'Intermediate Zone Guru' Nonsense

'Intermediate Zone Gurus' - An Introduction:
This webpage was created to expose Alan Kazlev's hypocrisy, equivocations and erroneous "intermediate zone guru" argument against Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Alan Kazlev claimed on his website that I "never addresses his intellectual arguments" and instead resort to "personal attacks". Needless to say, Alan Kazlev is blind to his own feral and abusive "personal attacks" in which he resorts to gutter and blatant dishonesty (even claiming that I was sexually abused by Sai Baba, was "massaged" with oil by Sai Baba and was perhaps "inspired and uplifted" by Sai Baba's sexual advances!). See: Joe Moreno Refutes Allegations Of Sexual Abuse.

Alan Kazlev (a self-professed "all round eccentric") coined (as he put it) "the somewhat clumsy phrase 'Intermediate Zone Guru'" (Ref) to describe what he subjectively believes to be: Gurus who are not as "enlightened" or as "liberated" as he thinks they ought to be. Therefore, one should not confuse Aurobindo's notable "intermediate zone" phrase with Alan Kazlev's "somewhat clumsy" and non-notable "intermediate zone guru" phrase.

Let us start by taking a look at Sri Aurobindo's original letter and convoluted words pertaining to the alleged "intermediate zone":

- Click Here To Read Sri Aurobindo's Letter About The Intermediate Zone

Sri Aurobindo, Theosophist W. Q. Judge and Paul Brunton have all made reference to the "intermediate zone", which has also been described as:

• The "astral plane".


• "Astral intoxication".


• The "hall of illusion".

The "intermediate zone" argument is a broad-spectrum supposition that essentially states that visions, spirit guides, clairaudience, clairvoyance, channeling, psychic experiences, spiritual experiences, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, moments of peace and inner revelations are not true "self-realization". Rather, these experiences arise from an "intermediate zone" that is described as a perilous and deceptive psychological region in-between ordinary consciousness and genuine self-realization.

The "intermediate zone" argument is not an "intellectual" argument. It is a philosophical, subjective, speculative, judgmental and often a self-serving argument. Anyone who has ever had any sort of "spiritual" experience may be a victim to the illusions, deceptions, voices and enticements of the "intermediate zone". Anyone who claims realization, psychic experiences, miracles, visions and experiences of God may also be a victim to the "intermediate zone". Therefore, according to one's likes or dislikes, one can use the "intermediate zone" argument against Jesus, Krishna, Rama, Mohammad, Zarathustra, Moses, Buddha, Mahavir and innumerable other Gurus, Teachers, Spiritual Masters, Avatars, Prophets, Visonaries, etc. After all, there is no objective way to determine whether or not someone is truly "self-realized". Alan Kazlev's methodology in determining which gurus are "intermediate zone gurus" is based solely on his subjective, biased and speculative guesses rooted in his personal likes and dislikes.

Is Alan Kazlev A Victim Of 'The Intermediate Zone'?
Indeed, one can make the argument that Alan Kazlev is being influenced by forces from the "intermediate zone" because he is a believer, promoter and endorser of Integral Transformation, Integral Metaphysics, Reincarnation, Spirit Possession, Trolls, UFOs, Aliens, Alternate Realities, Cosmic Redemption, Planetary Buddhas, Avataric Gurus, Psychic Powers, Devas, Earth Spirits, Elementals, the Occult, Kundalini, Astrology, Karma, Auras, Astral Bodies, Astral Planes, Astral Beings, Geomancy, Theta Magic, Natal Charts, Samskaras, various New Age philosophies, etc.

Alan Kazlev claimed past life associations with Ancient Rome, Atlantis and Ancient Greece on his bio page. Alan Kazlev explicitly stated that he reincarnates two to three times a century and lived past lives as a Polish Kabbalist, a German Soldier and a 19th Century English gentleman-scholar, philosopher theologian and naturalist raised as a British Israelite (Refs: 01 - 02). Of course, Alan Kazlev's spiritual experiences and spiritual claims are all indicative of the very "intermediate zone" he warns others about. Consequently, Alan Kazlev is not credible because he very well may be possessed by the voices, deceptions, sounds and sights of the perilous "astral realms".

Alan Kazlev said the following about Sathya Sai Baba:

"I always had a good vibe from Sai Baba, and i still do, but i distanced myself because of what i heard (and the huge rumour-mill on the internet)...Yeah he once healed me from the astral plane. So i knew he was genuine!"

"Yet in addition to this more positive Intermediate Zone energy, I have also felt a very ugly and slimy astral energy associated with the sexual abuse. It may be that a lower astral adverse entity is using the human Sai Baba as a puppet to inflict suffering on many."

Therefore, Alan Kazlev claimed he was "healed on the astral plane" and implied he has psychic powers to feel an "ugly and slimy astral energy associated with sexual abuse". Since the "intermediate zone" deals with astral and psychic perceptions, one could argue that Alan Kazlev might be getting his impressions from false voices in the astral realms (which would explain his egotistic opinions, bold-faced untruths, flippant arguments and feral attacks against his detractors). Thank you Sri Aurodbindo, Theosophist W. Q. Judge and Paul Brunton!

It is peculiar that for someone who is not self-realized, Alan Kazlev postures himself as an authority on people who may or may not be self-realized!

Were Aurobindo & The Mother Victims Of 'The Intermediate Zone'?
What greater deception could a conniving and ghoulish Astral Entity from the "intermediate zone" perpetuate than to deceive people into thinking that Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra were above the "intermediate zone" and were thereby self-realized? Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra claimed special and unique knowledge about the spiritual path and self-realization. It may come as a surprise to many that Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra were said to have communicated with each other telepathically and claimed that they used the "Force" (an "intermediate zone" buzz word) to have influenced the events of the Second World War against Hitler because he was under the possession of an Asuric (demonic) being who called himself "The Lord of the Nations, Master of the Earth" (Ref). As a matter of the fact, the following was written about Aurobindo, Mother Mirra and Hitler:

"Mother and Sri Aurobindo participated in the affairs of the earth and the universe according to the mission and the work they were doing. When it was clear that the Second World War was inevitable, they saw the Lord of Nations leading Hitler on and urging him to conquer the world with very tall promises. The Lord of Nations, it was said, appeared before Hitler in a dazzling light in shining white armour and gave him detailed advice. Sri Aurobindo called this war, 'Mother's war.' He used to send his spiritual force in support of the Allies and eagerly awaited the results of individual battles. At every important turning point of the war, Sri Aurobindo took great interest. At the famous Dunkirk battle where the British troops were miraculously saved, it was reported that the fog in the atmosphere served the British navy well. Sri Aurobindo used to refer to that with a smile as the 'mysterious fog'. When Hitler was gaining success after success and Mother was trying in the opposite direction, she said the shining being who was guiding Hitler used to come to the Ashram from time to time to see what was happening. Things changed from bad to worse. Mother decided on a fresh strategy. She took on the appearance of that shining being, appeared before Hitler and advised him to attack Russia. On her way back to the Ashram, she met that being. The being was intrigued by Mother having stolen a march over him. Hitler's attack on Russia ensured his downfall." (Ref)

That's right; Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra were alleged to have waged a war on the astral plane (aka "intermediate zone") by using astral powers against an astral demon radiating dazzling light. Therefore, Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings, visions and alleged powers may have originated from the "intermediate zone" and not from genuine self-realization.

'The Intermediate Zone' - In Conclusion
The "intermediate zone" theory can be used to invalidate other's spiritual experiences and can also be used to induce fear, paranoia and doubt about one's spiritual practices and endeavors. Let it go on record that I do not believe that Alan Kazlev, Sri Aurobindo or Mother Mirra were under the influence of sinister energies from the "intermediate zone". This article was written to expose how information can be used and abused to further one's own biased agenda against Gurus or Spiritual Teachers. I think it is safe to say that many people who have had spiritual experiences know they are not "self-realized". For a person who may claim "self-realization", there is simply no empirical or objective methodology to establish the veracity of that claim.

Sathya Sai Baba's miracles (which have been reported in unprecedented numbers on a global scale) are indicative (if true) of spiritual attainment unknown in human history. For example, see:

• Sai Baba Manifestations At Sai Sruti Temple in Harrow, Middlesex, UK


• Sathya Sai Baba Vibhuti Manifestations in a Devotee's House in London


• Satya Sai Baba Vibuthi Manfestations In Bali, Indonesia


• Sai Baba Manifestations In Colusa, California


• Sai Baba Manifestations At Sri Ragnapatnam, Mysore, India


• Sai Sruti's Sai Baba Miracle Photos Galleries

Alan Kazlev argued (unconvincingly) that Sai Baba is a "serial sex abuser". Alan Kazlev believes the allegations against Sai Baba although he conceded (several times) that he did not have the "patience", "inclination", "time" or "interest" to research the Sai Controversy for himself. Consequently, it is not surprising that Alan Kazlev disseminates half truths and whole lies against Sathya Sai Baba and me. The truth speaks for itself:

• Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime.


• Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime.


• Sathya Sai Baba has never had even one single complaint lodged against him by any alleged victim, first-hand, in India. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over Baba as an individual defendant: Ref) and all of the alleged victims refused free "world-class legal resources" from Ex-Devotees (Ref).

It is also peculiar that for someone who postures himself as a moral authority concerning various Guru's alleged behaviors, Alan Kazlev is a plagiarist, posted "images of a pornographic kind" on his website (Ref) and published two cyberpunk stories replete with filthy speech and graphic, sexual content (Refs: 01 - 02).

In conclusion, Alan Kazlev's self-described "intellectual arguments" are not so "intellectual" after all. He coined "the somewhat clumsy phrase 'Intermediate Zone Guru'" by twisting and extrapolating on Sri Aurobindo's words. The end result is a "somewhat clumsy" argument that is nothing more than camouflage for a lack of original ideas.

Questioning Alan Kazlev's Redefinitions

"Questioning Kazlev's Redefinitions", a response to the recent Integral World essay

A close reading of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of M. Alan Kazlev's Essay "Redefining Integral" published in Integral World. Cross-posted to Joe Perez's Weblog.

In Section 2, "The Problem", Kazlev attacks views prominent "especially in America and on the Internet", especially "Integral forums such as the Integral Naked website and What is Enlightenment? magazine". Presumably, he is refering to the Integral Naked online forums, a medium with many hundreds or thousands of active users. But criticizing online chat rooms as a way of attacking the forum sponsor is invalid. It's like criticizing a magazine based on their published "letters to the editor", or a Weblog based on the comments of its readers, or a writer based on the contents of her or his fan mail. Attacking the usually anonymous posters to an online forum is not a valid way of criticizing Ken Wilber, though it may have validity if Kazlev is seeking to paint a portrait of the "Integral Movement." But there is no substantiation provided in Kazlev's article for the conclusions that he draws: that the Integral Movement is a:

"spiritual narrowing ... trivialisation ... misrepresentation ... lacking in spiritual insight ... overintellectual ... lack of true understanding ...
Californian feel-good holistic lifestyle ... secularised"

etc. To persuade, Kazlev must cite research on the Integral Movement of some sort, and cite specific examples for each point he wants to win. However, he cites no specific emails, Weblog posts, forum posts, articles, or dialogues. As a result, what he presents amounts to nothing more than an opinion, perhaps based on hunches or gut feelings, without substantiation. Such opinions are notoriously subject to psychological projection, as when Kazlev writes an article in an academic style and uses this style to claim that his opponents are guilty of "overintellectual approach". Perhaps there is truth to Kazlev's charges, but it's hard to say since there is no evidence cited.

In Section 3, "The Need for a Definition of What Constitutes 'Integral'", Kazlev once again makes additional attacks against the Integral Movement: "narrowness ... religiosity ... personality[-centered] ... head-centered", etc. But once again he fails to cite examples or evidence to make his case. In this section he refers to an "emerging Post-Wilberian community and discourse" which represents a "broader Integralism" because it "incorporates many other teachings and themes". Intriguing. Which teachings and themes are included that are excluded from the Integral Movement? Kazlev doesn't say, nor does he cite evidence that such teachings are in fact excluded from the Integral Movement. But Kazlev's main point is that each of many different theorists has their own definition of "integral". This point is indisputable. Therefore he offers definitions for five distinct entities: Wilberism, Integral Movement, Larger Integral movement sensu stricto, Integral Movement sensu lato, and Integral Yoga. He also provides a graphical "genealogy" of Integral groups. Whether these distinctions are helpful or unhelpful, I suggest, depends on how stupid you think people are or how grandiose is your rhetoric. Wilberism, according to Kazlev, includes only those who "follow [Wilber] in a religious or uncritical way" (presumably these are the dumbest sheep of the herd). The Larger Integral Movement emerged in 2003-2005, says Kazlev, and (as if size is everything) it is certainly more grandiose than the narrow IM. However, it's not clear why this group should not be included within the IM sensu stricto or if it should be considered a splinter movement and therefore a very small movement indeed (consisting perhaps of a handful of disgruntled but vocal critics). Kazlev presumes to grant these critics such importance as to make their approach the Larger than the Smaller IM, but it's not the very Largest. The Largest Integral Movement (or Integral Movement sensu lato) includes the above groups plus those who practice Integral Yoga or other paths as an Integralist. Since Kazlev is a member of this group which happens also to be the largest, broadest, and most inclusive of them all, one suspects that these definitions are rather self-serving. They may or may not be helpful, but they definitely privilege those folks who consider themselves Integralist but who walk a path as far from Ken Wilber as possible. This map therefore seems to smack of the venting of a personal grudge rather than a neutral and objective look at the territory.

In Section 4, "The Basic Thesis", Kazlev tells us that the definitions of Integral include "at least five ... evolutionary stages of individual and collective consciousness" with the first two being the Integral sensu lato and the Post-Integral. Interestingly, Kazlev argues definitely that these stages "will emerge in a progressively shorter and more overlapping time-frame". He then attributes this view to "Wilber and his holon hypothesis", but distinguishes his view from Wilber's because Kazlev does not believe that evolution occurs in "as rigid and inflexible a manner as Wilber himself describes". Wilber himself has repeatedly responsed to charges that his evolutionary model is rigid and inflexible (for example, in the Introduction to the revised version of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality), and has elaborated on the many ways that his model allows for a great deal of flexibility. Since Kazlev does not enter this dialogue, and instead only reasserts charges that have been countered, his remarks seem perfunctory and unsupported. Moreover, Wilber never claims that successive stages of evolution "will emerge in a progressively shorter and more overlapping time-frame" (because if they did that would be rather rigid and inflexible), but Kazlev himself makes this rigid and inflexible assertion.

In Section 6, "A New Definition", I want to focus on one huge problem. Kazlev distinguishes his new theory based on five different definitions of integral, the first being a pseudo-definition. Why pseudo? Because it's religious.

"Integral as a New Age cult or religion. One finds this most developed among the more enthusiastic followers of Ken Wilber, who refer to everything they do as 'integral'. This is the only use of Integral that I find dysfunctional (I am not a fan of religion)."

Unfortunately, Kazlev falls into the same trap as many contemporary pop-atheist writers: he does not define religion, but writes as if everyone knows what he is talking about, and then attacks it as "dysfunctional" and a "cult" without actually making any useful distinctions between the different varieties of religion. Moreover, his rhetoric goes over the top of civility by painting unnamed persons as members of a "cult" without substantiating these allegations with any serious attention to any of their words or actions.

At this point, Kazlev's essay continues to a total of 24 sections. However, when so many of the foundational theses of his argument have such shaky basis, the value of continuing to study Kazlev's essay becomes highly dubious. On the other hand, if you don't need evidence to believe Kazlev's points because you are already convinced of their truth, then you can take his essay as an exercise in storytelling narrative grounded in faith.

I will, however, make one additional point. The thrust of Kazlev's argument may be characterized as saying that Ken Wilber does not recognize the higher "Post-Integral" stages of consciousness such as Divinisation recognized by Sri Aurobindo. However, this is prima facie false. In Integral Spirituality, Wilber identifies the Integral level of consciousness with the turquoise label, and then identifies indigo, violet, ultraviolet, and clear light labels for subsequent stages of consciousness (stages which are actually defined using the labels of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy). Those Post-Integral levels of consciousness are not the focus of his book because he is writing for a specific audience. However, any claim that Wilber ignores Sri Aurobindo should at least examine Wilber's relevant writings and identify their insufficiency (how is Divinisation really different from the stage of consciousness identified as ultraviolet or clear light in Wilber's Integral Spirituality? Does not Wilber incorporate Aurobindo's gnosis, but simply not make the transmission of this gnosis the focus of his book?). Without offering a close reading of Wilber's relevant texts, Kazlev's screed sheds less light than he thinks it does. And given the bombast of his anti-Wilber rhetoric, it will probably do little to encourage the mainstream Integral movement to take up the study of Aurobindo.

I find much value in Kazlev's serious attention to the Aurobindian tradition. It would be a terrible shame if serious students of Integral were put off study of this wise and valuable tradition because they encountered a presentation which regarded others in the IM with such a demeaning and derogatory framework.

Alan Kazlev's Hypocrisy

Alan Kazlev (the “integral morality and ethics” hypocrite) talked trash behind my back with Sanjay Dadlani calling me (as Sanjay put it), “a slimy character”. I contacted Alan and asked him if Sanjay’s statements were true and he admitted he talked to Sanjay about me but couldn’t quite recall using that particular phrase. Nevertheless, Alan did recall using the phrase “obsessive nit-picking attitude”.

It does not surprise me that Alan Kazlev likes to talk trash behind other’s backs because when he was in correspondence with me, he spoke trash behind the backs of Reinier Van Der Sandt and Sanjay Dadlani (aka “Sai Exposed”) and said:

“is it Reinier using your name? i tell you, glancing through those yahoo posts, it seems like this guy and his buddy Sai Exposed are a bunch of adolescent fuckheads”

Kazlev also had the following to say about Reinier:

“yep, he is one sick character alright… (the more one reads on all this, the dirtier one feels…ughh! Like swimming in a sewer)…i have to admit, the more i look into this guy the less i like him”

That’s right. Kazlev called both Reinier and Sanjay “adolescent fuckheads”! Now, however, Kazlev is kissing their feet, calling them “decent” people and has nothing but praise for them.

Alan Kazlev sees absolutely nothing wrong with Sanjay Dadlani’s homosexual-fantasizing slurs, Jesus Sex Fetish and Boot Sex Fetish. Although Sanjay went around secretly stalking innocent women (calling them “bitches” and “sluts”, saying “they want it”, calling Mothers “MILFs“, photographing females and teenagers up their dresses and under tables and publishing these photos on his streetbitches blog), Alan is right there holding hands with Sanjay, saying he is a “decent” person. Shame on Alan Kazlev!

Sanjay even posted on the QuickTopic Forum (using multiple fake names, including female names) and made disgusting comments under the name “Marquis de Sade“, even duplicating a post about a Priest ejaculating on the face of a little girl, as related by her brother. Sanjay even posted under the name “kick his head in” and said that someone should murder Sathya Sai Baba (of course, this is the same guy who rejoiced when a Sai Baba temple was bombed). Nice friend you have there, Alan.

Alan Kazlev formerly agreed with me regarding Reinier van der Sandt’s very disturbing admission to viewing child pornography. Alan Kazlev also ignored the fact that Reinier used numerous fake names on the SSB2 Yahoo Group and now holds hands with him as well, calling him a “decent” person. Alan Kazlev defends, promotes and endorses perverts, defamers and liars. What does this say about Alan? I think the answer is self-evident. As they say, “Birds of feather flock together”.

Alan Kazlev wrote an email to Lisa De Witt that said:

“Lisa, i don’t give a fuck about Andries, so don’t assume to know MY motives…I was referring to the advantage of adopting a civil attitude…I originally didnt even give your name (that was a mistake i see now) to spare you being harassed by dickheads. Although this was funny because as a result Reinier showed himself to be dyslexic or whatever his problem is, but thinking that your email to me was written by me…To tell the truth, i was really quite shocked by your ad hominen attack on Willmcw, accusing him of soviet style mindfuck and all the rest…Lisa, you would achieve much much more if you only went about things in a respectful and polite way. Even if some of the ex-devotees act are abusive and deceitful…at least you would know that you have not lowered yourself to their standard.”

Alan Kazlev (the “integral morality and ethics” expert) called Sanjay, Reinier, et al “dickheads” and “dyslexic” and then stated (matter of factly) that one should adopt a “civil attitude”, go about things in a “respectful and polite way” and rest assured that “at least you would know that you have not lowered yourself to their standard”. Talk about utter self-denial and being blind to one’s own hypocrisy.

Once Alan Kazlev got his big ego bruised by me, he discarded his holier-than-thou rants, foamed-at-the-mouth and had the audacity to imply that I received a sexual oiling “massage” from Sathya Sai Baba and that I view Sai Baba as a “much loved surrogate father figure” and “possibly a pretend homosexual lover” (Reference) This is the type of hypocritical behavior exhibited by a person who publicly rants about “integral morality and ethics” and publicly postures himself as a spiritual authority.

Alan Kazlev loves to stab people in the back and call them vulgar names although he hypocritically preaches in public about “love”, “letting go of hatred”, “accepting the principle of Love and Empathy and Unity”, “seeing God in all beings”, hate creating “karmic patterns” and living from one’s “genuine spiritual heart consciousness”. When no one is watching, Alan Kazlev turns into a vicious defamer (exhibiting his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde syndrome), spitting venom and defaming others with his negativity, paranoia, unsupported speculations and obsessiveness.

And to top it all off, Alan Kazlev claims that Ramana Maharshi is his “Sadguru” and that Sri Aurobindo and Mother Mirra are his “Gurus”. Needless to say, Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo never taught or promoted any type of hate, violence, anger or judgmentalism. It is nothing less than shameful that Alan Kazlev promotes himself in association with these revered Indian Sages.

Of course, Alan Kazlev shamelessly talks about his past lives on his website and scrapped his Disrepectable Me article after realizing how much of an embarrassement and liability it was to his crediblity. Alan Kazlev (a pseudo-philosopher and pseudo-devotee) attempts to legitimize his weird personal beliefs, insecurities and isolation (due to his severe stuttering problem that prevents him from “functioning in any sort of real life group - good or bad”) by associating himself with Gurus who are well respected in spiritual and philosophical communities.

Alan, do you remember your comments to Joe Moreno about hate creating “karmic patterns”. Well, it appears your hate has come back to bite you since you decided to go on the attack first. You’ve messed with the wrong person and you have now been thoroughly exposed as a spiritual fraud, true-believer and part of the lunatic fringe often seen and associated with cults and religious movements (partly in thanks to your friend Robert Priddy).

Reference

Alan Kazlev: Crank & Crackpot?

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

On Wikipedia, a Kazlev fan started a wiki-page for him and the page was suggested for deletion. The majority of editors agreed that the page should be deleted and some referred to Alan Kazlev as a "crank" and "crackpot".


The posts read, from three different editors:

Delete - looks like a crank, fails by any reasonable definition of notability.

Delete Crackpots need to cause quite a stir in order to be notable enough for inclusion. I see no stir.

Certainly a crank. Delete as failing WP:RS.

WIKIPEDIA'S DEFINITION:
Wikipedia defines "Crank" as a pejorative term for a person who:

1. holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider counterfactual


2. clings to this belief in the face of all counterarguments or evidence presented to him.

The term implies that:

1. a "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with some commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous


2. arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict his cranky belief

Common synonyms for "crank" include kook and crackpot.

Virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1. Cranks vastly overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and vastly underestimate that of acknowledged experts.


2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.


3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.


4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be very, very bad listeners, and often appear to be utterly uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

IN CONCLUSION
Now read Alan's scrapped "Disrespectable Me" and "Introduction" page.

Funny enough, Alan's friends (Robert Priddy and Sanjay Dadlani) also fit the definitions for a "crank" and a "crackpot".

Umm...enough said.

Alan Kazlev's Fake Identity

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

Although I blogged about this before, I think this subject deserves it's own article.

We do not know if M.Alan Kazlev is truly being forthcoming about his identity. After all, Kazlev admitted that he changed his name twice, going from "Martin Levin" to "Martin Katz" to "M. Alan Kazlev" (Reference).

Furthermore, Kazlev does not provide his full real name, full address or full phone number on his site. This must mean (using the standards employed against me by Robert Priddy and Anti-Sai Activists) that Kazlev is not who he claims he is and is using a fake identity.

Too bad Kazlev cannot live up to the same standards he defends Anti-Sai Activists for using against me. Anti-Sai Activists have not demanded that Kazlev supply them with the same contact details they demand from me. Therefore, Anti-Sai Activists themselves have made the case that Alan Kazlev is using a fake identity and is not who he claims he is.

See the problem, Kazlev?

Alan Kazlev Was Never Trusted

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

For the record, I would like to say that I never trusted Alan Kazlev (even when he was being civil to me). As mentioned before, Lisa DeWitt submitted my site-link to Kazlev (which he put on his kheper.net page pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba).

After my very first e-mail correspondence with Kazlev, I clearly perceived a bias and felt he was not to be trusted. I communicated my doubts to Lisa at least a dozen times (perhaps more) and told her I was wasting my time with Kazlev. Nevertheless, Lisa had more faith in Kazlev than I did and encouraged me to keep up my correspondence with him (which I did) because Kazlev stated that he had positive experiences with Sathya Sai Baba, which even included a healing. As a matter of fact, Kazlev told Lisa:

I always had a good vibe from Sai Baba, and i still do, but i distanced myself because of what i heard (and the huge rumour-mill on the internet)...Yeah he once healed me from the astral plane. So i knew he was genuine!

Despite these positive sentiments (in favor of Baba) Kazlev intimated that he also believed the sexual abuse allegations. Since it appeared to Lisa that Kazlev was open-minded, neutral and open to another viewpoint, she encouraged me in my communication with him.

Time and time again, I saw that I was getting nowhere with Kazlev and found his apathy to investigate my version of the facts to be very disturbing. I soon realized that talking to Kazlev was like talking to a brick wall. Kazlev would accuse me of saying something I never said. After confronting Kazlev about his error, he would concede to his error, only later to voice the same error over and over again (especially in reference to Barry Pittard)!

As it turned out, I was right. Kazlev finally conceded (several times) that he had not bothered to read Anti-Sai Sites and that he did not have the "time", "patience" or "inclination" to research my claims.

Therefore, it came as no surprise to me when Kazlev publicly sided with Anti-Sai Activists. I do not consider this a loss in the least. All I need to do is direct readers to Kazlev's very amusing "About Me" page and I think I can safely say that rational readers will dismiss his criticisms with a chuckle and a grin.

I know I did.

M. Alan Kazlev On Wikipedia: Part 2

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

KAZLEV'S FALSE CLAIMS OF VANDALISM ON WIKIPEDIA
Alan Kazlev also erroneously claimed that I was attempting to "vandalize" Priddy's wiki-page. Strange enough, not even one other editor agreed with Kazlev. A controversial link to Priddy's defamatory Anti-Sai Site (that both Kazlev and Andries were attempting to include on Priddy's wiki-page) was ruled to violate an ArbCom decision that prohibited critical links (composed of negative personal stories) on Sathya Sai Baba-related articles: Reference. If either Kazlev or Andries persisted in adding Priddy's defamatory Anti-Sai link, THEY (not I) would have been banned. As a matter of fact, Andries was given the following warning by a Wikipedia Administrator:

Hi, as a matter of courtesy I advise you that your insertion of a certain link to Robert Priddy is, in my view and that of other administrators, in violation of the arbitration ruling :Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba:. I advise you to avoid re-inserting that link on articles or talk pages. The arbitration ruling is actionable; repeatedly defying it may result in your being blocked for disruption (Ref: Read Section In Green).

KAZLEV DUPLICATED PRIDDY'S WIKI-PAGE TO HIS OWN DOMAIN:
Furthermore, Alan Kazlev is such good friends with Robert Priddy that he duplicated Priddy's Wikipedia article on his own domain (kheper.net) and included the controversial link that was prohibited by an ArbCom ruling on Wikipedia. This fully supports my past contentions that Alan Kazlev is biased and an Anti-Sai sympathizer (despite his hollow claims to being "neutral").

M. Alan Kazlev On Wikipedia: Part 1

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

Alan Kazlev makes such poorly researched arguments against me, I consider them utterly ridiculous. Nevertheless, to show how poorly Kazlev makes his arguments against me (and to reveal his bias) I will respond to some of his erroneous comments (made on Wikipedia) against me. These comments came from several discussions had on Robert Priddy's Wikipedia talk-page:

Alan Kazlev: btw Joe you make a false analogy. SSB is a public figure, and hence should be able to be criticised like any other well-known public figure. But Robert Priddy is in comparison a little-known writer, hence a great big long personal page dedicated to slandering him constitutes an ad homimen attack.

Obviously, Alan Kazlev is trying to re-define the word "slander" to suit whatever agenda he is trying to push. Slander is a spoken false statement injurious to a person's reputation. If something is negative, but true, that is not "slander". Anti-Sai Activists loosely use words like "slander", "defamation", "pedophilia", "boys", etc.

Alan Kazlev is flat out wrong about Robert Priddy. Priddy listed himself as a public figure on Wikipedia and has written hundreds of articles against Sathya Sai Baba. It is nothing less than sheer absurdity for Kazlev to claim that Priddy should not be criticized because he is a "little-known writer". For Alan's information, Priddy happens to be one of the most verbose writers against Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, a critical analysis of Priddy's claims, assertions, speculations and conspiracy theories is entirely and wholly justified (unless you happen to live in a communist country where free speech is not allowed).

What is ironic about all this is that Kazlev not only created "big long personal pages dedicated to slandering" me (which, of course, constitute "ad hominem attacks") he also pretended to be a psychiatrist and implied I have mental disorders such as "obsessive-compulsive personality disorder" (aka OCPD or anankastic personality disorder), "projection of the ego" and "projection of the shadow". Alan Kazlev has no credentials in the mental health or medical fields whatosever. Kazlev should stick to what he knows best: philosophizing and skimming over other's research.

In my opinion, Alan Kazlev is a hypocrite. I assume Alan will now try to accuse me of "slandering" him because I called him a "hypocrite". Fortunately, I live in the USA where we have freedom of speech and where people are entitled to have personal opinions. My opinion is that Alan is a hypocrite based on his contradictory actions and words. Examples: 1) Ranting about creating long pages against Priddy, but then turning around and doing the same thing to me and 2) Whining about "ad hominem attacks" and "slander" and then implying I have mental disorders. This type of behavior, in layman's terms, is called "hypocrisy" and Alan suffers from it.

Alan Kazlev: As for your claims Joe, Robert Priddy's websites are not, "full of ad hominem attacks against Sai Baba" as far as I understand the term. Which statements are you referring by Priddy which are genuine ad hominem arguments, if we define argumentum ad hominem as trying to discredit a statement by referring to an unrelated fault in the character of the person who made the statement, as you have repeatedly done against SSB critics (not just Robert Priddy but others as well). That is why I refer to your actions as slander (even if you don't think that term applies to you). To prove someone is a liar for example one must be able to show that the person has intentionally stated an untruth knowing it to be untrue. Therefore you are defaming Priddy, while I cannot see that he has defaming you in this (or any other) way. I would also be interested if you could provide direct references with a link to anywhere that Priddy has posted anything where he actually calls you, personally, a liar or has defamed you.

Alan Kazlev: Joe you still in my opinion have presented no convincing evidence and have not shown that Robert defames you nor that he calls you a liar anywhere, which you do of him on innumerable occasions and without credible evidence. It seems to me that for you, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya Sai Baba, and makes any statement that you find fault with, often because they will not entrust you with sensitive information. The link to the comments about you on Priddy's webpages do not show any defamation of your character there, Certainly nothing more serious than you have written about me, for example (regarding which (from what i have seen) I have no complaints).

On This Webpage, Priddy said about me: "He widely propagates lies and slanders and the wildest kinds of misinformation against any critics of Sai Baba..." Therefore, Priddy called me a liar. There is your link, Kazlev. As one can see, Kazlev just sits back on his rump, makes alls sorts of demands and does not even lift one finger to do the research himself. Kazlev expects others to spoon-feed him links, comments and references because he is a lazy armchair critic. After supplying Kazlev with links, comments and references, he ignores them if they do not argue in his favor.

I have responded to what I consider Priddy's libelous comments against me on the following posts:

* Defamatory Attack One: Response 1
* Defamatory Attack One: Response 2
* Defamatory Attack One: Response 3

Even after spoon-feeding Kazlev with Priddy documented lies on Wikipedia, he totally ignored them. See the following documented lies from Robert Priddy on Wikipedia:

* Robert Priddy's Phony "Phone" Lies
* Robert Priddy Sticks His Foot In His Mouth Again
* Robert Priddy Literally Stumbles Onto The Scene
* Say What?
* Another Not So Priddy Lie Exposed
* Another Spiteful & Erroneous Lie
* Robert Priddy Lies About Lisa De Witt
* A Funny And Embarrassing Wikipedia Blunder
* Another Example Of Priddy's Poor Research

And let us not forget Priddy's vicious lie about Joy Thomas (not related to Wikipedia):

* Priddy's Shameless Lie About Joy Thomas

All the information that Kazlev demands is right there under his nose. Kazlev is up to his neck in water and cries out he is thirsty. There is no satsifying a "skimmer" who admitted he does not have the "time", "patience" or "inclination" to research my claims.

Alan Kazlev: As for the anonymity claim (Robert says you are, you say you aren't), well, honestly, it makes no difference to me personally whether you are or want to be anonymous, or whether you are who you say you are (as long as you don't slander others). On your page you make Robert out to be a liar for saying all this. But regarding this, Robert informed me that: "In a mail to Conny Larsson, he shows how Moreno used the IP 192.168.9.27 (PRIVATE no source available). This proves outright that he uses proxy IPs. This makes it impossible to prove definitively that he really is the author (as someone else could fake the mail content etc.)... not without a costly subpoena process. So what IS his real IP and why doesn't he give his details?"

I've already discussed this issue in depth with Kazlev, which forced Priddy to update his article (although it did not do any good because Priddy still continued with his pathological and wholly unsupported lies against me). Click Here to view my article about Conny Larsson's deception regarding my IP. I fully responded to this issue on my blogged post: Defamatory Attack Three: Response 3

Alan Kazlev: You like to advertise Robert Priddy's IP on your own website and also on Wikipedia, but it is not hidden, neither is his address, phone number or publications. Similarily I am open about my dealings, i use my real name on wikipedia, not a username, so people know it is me. If you want to private and secretive, that is fine, I have no problems with that, but don't then claim that those who report this are liars, or use your anonymity as a cloak to attack others. It does you no credit and undercuts what credibility you may otherwise have.

First of all, Kazlev needs to tell me where I "advertise Robert Priddy's IP" anywhere on my site? I am not aware of having done so, nor can I find any reference to it. Priddy's IP on Wikipedia is not "advertised" by me. It is advertised by Priddy himself because his IP is there next to any edits or comments he makes. My IP is also on Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide and never have.

Also, we do not know if Kazlev is truly being forthcoming about his identity or personal information. After all, Kazlev admitted that he changed his name (at least) twice. Furthermore, Kazlev does not provide his full name, full address or full phone number on his site. This must mean (using Priddy and Anti-Sai Activist's standards) that he is not who he claims he is and is using a fake identity. Too bad Kazlev cannot live up to the same standards he defends Anti-Sai Activists for using against me. Also, Priddy openly refused to divulge his phone number because he didn't want "unwanted disturbances". Priddy has two addresses listed on Anti-Sai Sites and no one knows whether they are genuine, fake or outdated. In other words, Priddy fails to divulge the same contact details he demands from me. Priddy also fails to demand the same contact details from Kazlev that he demands from me. Hypocrisy, clear and simple.

Alan Kazlev: What is worse are the double standards. While guarding your own privacy so carefully, you make all sorts of allegations about ex-devotees, including slurs and inuendos regarding their private lives, as well as outright and blatant lies; e.g. they are paedophiles, pornographers, associate with white supremacists, etc etc.

Anti-Sai Activists are to blame for making their private lives available on the internet. Anti-Sai Activists have showed no compassion for the "private lives" of Sai Devotees and Proponents. Kazlev would have known this had he researched the matter. Unfortunately, Kazlev told me (several times) that he has not researched this matter because he does not have the "time", "patience" or "inclination" to do so! The fact of the matter is that I have found shocking information that wholly undermines the alleged integrity and crediblity of Anti-Sai Activists. This is a fact and I have proof to back it up.

I never called anyone a "pedophile" or an "associate with white supremacists". Alan is being untruthful. Reinier Van Der Sandt admitted, out of his own mouth that:

Reinier Van Der Sant: "I found lots of kiddy porno-sites with very much child porn pics, but..., but... it was impossible for me to watch it for very long, because when I was clicking on an image to enlarge, other pages were popping up so fast on my computer screen, that I could not open such a site, in fact, all kiddy porno sites - as what I have seen of it - have multi pop up techniques, which makes it difficult for the kiddy porno watcher to watch easily...Only in the opening pages I saw some kiddy porn, when I wanted to continue and see more, I had to suscribe and/or pay...Internet kiddy porno can be obtained, I have to correct myself on what I was previously writing on this board, I have been looking for kiddy porn on the internet - NOT AS A CUSTOMER, BUT BECAUSE I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHETHER ONE CAN OBTAIN EASILY FILTHY KIDDIE PORNO!!!" (Refs: Original - Duplicate)

As one can see, my concern about Reinier's viewing of child pornogrpahy is entirely warranted. I challenge any parent to tell me otherwise. After reading these shocking comments from Reinier, I rightly expressed concern over pictures he took of a child sucking on a popsicle. Strange enough, Kazlev agreed with me.

As a matter of fact, Kazlev skimmed through some yahoo posts where Reinier was using the name "sloppyjoemoreno" and said (verbatim): "is it Reinier using your name? i tell you, glancing through those yahoo posts, it seems like this guy and his buddy Sai Exposed are a bunch of adolescent fuckheads". "Sai Exposed" is Sanjay Kishore Dadlani (the guy who Alan now defends). Kazlev also said of Reinier: "yep, he is one sick character alright... (the more one reads on all this, the dirtier one feels...ughh! Like swimming in a sewer)...i have to admit, the more i look into this guy the less i like him". Kazlev is now defending Reinier as well (talk about a flip-flopper).

When I emailed Kazlev about his erroneous claim that I accused Anti-Sai Activists of being "associated with White Supremacits", he responded by saying that I accused Barry Pittard with being "associated with White Supremacists" (a bold-faced and unscrupulous lie). It is exactly this type of poor research and inaccurate paraphrasing that wholly compromises Kazlev's integrity. These serious and inaccurate mistakes also support my contention that Kazlev "skims" through information and makes stuff up to suit whatever agenda he is trying to push. When it come down to the cold, hard facts, Kazlev is clueless and cannot factually support his comments with actual references taken in context.

Alan Kazlev: You claim "Robert Priddy is relating more scurrilous fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the guise of anonymity." But where is the proof of these assertions?

Here is the webpage in question. One will notice that this page is without a signature, is unattributed and does not have any external links. Therefore, it is anonymous. In it's original form, it was first published anonymously on the "angeltowns2.net/tanik" domain. After it was deleted for defamatory content by AngelTowns2 (I reported it), Priddy then moved the article to the exbaba site where it was deleted and again moved to his chello.no site. Priddy then duplicated it to his home.no.net/abacusa site where it remains to this day unsigned and unattributed. There is your proof Kazlev. What's the problem? Don't have the "time", "patience" or "inclination" to read my site and do the research for your yourself? I didn't think so.

Alan Kazlev: You wrote "Priddy's dirty and filthy websites". You use of such language is imho just more examples of slander (and more shadow projection) on your part.

This was already discussed on my Priddy's Primary Webpage Indexed On Porn Sites blogged article. Kazlev confuses personal opinion with "slander". If Kazlev doesn't like personal opinions, he should live alone and try to avoid people as much as possible. Oh yeah, he already does that (with a self-admission)!

Alan Kazlev: To cite another example, you posted the slander of Dr. Leo Rebello against Priddy on your website. That is an implicit endorsement of Rebello's statements and is I understand slanderous by law.

This is another poorly researched response from Kazlev. Where exactly did I get Rebello's "slander" from in the first place? I got it from Priddy's AngelTowns site! That's right, Priddy published all of Rebello's "slanderous" emails on a website that AngelTowns deleted for defamatory content. The site was online for almost a full year! Here is Rebello's complaint to AngelTowns against Priddy. As I stated before, I believe it is true that Rebello defamed Priddy and vice-versa. The only difference in their defamation war was that Rebello did not create a website defaming Priddy (whereas Priddy created a website defaming Rebello). And yes, the website belonged to Priddy. As a matter of fact, Priddy's past comment about Rebello (in which he claimed the AngelTowns site as his) can still be viewed online: Reference.

Alan Kazlev: Your allegations about Priddy on porn sites are unverified, and hence defamatory and slanderous. How do we know that someone (I wonder who?) has used his website title in signing up for those sites?

This is another poorly-researched comment from Kazlev. I already blogged about this issue in my article Priddy's Primary Webpage Indexed On Porn Sites. I screen-captures 4 google pages containing 7 sexually explicit sites that listed Priddy's webpage. Even Lisa saw these sites when they were up. Kazlev's claim that my allegations are "unverified" is untrue. Therefore, it is not "slander" as he contends.

Alan Kazlev: You also say things like "Heil Priddy" and other similar slanderous language.

I said "Heil Priddy" because Priddy demanded that I divulge my full name, full address and full phone number (that he already has) or I am not who I say I am. However, when it came to Barry Pittard, Priddy said about his address, "one which any citizen has a right to keep private if he or she wishes". Therefore, I had a reason for saying what I did. I pointed out Priddy's double-standards and equivocation (Ref: See Last Post). Priddy demands one standard from me, yet exempts Anti-Sai Activists from the same standard. This is cultish, hypocritical and dictatorial. Therefore, my comment ("Heil Priddy") is not "slander". It is a personal sentiment used to highlight what I perceived to be a valid point.

Alan Kazlev: But where is the reference that Robert Priddy thinks this is justified? You try to smear him simply by his association with others whose statements and acts he is not responsible for. And what i find really emotionally immature is the way you try to ridicule him by using a ridiculous nickname, which to me shows only a spiteful attitude on your part. I have already mentioned on my website your use of this name to mock and ridicule. So haw can you claim respectability when you act like that?

This is yet another poorly-researched comment from Kazlev. Priddy accused me of posting images of a "pornographic kind" on my website, yet never complained about images of a "pornographic kind" published by Reinier Van Der Sandt and Sanjay Dadlani. The images I published were anonymously sent to me by "Premaperm". Since Priddy "smeared" me "by association", why can't I use the same standard with him? Kazlev demands a certain standard from me, yet cares less about the standards used by Priddy and Anti-Sai Activists. This points to Kazlev's bias and partisonship and where his loyalty lies.

Over the course of a year, Kazlev also accused me several times of using a "ridiculous nickname", being "emotionally immature", being "spiteful", employing "mock and ridicule" and having "adolescent childishness" for referring to Priddy as "Priddles". Kazlev (caring less for facts and more for judgmentalism) resorted to ad hominem attacks without even checking his facts. "Priddles" is a known name of Priddy's (that he divulged on former webpages, which have since been deleted). Only after repeating myself a couple of times did Kazlev finally confirm this fact with Priddy himself. Needless to say, Kazlev then changed his argument against me and then accused me for using a childhood name of Priddy. Kazlev was shamed once again for his poor research and tried to escape responsiblity by blaming me by using a different argument.

Alan Kazlev: You also make many unsupported assumptions and statements, for example, "I fully know the depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists (Robert Priddy included)." This emotionalistic statement is again slanderous.

Alan is once again confusing personal opinion with "slander". I am perfectly entitled to my opinion about Robert Priddy, based on my research into his accusations (research Kazlev admitted he has never conducted himself). This statement, from Kazlev, is a perfect example on how he tries to twist "personal opinion" into "slander". If Alan does not like for others to have personal opinions, he should move to a communist country.

WIKIPEDIA REFERENCES:
Wikipedia References For This Article (read sections in green):
01 - 02 - 03

M Alan Kazlev & Sanjay Kishore Dadlani

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

It should come as no surprise that Alan Kazlev is not only a friend to Sanjay Kishore Dadlani, he also promotes, endorses and solicits Sanjay's defamatory blogs against Sathya Sai Baba and me. This from a guy who claims he is honest, truthful and does not believe in "slander".

Alan Kazlev is fully aware (and does not care) that Sanjay Dadlani has been fully exposed for his StreetBitches Blog, his Jesus Sex Fetish, his views on Child And Teen Pornography, his self-admitted Psychological Problems, his Disturbing Views About Women, his self-admitted Drinking Problems, his Satanic Inclinations, his Shocking Confessions, his Long And Established History As A Pathological Liar, his outward Denial Of His Own Hare Krishna Guru - Srila Prabhupada, his public Lie About Meeting Aghori Vimalananda, his Homoeroticism And Gender Confusion, his Inability To Keep A Girlfriend, his Pseudo-Devotee Posturing, his He-Man Inspired God Concept, his Lies About Being A Vegetarian, his weird claim that He Was Dying, his amusing Belief That Semen Can Be Sucked Up From The Testicles, Via The Spine, To The Brain and his Suicidal And Self-Injurious Statements.

When I emailed Alan about a claim that Sanjay indirectly attributed to him, I brought up Sanjay's Jesus sex-fetish and Alan responded by saying:

So what? What's the big deal? It's no different to nurses uniforms (Reference)

When I discussed Sanjay's pathological lies, ad hominem attacks and his racist, misogynistic, deviant, boot fetish and sleazy posts on his former killuminati blog, Alan responded by saying:

I have corresponded with him and my opinion of him is quite different And what's with this trip about sleaziness and fetishes? Are you some sort of moral guardian? (Reference)

Alan Kazlev thinks there is absolutely nothing wrong with racist and misogynistic comments.

Alan Kazlev thinks there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sanjay's pathological lies.

Alan Kazlev thinks there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sanjay's criminal behavior of stalking innocent teenagers, mothers and female Middlesex University students (in which he secretly took pictures up their dresses and under tables, labeled them "sluts" and "bitches" and posted over 300 sleazy pictures on a private blog along with illegal teen porn links)! Sanjay's behavior was even discovered by a good friend of his, whom Sanjay praised and eulogized on his Gaurasundra Blog.

*"No different to nurses uniforms"?
*"Are you some sort of moral guardian?"
These are the casual, unconcerned comments from someone who professes an admiration for honesty, spirituality and "integral transformation". Pathetic.

It has since come to light that Alan Kazlev is a grungy guy who loves to post and drool over images of a “pornographic kind” (according to Robert Priddy’s moral standards: Ref) and wrote two cyberpunk articles replete with filthy speech and sexually explicit material (Ref).

Alan Kazlev cares very little for the truth and rather have biased Anti-Sai Activists fill him in on their version of the "truth". When it comes to my version of the truth, Alan does not have the "time", "patience" or "inclination" to hear or research it!

Funny enough, Sanjay recently posted on his blog:

Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

That's right, "sensible", "rational", "logical" or "down-to-earth" people cannot believe Alan Kazlev because he believes in reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like (including UFO's, aliens, alternate realities, cosmic redemption, planetary Buddhas, genuine avataric gurus, psychic powers, devas, Earth spirits, elementals, the occult and kundalini).

What more to say about these Anti-Sai nutters and sympathizers? They are a bunch of weirdo's who not only contradict themselves, they contract each other.

Alan Kazlev Scraps "Disrespectable Me"

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

Alan Kazlev scrapped his former article about himself entitled, "disrespectable me" because he felt it was "puerile". I think Kazlev's former comments are illuminating, so I will duplicate it here:

Disrespectable Me

Hey I knew you'd come here first ;-)

Who wants 2 read a lot of respectable crap anyway?

Okay - first off - has it ever occured to you how many people on the Net are so frigging talented? Like, if you read some of the curriculum vitae, it's like they have a PhD in one subject and a Masters in another, know half a dozen different programming languages intimately, speak three languages fluently, have a license to drive four types of heavy vehicles, a pilot's license for two classes of aircraft, are really good at sport, work as a high level freelance consultant in ten different things each one much harder than you or I could do, have a well-adjusted family with whom they get on superbly, and are in a wonderful relationship with a wonderful lover. Not only that but it's obvious from their photo they're extremely handsome (if a male) or beautiful (if a female), and you can see they have a wonderful confident charsimatic personality to boot...

Yeah it just makes you wanna puke doesn't it?

Anyway I thought I'd write my own curriculum vitae. I would like to point out here that everything you read on this page is true. I'm not exagerating or making things up. Just so you know ;-)

Okay here we go...

Paid Regular Employment history: none
It is true that I got $40 for half a day's casual labour once. Another time I received $250 for an article on IRC romance that was published in a national newspaper some years ago. Once I did help a friend with some landscape gardening, but he never got paid so neither did I...
Recently, I have been hired on a casual basis as scientific consultant for Edugraphics. Very nice job, but it's only casual mind you...

Volunteer Work Employment History
this is no bullshit: I was given the sack from volunteer work! (I won't go into details, the less said about this sorry affair the better...)

Tertiary Qualifications:
B.A. major in philosophy
well I suppose I had to have something to show for 6 years of university life (almost everyone else got their degree in 3 years)

Driver's License
I did learn to drive once, many many many years ago, but I've absolutelty forgotten since. I'm pretty good on a bicycle though....

Programming Languages: none
I made a futile attempt to learn C many many years back. More recently I learned the basics of HTML, but only 'cos it's so easy even a child can do it. I still can't master (nor am I atm motiovated to learn) javascript, flash, or anything else fancy like that.

Languages spoken: English
For a while I started teaching myself Russian and got to the stage where I knew one or two words and could recognise most of the alphabet. I didn't keep it up and have forgotten most of it now. I keep meaning to stick up some foreign words on the inside of the dunny door so I can memeorise them, but I never do.

Overseas Travel:
I did spend 3 months travelling around India when I was much younger but because of my stutter plus my Australian accent no one there could understand me. Once I as in Bangalore (beautiful city btw) and I wanted to go to the Post Office so I hailed a taxi and I said (well, stuttered, whatever) "Post Office" and he said "what?" and I said "I want to go to the Post Office" and he said "where do you want to go?" and I said "to the porhhhst ahhhficceee!!!!" and this went on for quite a while, and finally he drove me miles and miles to some suburb I'd never been to (the name of which I suppose sounded something like "Porhhhstahhfiss") on the other side of Bangalore and dropped me off at the post office there (rather than at the local post office)

Sport
Actually my favourite sport is lying in bed in the morning. ;-)

Number of Projects Started
Too many to count

Number of those Projects actually completed
Too few to count

Love Life
Non-existent (too geeky? too intellectual? insufficient social skills? too eccentric?)

There now! No need to feel bad about your life! There's always someone as badly off as (if not worse than) you are! ;-)

Cheers :-)

*"Who wants 2 read a lot of respectable crap anyway?"
*"Yeah it just makes you wanna puke doesn't it?"
*"this is no bullshit: I was given the sack from volunteer work"
*"Paid Regular Employment history: none"
*"I keep meaning to stick up some foreign words on the inside of the dunny door so I can memeorise them, but I never do."
*"to the porhhhst ahhhficceee!!!!"
*"Number of Projects Started: Too many to count"
*"Number of those Projects actually completed: Too few to count"

"Puerile"? Umm...absolutely. lol

Martin Alan Kazlev: An Introduction

Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.

MAJOR UPDATE:
It has since come to light that Alan Kazlev is a grungy guy who loves to post and drool over images of a "pornographic kind" (according to Robert Priddy’s moral standards: Ref) and wrote two cyberpunk articles replete with filthy speech and sexually explicit material. See:
Alan Kazlev - The Grungy Integral Philosopher


Alan Kazlev is the webmaster to Kheper.net, a site dedicated to (as Alan put it):

A new scientific and esoteric evolutionary paradigm concerning the nature of existence and its infinite metamorphoses, and the transformation of the Earth and the planetary consciousness to a post-singularity state of Supramental (Infinite Truth-Consciousness) divinisation.

Alan Kazlev describes himself as:

I'm an autodidactic metaphysician, esotericist and integral philosopher who has so far made a few pathetic attempts at Integral yoga, an armchair palaeontologist, futurist, science fiction writer and fan, worldbuilder, geek, and all round eccentric.

"All round eccentric" is right. Martin Alan Kazlev (formerly known as "Martin Katz" & "Martin Levin") believed, as a child, that he was from another planet. Kazlev currently claims that he was "exiled" (from which planet?) to Earth to help in the "spiritual transformation of the Earth".

Kazlev believes he reincarnated "sometimes two to three lifetimes in a century" and claimed that he recalls past lives as a "Polish Kabbalist", an "English gentleman-scholar, philosopher theologian and naturalist" and a "German Soldier who was killed early in World War II".

Kazlev has also been described as a "student" ("devotee" if you ask me) of Sri Aurobindo and speaks favorably and highly of (and compares himself with) the controversial Guru-figure Bubba Da Free John (aka Adi Da). On Kazlev's Integral Transformat