying greater than the Bible or Shakespeare — yes, I am." (from the intro to that book)
"In keeping Aesthetic Realism—in all its grandeur, all its kindness—from you, the American press has committed a crime against humanity as much as if it deliberately kept from starving people the news that the food they needed was available for them." (from their NY Times ad)
"I accuse the American press
of preferring the continuing pain of children and
even death to being honest about Aesthetic
Realism." (Robert Murphy on AR's
website)
"It sounds strange, in a way,
but I think I love the opposites of Sameness and
Difference as much as I love any person."
(from their 1971 book about their "cure"
for homosexuality, p.
ix) "Homosexuality, in simple
terms, is bad aesthetics."
(their 1971 book about their cure
for homosexuality, p.
x) And here's how an arts writer for The Virginian-Pilot described her encounter with an Aesthetic Realist: "A woman with a curious button on
her chest sat down beside us. Her button read: 'Victim of the
Press.' She looked safe enough to ask questions. Some ruse. As
she spoke of her cause, she began to emerge as, well, deranged." Aesthetic Realists claim they never promoted
a cure for being gay. But they did, and it's
well-documented.
They also say that while people did change from
being gay by studying AR, they never said people
should change. But quotes like these suggest
otherwise: "We say what history
will say: the American press has blood on its hands,
has caused misery and death, because for years it has
withheld the news that men and women have changed from
homosexuality through study of Aesthetic Realism."
(from their NY
Times ad)
An entire chapter of AR's 1986 book on their gay
cure is devoted to the idea of homosexuality being
wrong. On its very first page it says,
"Eli Siegel stated the main reason
homosexuality is not ethical, and [he] related
homosexuality to all other ways that a man has been
against the outside world. He explained, 'There is only
one thing that is immoral in the world: liking oneself
too much and the outside world too
little'....". As for AR's claim that they don't see homosexuality
as a mental illness, this one is easy: Their founder,
Eli Siegel, wrote, "All
homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not
liking it sufficiently." AR also believes that
"contempt causes insanity". (It was the
title of the preface to their founder's book Self
and World (which is basically their Bible), and
they've used
it as a headline of their monthly newsletter.) So if
homosexuality is a form of contempt, and contempt causes
insanity...you do the math. It's painfully obvious how AR
views gay people. AR people say that Eli Siegel didn't kill
himself. But he did, and we know this because enough
former members have come forward and spilled
the beans. (And also because with the spotlight that
this website has shone on the AR people about this,
they've finally begrudgingly
alluded to Siegel's suicide.) AR folks claim they've never been secretive about
how Siegel died: A final
misrepresentation I want to refute here is the manner
in which those attempting to discredit Eli Siegel have
portrayed his death.... The events that led to his
dying have long been knowledge in the public realm,
because Ellen Reiss has described them, often in
detail, in the journal The Right of Aesthetic Realism
to Be Known at least once every year since
1987! (AR website) A favorite falsehood the AR people like to tell is
that I was only 2 or 3 years old when I was involved with
Aesthetic Realism. In fact, my involvement didn't end
completely until around high school. The picture at right
shows me at age 12, dutifully wearing my AR "Victim of
the Press" button. That same summer I also attended
multiple presentations and classes at the Aesthetic
Realism Foundation, and had the
"consultations". For more, see Lies Aesthetic
Realists tell. Do you wonder how AR can claim they didn't
have a gay cure when they published two books, produced
one film, took out several ads in major newspapers, and
held hundreds of counseling sessions on the subject?
Simple: They never used the word "cure". A cure is
exactly what they described, and it's a word used by
others who have written about their efforts (including
the New York Times and SoHo News Weekly), but the AR
people tiptoed around that word themselves. So they're
claiming "We never said we had a cure for homosexuality!"
simply because they never used the word cure
itself. Incredible.
They obfuscate this way with everything. They "refute" a former
member's charge that members don't get to take vacations
by giving examples of recent vacations — without
mentioning that vacations were allowed only
recently and only specifically so they could
claim that they'd taken some. Ditto with being in contact
with family members. It's a relatively new phenomenon,
but they don't mention that bit. Or they talk about the
people at the lower levels in the organization, who don't
face as severe restrictions as those higher up — only
they don't tell you that that's what they're talking about. In
everything they say on Countering
the Lies, there's something significant they're
leaving out. Most people who have ever been Aesthetic
Realism members have eventually snapped out of it and
left. So it's really kind of hard to take what the
current members say seriously, when over the years
countless others who said the exact same kinds of
things, and with just as much fervor, later
left the group and recanted their statements. When so
many former members say they were wrong, why should we
believe what the current members are saying?
I saved the best for last: I've had an
open offer to debate the Aesthetic Realists, any time,
anywhere, but they won't even acknowledge that
offer, much less accept it. Between them and me, I'm the
only one willing to stand behind what he says. The AR
people want to safely hide behind the cover of the
Internet without having their distortions held up to
public scrutiny. They won't defend their words publicly.
And when the Aesthetic Realists won't stand behind
what they say, why should anyone take what they have to
say seriously?
2. They lie their faces off.
No,
she hasn't. No such writing exists. I challenged them
years ago to provide this alleged admission of Siegel's
suicide from the AR journal, but they can't, because
they've never owned up to it.3. They obfuscate and distort.
4. Most of them eventually recant what they're
saying.
5. They won't stand behind what they say.