In a recent LinkedIn post, Justin Oberman delves into a complex debate surrounding the efficacy and ethics of online business ‘guru’ methodologies, particularly those prevalent on the platform. Oberman frames the discussion around a prominent figure who, after years of teaching a specific playbook, publicly acknowledges its flaws and the potential for it to primarily serve as a system for selling more systems. This figure’s subsequent departure and return to the platform, now aiming to ‘de-guru’ his audience using similar, albeit reframed, tactics, forms the crux of Oberman’s inquiry.
Oberman highlights the core of the dilemma, questioning the authenticity and impact of such a shift. He presents the central question posed by the original post author, Tasleem Ahmad Fateh, whom Oberman featured in his ‘Anti Guru Newsletter’:
“Can you use the machine to warn people about the machine?”
As Oberman outlines the scenario, the guru in question admits that many of the systems taught, which have propelled some of today’s “biggest names on LinkedIn,” are not universally effective. He concedes that success is often attributable to the individual’s inherent drive rather than the system itself. Oberman quotes the original post’s summary of this admission:
“So he publicly admits the systems many of his former students are using are designed to sell systems and don’t really work for most people, and that the people they do work for would have found success with any system they purchased because some people are just natural winners that way.”
The ‘Guru’ Playbook and its Evolution
Oberman’s analysis dissects the return of this figure to the platform, noting the intention to “de-guru” followers by revealing the underlying mechanics of online influence and sales. The debate hinges on whether this transparency constitutes a genuine shift or merely a different iteration of the same ‘machine.’
Genius vs. Hypocrisy
The original post lays out two potential interpretations for this strategy. Oberman relays these viewpoints, framing them as a binary choice for audience commentary:
- Genius: This perspective suggests the individual is acutely aware of their actions, leveraging honesty about the ‘machinery’ to build trust, arguing that such transparency is more effective than continued silence.
- Hypocrite: This view posits that regardless of the narrative, the underlying sales funnel remains the same, and the change in presentation is superficial.
Oberman himself expresses uncertainty in his own vote on the matter, mirroring the dilemma presented to his audience and Tasleem Ahmad Fateh. He quotes the original post’s description of this indecision:
“My vote? I genuinely can’t land on an answer. His vote? Neither could he.”
This shared ambiguity underscores the complexity of navigating authenticity in the digital business coaching space. Oberman points out that this very question is the driving force behind an upcoming public discussion with Tasleem Ahmad Fateh on July 30th, focusing on how to communicate authentically, with or without AI.
The Machine’s Ultimate Control
The broader philosophical question, as highlighted by Oberman, transcends individual personalities and platforms. It questions the fundamental nature of online systems and influence. Can a system designed for a specific outcome ever truly be used to dismantle itself without ultimately reinforcing its own principles?
Oberman suggests that the guru’s strategy, regardless of its intent, is an attempt to leverage the very ‘machine’ he critiques. This raises the stakes for the upcoming conversation, which aims to explore practical methods for more human-centric communication in a landscape often dominated by automated or manipulative tactics. The core inquiry remains: does the machine inevitably triumph, or is there a genuine path to using its own tools for honest deconstruction?
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Justin Oberman on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on July 20, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →