(if the image doesnt come through, click this URL)
I read this from another source and it was incisive enough to be worth posting here.
Again, this validates how wise it is for a person who has left a shame-based group
and who wishes to write a book or article about it, to avoid giving prior notice of his or her plans to do so.
Otherwise shame trippers who are still inmates of the indoctrination process will flood the dissident author's e-mail or comments section, and because they shared the same conditioning that the dissendent has become freed from, the astro-turfers will know exactly what buttons to press, and this carries grave risk of disrupting the momentum
needed to write one's truth.
Over the years, I have noticed that when reading book reviews, either on Amazon or elsewhere, that if a book elicits mostly hateful shaming ad hominum reviews, or has reviews that are at extremes, either hateful or complimentary---that is a signal that the book is worth reading.
And...if most of the hateful reviews indicate that the writer had no right as a US citizen to exercise his or her First Amendment privilige to speak out---that is truly a signal that the books is worth reading.
The defenders of Andrew Cohen and EnlightenNext
have pulled out all stops in an attempt to shame William Yenner for writing American Guru
which details his experiences as a 13 year disciple and a leader in the Cohen community.
Here is one of the best examples of the shaming campaign, used as a way of attempting to neutralize a critic, from a longer comment by Elisa Mishory posted on the Amazon page
for American Guru
"[William (Bill) Yenner] made a comment here in response to another review that it's inappropriate to write anything personal about the author. I tend to agree with that statement and wish it were possible to review this book without referring to Bill Yenner. However, it's simply impossible to do so when the author has written slanderously and dishonestly about his own experience. There really isn't anything else to respond to.
This book is a call for vengeance from the wounded ego - the ego that Bill himself had pledged to give his life to caging. Is it a valuable perspective? Well, I'd have to say I find it extremely destructive because it is exactly what the postmodern ego wants to hear. Bill Yenner knows so well where we need to go as a culture so that we'll be able to reach ever-wiser and more integrated solutions to the world's problems, and yet he's chosen here to pull it all down to make himself feel better. Pretty nasty stuff."
What is most interesting is the apparent conviction of Mishory that this sort of drivel will have any impact on anyone besides those already shamed by Cohen. And in stepping out with his new book, Yenner is clearly stating in public that shaming and other cultic conditioning is what he had to throw off to free himself from the cult leader. His book is a clear and helpful guide to anyone in the process of freeing themselves from any similar oppression of shame from whatever the source - but especially if that individual be still under the shame cloud of Andrew Cohen and EnlightenNext.
---end of quote-----------------
Corboy comments resume here-------
Remember how Stalin went to great lengths to eradicate the memories as well as the lives of those who were purged. They were removed from photographs documenting the history of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Their contributions to the overthrow of the Tsar and the creation of the new Bolshevik regime were eliminated from the history books, and when these persons were tortured, they were pressured to internalize Stalins verdict upon them, to the point where they accused themselves in court, of being traitors, hooligans and 'wreckers' of the Revolution and thus deserving of torment, disgrace and death.
In Goyas famous painting of the execution of Spaniards who defied the Napoleonic
take over of Spain, the French soldiers backs to the camera, merged into an anonymous collective killing machine, are firing bullets at the doomed Spanish
dissidents who objected to the rape and takeover of their nation.
Goya depicts one man, facing that firing squad, in a white shirt, bellowing protest straight at the men killing him, refusing to accept their right to rule his country. They can take his life, but he remains a free man, shouting out his patrotic truth at the intruders. He dies with his mind and emotions all his own, human dignity intact.
But Stalin did not want men and women to be that way when facing their deaths.
Stalin, unlike Napoleon, was not content to exile or kill the persons who threatened his revolution. He was determined for his victims to die obediently, to die believing they
had failed the revolution, to die, believing they had deserved imprisonment, disgrace,
to die believing they had needed and deserved torture, and to die believing they were unworthy of the Revolution.
I use Stalin as an example. It does not matter what the belief system is--Hitlers, Francos, Stalins, or Cohens...its the demand that a person believe that he or she
is so utterly unworthy as to need to be tortured into enlightenment.
George Orwell nailed it when he described a broken and shattered Winston Smith, tortured into disowning his lover, tortured into telling them to put the rat cage on her face instead, released, drinking himself into oblivion in a pub, gazing up at the picture of the dictator in whose name he was broken and mentally impregnated with the Dictators own world view--
Winston gazes up at the icon of the tormentor, and George Orwell tells us
'He loved Big Brother.'
Thats very different from the man in Goyas picture who died, shouting out probably very frightened as we all must be when facing a line of rifles.
But..this man is unashamed and dies feeling worthy, his honor as a man, as a Spaniard intact.
That is something no firing squad can take from him.
Fortunately for this unknown man, Napoleon did not possess the technology needed to persuade people to internalize a dictators contempt for them.
And, finally a question.
Society was fairly quick to reach consensus (not 100% agreement), but somewhat of a consensus, that Michael Vick the football star, did wrong to torment and train pitbulls
to rip each other to shreds.
Why is it that if a person becomes a spiritual seeker, it is not considered wrong
to put them in a set up that to Corboy, looks little different from using a dogs love and loyalty to a cruel human owner, to rip other dogs to shreds for entertainment of other humans low on the emotional maturity scale?
What so few seekers understand is that there is a very hazardous sector of the Consciousness Club in which cruel treatment of disciples is rationalized as necessary for their evolution--and necessary for the evolution of society as a whole.
Vick apparently was part of a narrow subsector that considered it OK and macho to delight in training trustful loyal dogs to turn mean and rip at each other. But.. mainstream society thank GOD does not share these values and the outcome was
that some of the dogs were rescued and Vick was obliged to make amends or at least go through the necessary motions.
But there seems no sort of control or 'off switch' exists within the Consciousness Klub scene beyond which an authoritarian guru is not allowed to go.
And the great and good of spiritual elite all too often stay silent and do not comment on any of this.
I refuse to buy the argument that people need to be battered so as to override
deep conditioning that is supposedly a hindrance to evolution.
All this will do is add more layers of trauma and leave untold consequences for the families of persons who internalize this grim view of life and for their students, if any such persons decide to set up as gurus or guru-esses in their own right.
(slow shake of the head)
Look at our man in Goyas picture once again. If he had been tortured into INTERNALIZING the imago of Mighty Napoleon, Savior of Spain, he would have
been crying out, 'Shoot me, shoot me so Napoleon and Spain can thrive!'
But...Goya painted him because this man had NOT interalized any sense of
adoration or shame.
Final question--what on earth does it serve someone's evolution to tell others to go let the air out of that persons tires?
For more, read here. IF you wanna go right to what I refer to, look on your edit bar for Windows, select 'Find' and then type 'tires' into the slot and zoom down. Then read the contextual stuff.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2009 02:10AM by corboy.