Introduction


Presented in reverse chronology, this history stretches from the present back to the Fellowship's 1970 founding, and beyond.
(See "Blog Archive" in the sidebar below.) It draws from many sources, including The Fellowship of Friends - Living Presence Discussion, the Internet Archive, the former Fellowship of Friends wiki project, cult education and awareness sites, news archives, and from the editor's own 13-year experience in the Fellowship.

The portrait that emerges stands in stark contrast to sanitized versions presented on the Fellowship's array of
alluring websites, and on derivative sites created by Burton's now-estranged
disciple, Asaf Braverman.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Fun with Fellowship of Friends Shills

[ed. - From the early days of the blog in 2006, Fellowship of Friends defenders have joined the conversation. Soon, Fellowship leaders organized damage control measures pertaining to the blog, with designated individuals serving to take on the detractors.]

"Ames Gilbert" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, June 11, 2007:
To LOL (#11-355, 424 and many others)[blogger, page and post number]

Like it or not, to many you represent the Fellowship of Friends. I have no idea if you are doing this as part of what you conceive to be third line work (advancing the aims of the school and the teacher), or if it is just a convenient place to vent off the pressures of your life (your implication). I suppose it is possible that you are officially here as part of a plan to try to disrupt the blog. But, as I said, you are seen as a representative of the FoF, as one aspect of its being, and I have to point out that you are not doing a good job as ambassador.

You burst in on the scene a couple of pages ago (in your incarnation as LOL, at least) in a flurry of activity and negativity. I read your words and see a lot of thoughts about injustice, bias, and lying. I’m sure there are aspects of those here, and yet if that was all there were, your own experience should tell you that the blog would have died long before this. When you talk about the Inner Circle of the Blog, I wonder what you mean. By it’s very nature, a blog is disorganized, even if it built around a theme. The only way to have an inner circle, or favorites, is to have an organization, or a vote. So, you must be measuring frequency of posts, in which case you certainly qualify for the “Inner Circle”; you’re welcome to that lofty space, watch out for altitude sickness!

You are pretty keen on the old fart theme, and show that you know something about the past history of the FoF. So it seems possible that you are either an old fart yourself, or joined so young that you have both the first–hand historical view but are not yet old enough to be an old fart. You are obviously in a position where you have either been given permission or feel self-important enough to give yourself permission to attend the festivities. Maybe you are Linda T. herself? She is the only one who can tell us about her inner state without (maybe) lying, and you claim to know it.

Well, we voted to include your views and others like them, and you are keeping on as one of the most frequent contributors. That says something about us, and something about you. Although of course we know you do not represent the whole Fellowship, just as some of your targets on the blog do not represent the whole blog community, one way or another you are giving us a glimpse behind the scenes. So, thank you!

"Old FOF" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 13, 2007:
[Addressing three suspected Fellowship of Friends shills:]
Fat boy 551
Lateral Drift 557
Vinnie the Fish 294 and posts various

12 observations on the present FOF defenders or, Tips For Better Playwriting

1). Funny how, going all the way back, it always eventually seems to be three, in phases of new names.

2). Not sure if it is one person with three personas, or three useful idiots.

3). Please note how they come in waves. Coordinated on whose orders? Certainly not Robert Burton’s; after all – they told us so.

4). Interesting that they all present themselves as male heterosexuals.

5). It is suspicious that they are all very articulate – in the same way. And how they mostly point out bloggers’ faults, but do not substantively address issues raised.

6). Fascinating how they have become more refined in their arguments (since the beginning of the blog where they were mostly denying, dull, threatening or insulting) – now the underlying message of all three is conceding what has to be conceded – but minimizing it and saying – hey look at me: you can still work on yourself in the Fellowship of Friends. And by the way, (by citing phantom or real insults) look how mean, low-down, and bitter (or old) these terrible ex-students have become …. Philistines really, who are anti-sex, or anti-homosexual, or who, in any case, no longer or ever understood the rarefied beauty of the male bonding experience.
7). They kind of feel like constructs that a (poor) playwright might create: Vinnie is the happy-go-lucky tramp in London (inconsistently using American english) hitting on KA (so, supposedly hetero); “fat boy” is the married hetero twit with the “no biggie” butt-fucking the “Avatar of the Age” is good-for-my-evolution attitude – and certainly carries no emotional or spiritual downside or baggage for me or others; Lateral Drift is the on-the-fence pondering putative possible future good student who doesn’t see what the fuss is about as it might be good for his (future) work – as he slips up here-and-there and speaks in “mature” work language.

8). It is also odd how superficial they all are.

9). It is troubling how little conscience is involved in their presentation. Only passing regard for the certainly hundreds and possibly thousands who have been wounded by Robert Burton and the Fellowship of Friends.

10). It is telling how they casually dismiss or DO NOT ADDRESS the financial impropriety, the new sophomoric allurement direction away from the fourth way of the “teaching,” or the fundamental underlying issues related to abuse of students. Or engage in meaningful revelation about their personal struggles.

11). My suspicion is, given how far the aspirations and moral understandings of the current leadership have clearly fallen, this is the best that the current Fellowship of Friends can do: completely ignore virtue as an aim, and present iniquity as a neutral value. And this is supposed to be attractive?

12). It is terrible if these personas have been created by one clever salaried student – as a current (and may I interject: poor, ineffectual and self-defeating) “ad” to help stem the tide of students leaving – and precious few joining. But, purely in terms of virtue, it would so much worse if these vicious amoral “students” are actually real.

"my2bits" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 13, 2007:
Re: WasKathleenW [blogger], post #572, and to others…

Some months ago, I was privy to a meeting where possible countermeasures to the blog were being discussed. One such countermeasure was to introduce counter-bloggers, to disrupt or discredit the bloggers, and thereby to lessen the potentially destructive influence of the blog. I don’t know if “professional” blog-busters have been brought on board, but I would not be surprised.

So, I would advise all consistent posters to not be naive about this ‘actively monitoring presence’. (Also, to not be intimidated by it.) Some bloggers obviously have pieced things together for themselves and are not naive, but there is still a lot of distracting “buzz” related to this topic.

To counteract the FoF countermeasures, the best course of action might be simply to not “go for the bait” that is thrown out by blog imposters. “Chumming” is a prime tactic, and unfortunately I see many of you spending your (and the blog’s) time and energy chasing the bait around and around like schools of hungry minnows.

Practice a bit of indifference and restraint, folks. You don’t have to swim up to, and nibble on, every f***ing post! Focus on useful goals, and let these imposters fall away like the shills and shadows they are.

"KA" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 13, 2007:
Perhaps we can’t know for certain at the moment. But the effort to redefine the discussion is pernicious and needs to be stopped everytime because one weakness a blog and the internet has is that only the last few posts are very active. And blog memory can be short. For example, to define RB’s disgusting, destructive, predatory, mentally ill, sick sexual nature as ‘homosexual’ is extremely misleading and completely false and everytime some blog person asserts this that assertion needs to be countered quickly and effectively. There are several issues that the counter bloggers always attempt to redefine. Another (that gets me) is to equate style with content and to discard content because the style is judged to be ‘bad’ in some way, – usually just “too negative”. This would seem to be more an effort to retain members because most regular, smart, non indoctrinated people can see thru that pretty fast! But to redefine the topic and dismiss because of style are tried and true political tactics, and in a way this blog is a political instrument, therefore I think they should be addressed when they get flung into the mix.

No reason we can’t have some fun here too and poke fake blog people and each other just ever so slightly (some gentle pushes?) to test to see if we are real. I don’t get the feeling that whatever the current bla bla bla on this blog is that the concrete efforts of some (Uno, Elena, Joseph, Ames, others) are so easily distracted. The Res Ispa Loquitur page is *brilliant* as a longer term resource – a real counter to the short memory and attention span nature of an active blog.
 
—————–

“I hope they never find out that lightning has a lot of vitamins in it, because do you hide from it or not?” - Jack Handey

"my2bits" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 13, 2007:
Re: post #584, from KA [answering above post]

Thanks for your post, KA. I appreciate the balance that you offer to the topic of how best to deal with counter-bloggers.

Yes, it is quite right to be swift in pointing out glaring un-truths and misconceptions, and yes, it’s fine and proper to have fun poking at these guys/gals!

My point in post #579 was to recommend against our spending an undue amount of time and energy reacting to posts from suspected counter-bloggers, thereby enabling them to succeed in diluting the blog’s force and usefulness.

"Old FOF" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 15, 2007:
Re: recent posts of the Defenders

If you lean back just a bit and think, it’s apparent that likely without meaning to the recent posts by the Fellowship of Friends Defenders (the newly pepped-up “Vinnie” and “fat boy”) are effectively making the case AGAINST the Fellowship.
Have to laugh a little – I think the Persona-Master has been wrong-footed and is off his game. Or maybe it is just hard to defend the indefensible.

This is a win-win debate to have.

In any case, the admissions and concessions are breath-taking. They are so astoundingly mind-bogglingly jaded.

In their trying to define a new normal they are making the case that behavior that is below the level of life is OK. Why would seekers who aspire to the highest accept this pathology as inspiration for their goals?

Do they really think this school for sociopathy, sodomy and human bondage that they are presenting is attractive? I would expect that most of the rank-and-file membership is horrified by these admissions.

Further, it seems to me that one outcome of all this finally bubbling up – and being admitted to by Fellowship members – is that there should now be a requirement (as enforced by the threat of or real civil lawsuits) that not only should every existing member of the Fellowship of Friends be informed in writing as to Robert Burton’s behaviors, but every prospective member should be informed in writing of such behaviors prior to joining.

Keep making your sad case, guys. You’re in so far, that you seem to have no idea how damaging it is.

"Laughing Love" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 16, 2007:
Hello All.

I’ve been away for awhile, but still care deeply about this blog and the important information, dialogues and monologues that are expressed.

Of late, there appears to be a resurgence of fundamentalist members arrogantly flaunting their filthy feathers. As usual, they provide any prospective member who is reading here with all the information they need about the absolute fact that the fellowship is an absolutely typical cult in which the members are brainwashed to believe that they are, mysteriously, chosen as the elite. They are chosen by a vaguely “magnetic” god and are blinded by their delight in their supposed superiority. Sadly, I know this because I was in that position and precisely fell into that false lap of dim, miserably lonely luxury.

(There is no question that “Lateral Drift” was a complete fake. Who would knowingly join a corrupt cult willingly? None of us knew it was a cult.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t have joined. It’s sheer folly and there are so many choices!)

We’ve all been who they are and where they are. We all know exactly what it is like to twist logic in order to justify anything, anybody and, most importantly, our own sense of superiority. We all know exactly what it feels like to poo-poo morals because we were above those “ridiculous” human values. We all know how it feels to feel superior to the human race and its myriad experience, foibles and knowledge in its entirety. We all know how it feels to wish we were not human.
Personally, I’m deeply embarrassed by my idiocy in joining this silly group and it has given me a great deal of information about my ability to be in denial, to strut about arrogantly and to feel highly superior and above basic human morals, which are, in part, the basis of civilization. My strains of narcissism still need to be monitored. I know this because I believed, somehow, that I was “chosen”.

The recent posts by, i.e. Vinnie, which tend to attempt to justify clearly abnormal behavior in the name of “morals are stupid”, is just ridiculous and clearly makes apparent the absolute insanity of cult think. Critical thinking skills, otherwise known as common sense, exit stage left when it is convenient. Intuition also disappears in the context of cult think. Perhaps most importantly, real emotion is absolutely extinct. Who would not feel outrage toward the idea of any human’s expression of their experience of abuse, sexual or otherwise? Why would someone sneer at feelings? It’s so cold. My best guess is that those persons are abusers themselves and revel in meting out pain.

Apparently, one is expected to become inhuman in order to become “conscious”.
I reject this irrational, damaging and insane thought process entirely.

Finally, I know how futile it is to communicate with a cult member because I know it was impossible to communicate with me when I was in that position. I was so convinced that I was unique and held an understanding that the millions of generations before me and in the present could not fathom. I was that great!
If one believes they have transcended the human experience and has several pat answers to the human experience, there is no way to get through.

Therefore, although any may try, I think it is very important to recognize that they will not hear the truth from any aside from themselves. They are not elite, don’t hold special knowledge and are as run of the mill as just about anyone. I certainly know that I had to verify that for myself.

Genius is rare and, although these fundamentalist members seem to propose that they are unique geniuses who have miraculously discovered the secret to life, it is clear, even in their grammatical errors, that they are far from inspiring beauty, intelligence and/or love.

Best,

LL

"Leonhardon Da Mincey" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, November 11, 2007:
Fat Boy [blogger, shill] – Your question

“if you were forced to be with Robert for one hour alone; let say in a broken down elevator for sake of discussion. What questions would you ask, and how do you think he would respond to you?”

I think the response might be a very ticked off, superior and arrogant silence in each case. I would also be curious to see whether he could go a whole hour without trying to get into my zipper. Here are some questions I would dearly like to ask.

#1 Robert, why do you need to suck so much cock every single day of your life, I’m told by someone close to you that you tried to gobble 100 people on Valentine’s day? isn’t this just a tad obsessive? What has this behavior got to do with consciousness?

#2 Robert, how do you explain the fact that none of your predictions came true, not one. Do you still see yourself as a prophet?

#3 Why did you tell such a big “porkie pie” about your crystallization? C’mon, there wasn’t really any smoke or lightning or earthquaking was there? What was the pressure you felt that resulted in such a gross and obvious distortion?

#4 It seems that your unbridled Greed and Lust have grown in expression since your so-called crystallization. Has it occurred to you that you might be incorrectly crystallized?

#4 You appear to perfectly fit the profile of a malignant narcissist, has anyone ever explained this to you? Can you comment on the fact that your actions as a man number 7.8 seem totally at odds with liberation, compassion and enlightenment. Do you know of any other awakened beings who might be mistaken for sociopaths?

#5 Why do you think the Fellowship is collapsing around your ears, have you made any connections to this and your current teaching or the spate of revelations about your private life?

#6 Many of your students are experiencing powerful awakening experiences and then leaving your organization. Are you able to acknowledge this as fact or must you stick to the line that they are mentally unbalanced or merely troublemakers?

#7 What do you have to say to the many people now coming forward with graphic first hand accounts of abuse which they claim you inflicted upon them. How do you justify this or explain it away?

#8 What are you going to do and where are you going to go once the money dries up? Have you made any plans?

#9 Have you ever read “I am That” by Nisargadatta Maharaj?

Can I send you a copy, will you promise to read it? I think it will help you understand in part why you are now quite widely regarded as a self serving fraud who never awakened.

[ed. - Daily Cardiac makes their grand entrance. It does not seem to occur to them that perhaps "sex" is also the subject that most preoccupies their teacher.]

"Daily Cardiac" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, July 23, 2008:
SEX:
By far the most mentioned topic on the blog is the one regarding Robert Burton’s alleged sexual liaisons with FOF members. This is the main issue that former members use to imply Robert Burton is a charlatan and the FoF, a cult.

I would like to say two things regarding this topic: One – In my opinion Robert’s private lifestyle is not the main reason people become disenchanted with, or leave, the FoF and, Two – Robert’s private lifestyle does not even play a significant role in people becoming disenchanted with, or leaving, the FoF. The main reason for that is more deeply seated and completely independent from the above mentioned area in my opinion.
Man has lying in his DNA. It’s not an individual trait. All men lie. Everyone reading this has been lied to by others and has lied to others. Men are more apt to lie when “something is on the line”, or “at stake.” This “something at stake” can be real, imagined, dreaded or hoped for. There are millions of court cases around the world each year where two different parties tell two completely different versions of events. In many of those cases both parties believe they are telling the complete truth, yet that would not seem to be possible.
This brings us to the fact that whoever has the capability to lie to others (all of us) has the equal capability of lying to themselves. Lying to oneself is at the core of self-delusion. The main reason we lie to ourselves, in my opinion, is because knowing a particular truth may be unflattering or detrimental in some way and we are unwilling or unable to deal with it fully. Or conversely, that a “wished for reality” is so attractive that we are willing to imagine it is an actual reality, or will soon be one. To leave a school of awakening does not carry good connotations. To leave a cult does.

The main, perhaps the only, reason people reject Robert Burton as a teacher and leave the FoF is because they no longer connect with or buy into the work principles put forward by Robert and the FoF. At least that’s my assessment. This fact, however, is also evident through numerous postings on this blog from page one until now.

All of the main 4th way tenets have been dismissed on the blog by former members. Just recently someone said that “being present is overrated”, a notion that others echoed their approval of. Another individual recently wrote a long list of maladies endured because of embracing for years the principle that “man cannot do.”- a principle which I and many other members find to be both a positive and a liberating reality when taken in a correct symbolic context and not literally, as the blogger seemed to understand it.

Some of the other main principles of the FoF which have been dismissed or devalued on the blog are, “the non-expression of negativity”, “the transformation of suffering”, “the existence of different states of waking consciousness” (most commonly known as the first, second and third states), “the existence of a lower self / machine / enemy within” (whose only goal is to undermine our spiritual work), that “imagination is the number one obstacle to presence”, “the possibility of verifying Influence C, verifying consciousness in another, or verifying that a school is real”.

Also dismissed or devalued are the principles that “the play is written”, that “Influence C is omnipotent and all encompassing”, that “man (while occupying the second state of consciousness) is subjective by nature yet takes himself to be objective.”

These are things that immediately come to mind but there are probably others I missed as an infrequent visitor to the blog. Obviously, these are all principles the FoF was founded upon, and if one rejects them one naturally has rejected the School and the Teacher.

My point is this: would someone who embraces these principles and is being nourished by them on an ongoing basis simultaneously reject and discard everything, the principles, the school, because of claims that the Teacher is having sex with other members? That seems unlikely but if it’s true it’s not the most intelligent reaction. Actions like that give rise to sayings like “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water”, or “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face”

On the contrary, if the principles were working for someone, producing positive results, it would just as likely cause them to re-evaluate any negative attitudes they might have about a teacher having sex with a member.
My belief is that the desire to leave the FoF first of all begins internally, in the form of a general disillusionment with what one thought awakening meant or entailed, and then an external reason to leave is attached to that disillusionment.

I also believe that, this being the case, Robert could conduct himself like an altar boy and it would not change anything; some other reason would be found to complete the act of leaving if someone wanted to go. I knew someone who left because Robert stopped leading meetings and the average student could only dine with him once year or so. This person thought a conscious teacher should be more accessible. It’s years later and Robert is leading three meetings a week, as well as teaching dinners and breakfasts and other informal events; usually as many as 8 or 9 events a week.

But I do believe the majority of former students are sincere in the sense that they themselves truly believe the reasons they formulate for leaving.

It’s very interesting that there is no mention of sex in the direct teachings of the founders of three of the world’s most enduring religions. To my knowledge neither Christ, Buddha nor Muhammad said one word instructing their followers, or posterity, on the role sex plays in spiritual evolution. What can we draw from this omission? If indeed these are three of history’s most enlightened beings we can rule out forgetfulness or lack of focus. I would also rule out inner considering or being under the grips of feminine dominance, and conclude that what they included in their teachings were the most relevant issues to awakening; things like love, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance of one’s play, not judging one’s fellow men.

However, things were said in those teachings cautioning disciples about “false prophets” so they could have easily said “if a teacher wants sex with you beware”, but they did not make mention of it.

I would further deduce that by omitting the topic of sex from their direct teachings they were really saying that the indulgence in or abstinence from it was irrelevant to awakening. Further regarding the issue of sex with disciples; Robert, as a rule, does not have any contact with non-students as all his time is given to the FoF, so if he has sex it would be, in all likelihood, with those close to him, i.e. disciples.

Here are some accounts found online from the life of the Prophet Muhammad. None of these words can be proven or disproven. We can only say they are “alleged” to have happened:

“Muhammad had sex with just about anyone he pleased, thanks to Allah’s remarkable interest in his personal sex life.

Muhammad was married to eleven women at one time, relegating them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He married a 9-year-old girl and even his adopted son’s wife. On top of that Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex – sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his own armies.
So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world’s most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history.

Muhammad’s sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet’s marriage to Aisha when she was 9-years-old. The thought of a 52-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile.

SOME MUSLIMS RESPOND BY DENYING THE HADITH ITSELF, WHICH IS A MISTAKE (my emphasis). The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change in the modern age.

The charge of pedophilia may or may not be true, depending on how it is defined. Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30′s when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don’t know the age of Muhammad’s sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating.

Another strong piece of evidence against Muhammad being a pedophile is that, according to the same Hadith, he waited from the time Aisha was six (when the marriage ceremony took place) until she turned nine to consummate the relationship. Although the text doesn’t say why, in all probability it was because he was waiting for her to begin menstrual cycles – thus entering into “womanhood.” It is unlikely that a pedophile would be concerned about this.”

"Incognito" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends discussion blog, September 23, 2010:
Heya everybody,

To throw some more oil onto your burning brains, let me ask you a question: has anybody here ever had a thought that, not withstanding personal lives of some of the members and of the founder, the FoF still provided (past tense, since I am not personally familiar with the current situation, and expect it to be somewhat different) opportunities for:

- the 1st line of work (studying and practicing the System of Gurdjieff-Ouspensky),

- 2nd line of work (communicating with other people who are studying the System, as well as engaging into various activities with them, including manual labor, art production, etc.),

- and, finally, 3rd line of work (defined as working for the School, – recruiting new members, performing organizational duties…)

I personally would answer yes to each part of this question, and that is how I see my own years as a member of this organization – using the School, and not just being used by it. A fair exchange, in my opinion.

Moreover, this perfectly fits into the idea of a Fourth Way group, in fact providing a fairly good example of it. Apart from that, it is mostly up to the people themselves what to make of their own time in the School – and after it.

Gracies!

"leonhardon" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, September 23, 2010:
191 Incognito [post number and blogger]
Some comments on your spurious argument follow,
“the FoF still provided………. opportunities for:
- the 1st line of work (studying and practicing the System of Gurdjieff-Ouspensky),"
The Fellowship never taught and does not now teach the System of Gurdjieff -Ouspensky. It taught bits of it, fragments of fragments, mostly from Ouspensky, in a very idiosyncratic and flawed way.

It was Gurdjieff lite, and just like Bud lite, looks like beer, comes in a beer bottle, with a fancy label. but tastes like crap when compared to the real thing.
“- 2nd line of work (communicating with other people who are studying the System, as well as engaging into various activities with them, including manual labor, art production, etc.),”
As I point out above, nobody was studying the “system”. The idea that you were studying the system came from the Fellowship bait and switch routine. You swallowed the bait at the introductory meetings, probably after finding a bookmark for, “Gurdjieff Ouspensky Centres”. You studied instead, a whacky, distorted, incomplete version of the “system” Also your “communication” was controlled radically, whether or not you noticed and often proceeded with people who weren’t studying anything at all other than how to aquire power and influence in order to get laid more often.
“- and, finally, 3rd line of work (defined as working for the School, – recruiting new members, performing organizational duties…)”
Sounds good! Unfortunately it never was a, “school” in the real sense. A seriously deluded man, claiming to be a conscious teacher, pontificated from on high and assured everyone that they were building an ark for civilization. An ark that the so called, ” angels” obviously have absolutely no use for.

The flock ran around dividing their attention and suppressing their feelings in the magical belief that if they listened to enough Beethoven, they would somehow, someday be delivered to the, “Celestial City of Paradise”. Meanwhile, the “teacher” kept busy calculating how much cock he deserved to suck, while everyone was busy “awakening”.

Your writing has all the smell of P.R., shill, bullshit to me. If you want to waste your time here imaging you’ll convince someone that it really wasn’t so bad after all, go knock yourself out.

It was worse than most of us have realized, even after some years of trying to put it into some coherent perspective and to digest the deep levels of both deception and self deception.

"James Mclemore" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, September 26, 2012:
It took me a while to see that Bruce is correct. Back in the days of “Daily Cardiac” I used to think I could actually enter a discussion with them and make some sort of headway. It is not possible. It is possible to pick out things they have said and use them as examples, whether they be examples of a certain narrow type of thinking, or examples of just plain ol’ faulty logic; and there are plenty of examples of both in “I in the sky’s” posts. But entering into a discussion with them leads nowhere, and gives them chances to digress into philosophy and their stunted logic about all sorts of subjects. I will have to paraphrase this, but Bruce once asked me long ago, after I had posted something addressed to “Daily Cardiac”. He asked me, “If you wanted to talk about something that was meaningful to you, would you do it with a fucking circus clown?”.

Still, when the “I’s in the sky” and the “Daily Cardiac’s” appear, they do bring out some of the most powerful rebuttals and deconstructions of their words. The last 3-4 pages have once again been a testament to that.

(Note to Ames) – many of your posts on this blog are, at least in part, the inspiration for me to keep following along and post myself from time to time.

If and when people find this blog, and they are serious about investigating the Fellowship of Friends / Pathway to Presence, and read even a few of the stories posted here, and check Tim’s site on Robert Earl Burton, they can see the warnings loud and clear. It will make no difference to them, as Fee Fi Fo Fum pointed out, what year someone had left or how long ago someone suffered, or how many people have posted here. And if they should read the parts where “I in the sky” or “Daily Cardiac” is actively posting and read the context in which they are trying to defend the organization, they will see for themselves what the apologists are up to. Part of the apologist’s posts might possibly mislead some people to some extent, but serious seekers if they read enough of the blog, will see the issues which the apologists skirt and try to misdirect, and will see them as the real issues which causes us all to be here as a warning to those readers and seekers.

On the last page at 186 “I in the sky”, in a response to WhaleRider, said,

“If you are writing for someone who has not ever been in the FoF and has found this site because they are considering becoming part of the FoF then they have no reason to see me as a sociopath..”

But the actual answer to that is, ” YES”, they most certainly will have reason. Anyone willing to look at the whole context of the blog will see the lack of human compassion and the robot-like mentality and the sociopathy in their statements, especially in relation to Burton’s own behavior and the resultant suffering it has caused. All they will have to do is to read with an open mind.

“I in the sky” has had their mind on ‘lock down’ and ‘hold’ for over 40 years. In their defense, it does not appear that they have any idea what its actually like for someone / anyone, who is not in their very tiny mind set, to read their words. All they can do is to repeat over and over and over the reasoning and justifications that hide for them the ugliness of what the blog is consistently pointing to. They probably will not and cannot see what has possibly become a terror for them without them even knowing it. They cannot look directly at it because it would mean the very deep loss of a type of ‘specialness’. A loss which can sometimes all but obliterate a personalty. One can certainly hope for it, but they may never catch a glimpse of that bottom line which points directly to the Fellowship of Friends and its leader Robert Burton as just one among many ‘two-bit’ con jobs, run by a delusional sociopath which is harmful to peoples health in all respects, and that is doing business as a yet another pseudo “spiritual school”.

No comments:

Post a Comment