**Return To Alan Kazlev Deception Main Page**

Updates: Aug. 29 '05 - Sept. 14 '05 - Jan. 5 '06 (emails)

Alan Kazlev is the webmaster to Khepher.net, a site dedicated to (as Alan puts 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".

I first became aware of Alan and his website, on June 27th 2005 when I noticed that Reinier Van Der Sandt (RVDS) created an attack page against Alan (calling him my "moronic friend") simply because he provided a link to my site. I emailed Alan about RVDS's attack page and about a comment that Alan made against me where he said, "note - while this site contains information of interest, it also includes material that is incorrect and - regarding Barry Pittard, a man who I have met and regarding whom I can vouch for his integrity - a slanderous lie". Click Here to view my article regarding Barry and my concerns regarding his anti-semitic and holocaust revisionist ties. As it turns out, Lisa DeWitt submitted my site-link to Alan. I did not submit my site-link to Alan, nor did I ask Lisa to.

In my email correspondence with Alan, it was apparent that he did not understand my position regarding Barry and Barry's articles appearing on the Adelaide Institute (A.I.) website. First of all, I never accused Barry of being an "anti-semite" or a "neo-nazi". Nor did I ever claim that Barry wrote anti-semitic material. However, I did say that Barry was an "anti-semitic sympathizer" and that he had "anti-semitic buddies". The reasoning for this is fully explained On This Page. In an e-mail, Alan said, "were you to show me something Barry has written, in which he himself makes claims regarding revisionism, holocaust denial, anti-semitism etc (as opposed to headings tacked on the top of his appropriated material!), then i will revise my opinion (and send you an apology)". I reiterated my position, to Alan, saying that I never claimed that Barry wrote anti-semitic material. In another e-mail, I said, "Barry refused to contact me regarding his posts (on the Anti-Semitic site) for over 8 months now! Barry had the A.I. remove his article on November 5th and I revived the cache on November 15th 2004". Alan responded to this comment by saying, "that doesnt make him a neonazi...Really, my only criticism of your site is the neo-nazi accusation against Barry". Needless to say, I never accused Barry of being a "neo-nazi". So I knew immediately that Alan did not clearly understand my position regarding Barry and Barry's articles that appeared on the A.I. website. Unfortunately, Alan's lack of basic research into my articles and claims soon became apparent, and I found myself having to explain more and more.

Alan and I emailed each other several times regarding Barry, and I made my case by providing Alan with links to Barry's actual articles on Anti-Sai Sites. Almost immediately, I noticed that Alan began justifying Barry's articles. I also sent Alan my article, "Making The Case Against Barry Pittard", where I clearly showed how Barry lied and exaggerated the facts, about Sathya Sai Baba, numerous times. In response to this article, Alan said, "well, the affidavit matter is complicated, i've raised this with Barry but he has asked me to keep our conversations confidential. don't have any reason to doubt Barry's sincerity, even though i can sympathise with where you are coming from. As for pages and pages on Barry, Barry Pittard says this, Barry Pittard said that, really this is just overkill; it is just too much detail. It's not like he's a paedophile or something, like Reinier is". Alan could not refute any of the points I made against Barry. Instead, Alan said it was "overkill" and it had "just too much detail"! Nevermind all the lies and exaggerations! Apparently, Barry can only back up his claims in private (under the agreement of "confidentiality"), despite making world-wide, public, criminal allegations against Sathya Sai Baba!

Shortly after this correspondence, Alan emailed me, making all sorts of unreasonable suggestions for my site. Alan suggested I remove every single reference, on my site, where I used the word "lie" (in relation to Anti-Sai Activists)! Alan also suggested I "tone down" my articles and present only facts, without personal opinons! Naturally, I realized that Alan obviously had not read Anti-Sai material (where they ceaselessly call others liars and express their opinions as blindly and as loosely as they choose). However, Alan made no such demands from Anti-Sai Sites or Activists. I thought this was rather peculiar behavior from Alan and wondered why he would demand a certain standard from me, yet exempt Anti-Sai Sites and Activists (including Barry) from the very same standard he felt I should follow. I responded to Alan by saying:

Alan, actually I have thought a lot about your suggestions. One thing you need to know is that "what you see is what you get". I refuse to maintain a certain demeanor on my site, and then exhibit another one privately. I remember some of your previous emails where you called Reinier some very choice names. I am sure you would never put those words on your site, but that is the way you felt. It was your honest feeling. On my site, I am expressing my honest feeling. There is no duplicity, incongruity or pretense. My private and public correspondence and opinions are one and the same. All Anti-SSB Sites refer to others using numerous slurs (even Barry has used them). So when you ask me to "tone down the language", I am quite shocked...considering Anti-Sai sites are full of language far worse than mine. Yet their sites are allowed on Wikipedia (without objection) and mine is being deleted.

I will not turn my site into some sort of cold, analytic, impersonal machine that does not have a human element to it. My site is the result of my search for the truth regarding the Sathya Sai Baba debate. I have been attacked numerous times and it has become personal. I did not intend for it to happen that way. But it did. I addressed it the best way I could. I think people can judge for themselves whether or not my site is honest, fair and factual. I actually have faith in people's intellect and judgment. The majority of responses I get, even from non-devotees, has been incredibly positive. Barry has known that I have a policy on my site where I will update and change my articles when given factual information. He has refused to answer any of my points of contention. The fact that his responses are "private", once again goes to show how the Anti-Sai movement relies on an undercurrent of "secret facts and proof" that are never made public.

Consequently, your view of what my site should be, is not what it is. I hope you can respect that. Barry has scrutinized Sathya Sai Baba to the core, yet does not think that he should be subjected to the same scrutiny. I disagree. We are talking criminal accusations. Felonies. And Barry (in my opinion) has purposely misrepresented the facts and even lied about them. I am sure if someone accused you of sexual abuse, you would demand names, dates, facts and figures. It is clear that Barry relied on second-hand statements or heresay are then published these unsubstantiated rumors on numerous forums and even sent them to governments, parliaments and investigatory agencies. Of course, Barry weaves terrific stories citing all sorts of "high ranking" and "credible" individuals. But they are nameless and anonymous! That isn't fair. I will make no excuses for Barry based on his past reputation of goodness and truth.

As I said earlier, what you see is what you get!

Alan also acknowledged, a couple of times, that he did not have the "time", "interest" or the "inclination" to research my claims on Anti-Sai sites! I also emailed Alan various links, to Barry Pittard's articles, on Anti-Sai Sites, and Alan responded by saying "i don't have the time or patience to go through every page". Consequently, Alan's views, about me and my opinions, are based on a lack of basic research into the the Sathya Sai Baba debate. I, at least, can back up my opinions and viewpoints with links, screen captures and other references. I do not engage in "blind attacks", like the ones that Anti-Sai Activists are notorious for starting and engaging in.

Alan's email on August 21st, 2005: hi Joe you write http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-VanDerSandt/reinier-van-der-sandt.html "This page was first created on April 21st, 2005 after silently and patiently enduring personal attacks from Reinier van der Sandt (RVDS) since December 10th 2004, " In view of the fact that you acknowledge http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-VanDerSandt/attack4-reinier.html Update: August 9th 2005: Reinier Van Der Sandt, after being publicly exposed for his acts of suppression and misrepresentation on Wikipedia, decided to delete his attack pages against me. His page now says, "Reinier van der Sandt, musician has ended his pages against Lisa G. De Witt and Joè Gèrald Morèno Please visit the site of Alan Kazlev for neutral info: http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Anti-SaiBaba_deceptions.html". why have you retained your pages against Reinier? By your own admission you endured some months of criticism before responding with your own attack pages. But now that Reinier has extended the olive branch by removing his pages against Lisa and yourself, it seems small-minded of you (and contradicting your original statement of why the pages were created) to continue the attack. Also in that paragraph you say something that is incorrect. you say that Reinier only took down his pages "after being publicly exposed for his acts of suppression and misrepresentation on Wikipedia". This is not true. He took them down in response to an email by Barry. I have, Joe, since you first emailed me, had a lot of respect for you, and your standing by your principles, but now i am having second thoughts; if the above material is unreliable, and certain other material irrelevant* how do i know what else is? I can of course only write about what i know, and i have mentioned here two things i do know. Other material on your site may well be true (e.g. the Reinier Yahoo postings were since i followed up your links and even checked the original Yahoo archived post and was impressed to see it matched exactly the mirror on your site), but i don't have time or inclination to check everything. So you can understand how (especially regarding the contentiousness of this material) just a few mistakes can harm the authority of your site! * (e.g. Andries starting wiki pages does not mean those wiki pages are anti- (or pro) Sai Baba, as i explained in a pervious email, since i read the contents (not just the authorship) of the pages myself. Moreover, Andries contacted me for advice regarding another guru, because he was worried he wasn't presenting an objective enough position. This shows intellectual honesty, something i greatly respect) Alan My response (in red) an Alan's response (in blue): Sent August 22nd 2005 (posting these emails separately would mean duplicating my response again in Alan's response. So if you want to read my response then Alan's, read the red text first then the blue): Alan, Reinier did not extend any olive branch to me. figure of speech How was I supposed to know that Barry told Reinier to remove the pages? no, Barry suggested that Reinier's page attacking me was unfair. He never said anything about Reinier's pages attacking you and Lisa The fact that he removed the pages a couple of days after I exposed him, fully supported my statements. believe what you want then Reinier has had his views and his attacks published on Yahoo Groups, and about 10 other Anti-Sai sites, for years, without being challenged. Surely, I think it is only fair that his exposure be known for an equal amount of time. Consequently, I will not delete my pages exposing his dishonesty and continued efforts at spreading misrepresentations against Sathya Sai Baba. ok, that's your responsibility and your choice (as, obviously, it should be) If Reinier at some future point does restore his pages against you and Lisa, i will then think less of him. At the moment, and until then, i think more highly of him Of course, it would very conveinent for Reinier if I deleted my pages about him. It isn't going to happen. Reinier, as an adult, should accept full responsiblity for his actions and attacks. I have accepted full responsiblity for my responses and I would have actually preferred if Reinier's attack pages stayed up (so people could verirfy his desperation and negativity first-hand). To me it seems like you can't move on, you are caught in this karmic pattern of hatred jesus christ man, you don't think there are people who have wronged me who i have therefore hated? But (after months or years) i have risen above that and forgiven them. Not in that pious syrupy turn the other cheek sort of way. But just for my own spiritual development, that's all, no other reason than that. I just let go of the hatred, because that was the only path to spiritual growth. It's not that you should do that cos Jesus or Sai Baba or whoever says blah blah. Or love your enemies etc etc I'm not into that religious trip. This is nothing to do with Reinier at all, what Reinier does is his business (and his karma). But as long as you hate, that karmic pattern will be there, and will come back to bite you. Ok don't believe me, you can be a physicalist or materialist or reductionist, i don't care. I look at things differently. I say my piece, but you of course should make up your own mind, and i am absolutely against forcing someone to believe or act. I have just shared, as a friend (well, an associate, a friendly associate, whatever) my feelings on this. Reinier has shown that he will resort to making anonymous, fake claims against Pro-Sai activists and SSB. Who is to say that it won't stop? That you think that Reinier is going to stop, all of a sudden, is amusing and naive. If you think everything that Reinier has done against Lisa, Sathya Sai Baba, Pro-SSB Activists, you and me, is now no longer relevant, and the general public does not deserve to know of these things, I can only wonder why you have taken this position? Read my above paragraph to see My pages, about Reinier, will stand in testament to his character and his attacks that he willingly and knowingly started against me first. I am shocked that you suggest I delete them. To do so would be to prevent the general public from knowing about Reinier's character. My pages can be used against me as anyone chooses. I accept full responsiblity for my words and opinions. Reinier must similary accept responsiblity for his pages. I never asked him to delete the pages. keep them up then. Like i care (well, i do care enough to write this email, cos i do see you as a genuine and decent guy; if i didnt i wouldn't waste my time). All that it shows is that you have more of a vendetta in you. It makes you look bad. It doesn't make Reinier look bad. Even if you don't care about karma, or attachment to hatred (one of the kleshas that according to Buddhism perpetuates the wheel of rebirth) surely you don't want Reinier to be presented as or seem like a more noble person than you? I am not contradicting the reason why my Reinier pages were created. They were created, not out of animosity, but out of necessity. You fully know what that necessity was. Just because I am leaving those pages up does not contradict the reason they were created in the first place. Reinier was the cause of their creation. Of course, I am sure that Barry and Reinier would like for all of that information to be deleted (and they are using you for that end). It won't work. I updated all my pages saying that he deleted the pages. If he wants me to publish a formal apology, I will do so. But the pages are not coming down. *shrug* your choice (as it should be) Using an example (I thought you made), it amusing to think that a Creationist would start an Evolutionist Wikipedia article "just because". The fact that Andries controls the article and determines the content to this article, is proof enough that the article must meet his expectations and not those who should be free to express their views. I am fully aware of Andries attacks on other Gurus (even ones he never followed). He has taken a keen Anti-Guru position and this fact is indisputable. Now if you think that Andries invovlement with the Sathya Sai Baba article is innocent and without any sort of motivation, you are sadly being taken for a ride. crap. You don't understand Wikipedia, any more than Lisa does You see a devil behind every bush, i don't I really hate to point this out, Alan, but it clear that you have not the time (admittedly) to investigate this matter thoroughly. true. and i agree. Neither the time nor the inclination Consequently, until you fully inform youself regarding this matter, I cannot accept your view as accurate and impartial. It is clear that you side with Barry. ha! Paranoia rules supreme!!! I side with both you and Barry (in that i see truth in what each of you say), and with neither (in that i see errors in what each of you say) But believe what you want And that is okay. However, I feel that your sympathy with Barry has blinded you to the facts. You will overlook his many exaggerations and lies because of your favorable opinions about him. I am not here to establish alliances and try to get the upper hand. as i have sympathy for you and your position and what you are saying. You don't think i havent disagreed with Barry. That Barry writes something and i just say uhuh, yes, sure? Consequently, you are free to form your own opinions and state them on your site. If you would like for our discussion to be public domain, that is your choice. I think it is highly suspicious that you call Reinier all sort of expletives, then turn around and ask me to excuse him and delete my pages about him. Outrageous! Please yourself Joe. It doesnt bother me. Honestly. I'm not in an alliance with Barry any more than i am with you and Lisa. But your paranoia discredits you, just as Lisa's paranoia discredits her (and was the reason i unsubscribed from her list). Until you can rise beyond Paranoia and hatred, you will never see things honestly or truthly. I apologise, with sincerity, for any distress or upset i may have caused you; that was not my intention, nor was it ever. I certainly didnt expect such a tirade, but to be sure i hardly know you, except through our communication, and i do tend to think the best of everyone, until proven otherwise (so perhaps you are right in your accusation of my opinion of Barry) Ok, that's all, i should never have written that email. But i wanted to give you the honour and respect (a respect that Reinier never showed me when he put up his page attacking me) before modifying my webpage accordingly. Don't worry, i'll never ever slander you and i will never criticise you in a way i feel to be unfair. I was and ma still 100% neutral (much as you are unable to see the fact) But it is sort of funny how things have turned out. It has taught me a lot too, getting involved in this whole pro- anti- SSB war has taught me a great deal My response: Sent August 22nd 2005: Alan, as I said before, you need to know all the facts before you start making your conclusions. Three times Reinier has made attack indices against me and three times (so far) he has deleted them. He has "restored" his attacks against me three times. You are obviously unaware of this fact. What "paranoia"? Barry has not given any answers to any of the claims he has made against SSB. I question him and you repeatedly make excuses for him saying you believe his statements that he made in private to you. Then you call me "paranoid". Andries has shown (and it is recorded) that he is maintaining fanatic control over the SSB wikipedia article. I am pointing this out and you call me "paranoid" again. I am fully aware what wikipedia is supposed to be. I am also aware that I am not the only person having problems on wikipedia. There are very deep and systemic problems with wikipedia. The "revert" wars are proof of that. Now if you want to deny this fact, go right ahead. Until you decide to fully educate yourself into all these matters, which are very complex, your judgments are incorrect and your assessments are not accurate. And if you want to talk about "karmic patterns of hatred" you should really read Anti-Sai Sites. Far worse than anything I have ever said. But then again, if you would have actually read Anti-Sai Sites in depth, you would have known this. And "hatred" is not my motivation. The truth is my motivation. That Anti-Sai activists have ended up looking so bad is their fault and is a result of their hatred. Not mine. If they did not react with such hatred, none of these pages would have been created in the first place. Period. So judge as you will. I only ask that you read both sides thoroughly before jumping to conclusions a priori. Sincerely, Joe

Following Reinier's removing of the page against me, and my modifying this page accordingly, Reinier removed all his pages attacking Joe and Lisa. At the time of writing, Joe has yet to take down his pages attacking Reinier. In fact he refuses to do so. Joe claims that Reinier has taken down his attack pages three times previously, then posted them again. Well, we'll see what happens this time. As it is (from what i have seen), I find that Reinier has shown far greater maturity in this matter.

My Response: Click Here to view my pages about Reinier Van Der Sandt to see examples of his "maturity". This is the same man who used numerous, fake names for many years (including my name) and had imaginary conversations with himself, praising himself and his integrity under the guise of his other fake identities! I have also documented Reinier's online behavior and there is nothing that points to Reinier's "maturity". It is indeed amusing (and intriguing) that Alan had a change of heart for Reinier. In our e-mail correspondence, Alan called Reinier a "pedophile", some choice names (that I will not repeat) and made negative references about him in other ways. Now, all of a sudden, Reinier is showing "greater maturity"! Alan had no clue that Reinier attacked me two previous times and deleted those attack pages. Even after informing Alan about Reinier's prior attacks, Alan still made excuses for Reinier. It certainly seems that Alan is suggesting Reinier should not be held accountable or resposible for his attacks, lies, slander and calumny. Reinier never apologized to me. Consequently, it appears that Barry pressured Reinier to delete his pages. Otherwise, Reinier had no reason to delete them (unless he realized he was becoming a liability to the integrity of the Anti-Sai movement).

Furthermore, Anti-Sai Activists have posted numerous responses to Sai Devotees, written years ago, that are still published on their Anti-Sai Sites. These Sai Devotees did not create any web pages to defend themselves and Anti-Sai Activists think they are perfectly entitled to display these emails to show the character and reasoning of the Sai Devotees who corresponded with them. Of course, Alan has made no demands from Anti-Sai Sites to delete those articles. That's probably because Alan does not even know they exist because he has not read their sites in depth (admittedly). And this is not even taking into consideration the numerous attacks, made against Sathya Sai Baba, under the guise of complete anonymity, that were cut and pasted from various forums and discussion boards. Consequently, Alan's conclusions, drawn from a few hours of research, pales in comparison to the thousands of hours of research that I have spent reading and commenting on each and every single article from Anti-Sai Sites.

Why doesn't Alan speak out about Barry Pittard's 9 pages of rebuttals against a Sai Devotee named "Seema"? Seema never created any sort of attack pages on the internet. Apparently, it is okay for Barry to leave up his rebuttal pages, years after they were made, but I am less "mature" for not removing mine:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/barryseema.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema2.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema3.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema4.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema5.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema6.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema7.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema8.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/letters/responsebarryseema9.html

Does Alan know how Glen Meloy attacked Dr. Wayne Dyer simply because he advocated for Sathya Sai Baba's books? Dr. Dyer never said anything against Anti-Sai Activists. Dr. Dyer never attacked anyone. However, Glen Meloy (Barry's good friend) attacked Dr. Dyer simply because he held a favorable opinion of Sathya Sai Baba. That's it. Look for yourself:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/worldmessage.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/glenkcet.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/glencaldwell.html

Look at the attacks made against SaiOnline. SaiOnline never created any attack pages of their own. They simply voiced their opinions and Anti-Sai Activists posted their rebuttals on their Anti-Sai Sites. Pittard, Samsioe, Hartgering, Newton and Priddy still have their rebuttals published on the internet:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/faceless.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/asasamsioe.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/barrysaionline.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/asasamsioe2.html
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/barry.htm

Or, how about Dennis Hanisch? Dennis Hanisch blames SSB for: 1) The rampant use of drugs; 2) Child pornography throughout the world; 3) Tax evasion by Enron; 4) Crippling power outages, sometimes accompanied by water shortages caused by a combination of widespread corruption in government ran utilities and the common practice of illegally tapping power from overhead lines; 5) Extreme weather; 6) Natural disasters; 7) Floodings; 8)Economic conditions in all countries; 9) Extremists; 10) All rapes of women, children and sexual torture in India; and 11) Children playing video games that have violence and sexual exploitation of women on them! Barry, amusingly enough, agreed with Dennis and said that this type of information was "excellent" and said "Lionel at Saiguru and Renier or Andries at Exbaba would consider featuring it somewhere on their sites" (which they did). Guess Alan overlooked this as well?
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/letters/reign.html

Then there is Robert Priddy's email correspondence with Mark Sullivan. Sullivan never created any kind of attack pages against Priddy. However, Priddy published this email correspondence and uses it to show the mentality of some Pro-Sai Activists. Similarly, I use my articles to show the mentality of Anti-Sai Activists. Alan has never voiced his displeasure with Priddy. Just me.
http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/MSull.htm

These examples are just a few of literally hundreds of similar articles. Despite this self-evident fact, Alan seems to think that I am the only one attacking! You can see more of these vile attacks by visiting the following pages: Sanjay Dadlani - Tony O'Clery - Robert Priddy. And for a quicker reference into Barry Pittard's slurs, exaggerations and untruths, Click Here.

It is rather ironic that I began with very strong sympathy and respect for Joe, but, while I do still consider that he is being honourable and following his own conscience and doing the right thing inasmuch as he understands things, this is not the way I would do things, or even an approach to others I support (although who knows maybe I am completrely wrong).

My Response: Yes, "ironic" indeed. I had the same respect for Alan because I thought he was impartial and was interested in the details (Alan even praised the thoroughness of my articles about Reinier). Now, however, I have serious doubts regarding Alan's neutrality and research. Especially when Alan draws conclusions, that he deems factual, without having read the material in question (admittedly). This dramatic change came about abruptly, after Alan corresponded with Barry (and Reinier deleted his pages against Alan, Lisa and me).

A number of things have brought me, very reluctantly, to this position.

The first is Joe's unwillingness to let go of his attack on Reinier (after all, he can always put the pages up later). It is a sign of sdpiritual gfreatness to let go of hatred. I am not saying that all the ex-baba people are spotless mind you; I do not doubt the authenticity of the hate mail that Joe recieved and that he gives examples of on his own site. All that these example shows is that neither side as a whole can claim the moral high ground, and that there are admirable and less than admirable individuals on both sides (The claim that Reinier took down these pages because he was "exposed" on Wikipedia is also false, because I know from personal correspondence (with Barry and also recieved from Reinier) that he took them down after Barry suggested he take down the page attacking me, which he did. I in turn modified this page, and he in turn stopped attacking Joe and Lisa.)

My Response: Anti-Sai Activists have not let go of their attacks against Sathya Sai Baba and Pro-Sai Activists (as discussed earlier). Where does Alan ask them (including Barry) to "let go of their attacks" against Sathya Sai Baba and Pro-Sai Activists? As I stated once before, it is not my hatred that was responsible for the creation of the pages against Reinier. It was Reinier's hatred that was responsible for the pages created about him. If Reinier never acted so hatefully, the pages about him would never have been created in the first place. Period. The general public is perfectly entitled to know the character and demeanor of one of the most aggressive Anti-Sai Activists on the internet. Obviously, Alan thinks this is unfair! I also updated my comments about why Reinier's pages were removed. I added the following comments on August 22nd 2005 (the same day Alan brought this to my attention): "Alan Kazlev emailed me and told me that the reason behind Reinier's removal of his attack pages against me was not due to my public exposure of Reinier on Wikipedia, but was due to a private email correspondence between Barry Pittard and Reinier. That Reinier removed his attack pages the very next day (after my public exposure of his tactics on Wikipedia) is to be considered purely concidental."

I did not know that Barry communicated with Reinier (nobody told me). Nevertheless, Alan immediately questioned my integrity (guess I was supposed to "divine" the information) and said, "I have, Joe, since you first emailed me, had a lot of respect for you, and your standing by your principles, but now i am having second thoughts; if the above material is unreliable, and certain other material irrelevant* how do i know what else is?" Instead of telling me why Reinier's pages were removed, and allowing me to update my article, Alan immediately jumped to the worst case conspiratorial view and questioned my integrity. This supports my contention that Alan is biased and is taking sides. One will also notice that Alan provides a disproportionate number of links to Anti-Sai articles (even the title to a link that has not been published on the internet yet: "Sai Baba - A Grace Disgraced. What shall we do?").

The second is his and Lisa's wikipedia paranoia (including posting a complaint on Wikipedia, but not actually doing something regarding editing the page in question, because they believe that Wikipedia (or at least the Sai Baba pages) are under the control of an ex-baba and anti-cult activist, Andries. I have however found Andries to be very willing to present a neutral point of view, and where criticised he acknowledges and tries to improve the content. This shows an admirable openness). In fact Wikipedia is the creation of many people, and I have seen, for example, a very strong physicalist bias among some wikipedians, but that doesnt mean I moan and complain and cry foul and write pages and pages on egroups and my own website. What it does mean is that I roll up my sleeves and argue the case for the opposite point of view, in an objective and unbiased manner, so that wikipedia can realise it's full potential as an encyclopeadia that honours all perspoectives, not just one. Each time I have done this, I have found my contribution accepted.

My Response: Click Here to view my article about the Wikipedia bias against Sathya Sai Baba. I attempted to express my point of view and it was suppressed by Andries Krugers Dagneaux, Willmcw and Reinier Van Der Sandt. I "rolled up my sleeves and argued the case for the opposite point of view" and got nowhere. I also edited the article and it was reverted. Regarding Lisa, I cannot speak for her. I can only speak for myself.

The third is his response to Barry Pittard's position reagrding anti-semite claims. Joe posted his reply here, as if Barry was writing only for him only abnd it is Joe's job to disprove it. When it fact Barry was simply stating how this misunderstanding came about for the public record. The astute reader will notice that Joe fails to address the heart and soul of Barry's reply, preferring to look for little points of detail to attack and criticise. Regarding his debunking of the existence of Barry's "Collective Spirit" radio programme, I have made your own careful enquiries and satisfied myself as to the authenticity of the facts.

My Response: I never tried to "debunk" the existence of Barry's "Collective Spirit" radio programme. I simply said I could not find any information about the programme, and the radio stations I contacted had never heard of it. I simply made a statement of fact. Furthermore, if Alan made his own "careful enquiries" about the "Collective Spirit" radio programme, why didn't he forward that information to me? Notice how all these things, pertaining to Barry, are shrouded in secrecy? It is impossible to disprove Barry's questionable ties to holocaust revisionists and anti-semites when Barry refuses to provide names to back up his claims (how does the "confidentiality" excuse apply here?). However, it is not impossible to point out Barry's questionable associations with Chamish and the Nexus Magazine. Click Here to view my article about Barry Pittard and his questionable ties to holocaust revisionists and anti-semites.

All this is not in any way to say that everything (or even most things) that Joe says on his site is incorrect. I am sure that a lot of it is correct, and I think that Joe would make an excellent investigfative journalist were he not so obsessive about things. I also fully acknowledge the sacrifices he has made in his life to maintain his site, the monumental detail, the continual updating, and so on, all of which is very admirable. I know how much a large on-line project can chew up one's time, and indeed I am (as of the time of writing) trying to spend less time on-line, and more time just enjoying every day.

My Response: Once again, it is abundantly clear that Alan has not read the material on Anti-Sai sites. If he did, he would realize that my comments pale in comparison to the "obsessive" material posted on Anti-Sai Sites. Anti-Sai Activists, including Barry Pittard, have admitted to "e-bombing" various officials, agencies, departments and high ranking officials with their propaganda. Not only that, Barry has fully acknowledged that he sent thousands of emails to world-wide parliaments and government officials. Barry even wrote a threatening letter to Cooper Union at 2:36 a.m. (how's that for "obsessive"?). It is also important to point out that both Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy have written articles significantly larger than anything I have ever written. Again, those who have investigated the claims, made by Anti-Sai Activists, have rightly concluded that Anti-Sai Activists are negatively obsessed with Sathya Sai Baba. Why else do they scour the internet for something negative to write about or look for discourses, written many years ago, to critique?

The disagreement between Barry and Joe (which is just a microcosm of the larger disagreement between pro- and ex- Baba devotees) is not helped by the fact that Joe and Barry have extremely different personalities. Barry respects confidentality and privacy, and has asked me to do the same regarding our correspondnce, which I have agreed to. Joe wants to make every statement and detail and minor blooper (and god knows, i've made enough bloopers in my time too) public forever.

My Response: If Barry respects confidentiality and privacy so much, why has he taken his crusade public? One cannot attack someone based on confidential and private sources (anonymous, for all practical purposes). However, this is exactly what Barry has done and with which Alan agrees. I am simply holding Anti-Sai Activists accountable for their outrageous claims and unsubstantiated accusations. If they want people to take them seriously, they must back up their claims with factual data. Saying something is true, but only divulging this "truth" under the guise of privacy and confidentiality (yet then taking it pubic), is hypocritical. Of course, this verifies what I have been saying all along, i.e., that Barry Pittard's "evidence" against SSB is a big secret (despite Barry castigating SSB and the Sai Org for the same "secretive" behavior he deems reprehensible and indicative of subterfuge).

Anti-Sai Activists have highlighted "every statement and detail and minor blooper" of Sathya Sai Baba's and Pro-Sai Activist's and have condemned these people as liars and being deceitful, simply for their misstatements (for example, Indulal Shah). I am all for implementing the same standards, against Anti-Sai Activists, that they have implemented against Pro-Sai Activists. Fair is fair. Alan would have known about this if he had only read Anti-Sai Sites in depth. Too bad Alan doesn't have the "time", "patience" or "inclination" to do so.

My own position is somewhat midway between these two. Like Joe I am interested in making facts public, but if someone asks me to respect confidentiality, I will respect their feelings and abide by those conditions. Like Barry, I look at the heart and soul of things, rather than murdering to dissect.

My Response: It is apparent that Alan has not read Anti-Sai Sites. Anti-Sai Activists "murder to dissect" Sai-related issues. I'd suggest Alan read Brian Steel's site (let's see if he can stay awake) and read the 400+ Anti-Sai articles written by Robert Priddy alone. Once again, Alan's conclusions are drawn from what he perceives to be errors on my part. He is totally unaware of the main source from which all my responses have come. Anti-Sai articles number well over a thousand and this proves who is truly obsessed with Sathya Sai Baba and who is "murdering to dissect" Sai-related issues. I am sure it is far easier for Alan to formulate his ideas by letting Barry feed him information, rather than reading the thousands of pages on the internet himself, and arriving at a sober, independent and well-informed viewpoint. Since it is obvious that Alan is not basing his opinions on his research into Anti-Sai material, I can only wonder what he is basing his opinions on?

And as for Sai Baba himself, I think this is a very complex matter, and that a lot of what both sides assert has truth, but conversely that neither one side nor the other is 100% correct.

My Response: My site argues very little for Sathya Sai Baba himself. The purpose of this site is to expose the lies, deceit and dishonesty of Anti-Sai Activists. I do not claim to be "correct" or know the "truth" about Sathya Sai Baba. I am simply providing additional information about Anti-Sai Activists that has been purposely suppressed from the general public. That is the primary aim of this site. What my findings mean and how my findings are utilized (by Sai-Devotees, Ex-Devotees or Non-Devotees) is secondary to this site's original purpose.

Update: August 29th 2005:  

Alan's email response to this article:

Please yourself Joe

I did skim through the page and from glancing through it does seem that you have reported our correspondence accurately. I do respect you for that. I am not in any way denying your dedication to the facts (and if i say anywhere that i am, please let me know so i can correct that forthwith), just the usefulness of your obsessive analysis, by which imho one cannot see the wood for the trees. If I had to read everything you have written, i would also (to be fair) have to read everything Barry has written, and everything every other ex-devotee has written. It would take years, and I expect at the end of it i would still be where i am now (although you may disagree and argue the point otherwise) Ultimately it is upto every individual to decide for themselves. I'll put a link from my page to your page on me, so people reading my page can get your side of the story.

Upto you if you want to publish this reply or not at the end of your page

Update: September 14th 2005:  

Alan Kazlev provided a reciprocal link to this page on September 12th 2005. Alan changed some of his comments, and although most of the changes he made are trivial, and do not refute my points of contention, I will address two points that Alan made reference to.

Alan said, "But at the same time his site presents examples of adolescent childishness, such as his referring to Robert Priddy as 'Mr Priddles'. This is certainly not the sort of attitude one would expect from a supposedly serious website." First of all, if Alan had actually cared to contact Robert Priddy, and research this information for himself, he would have found out that "Priddles" is a known name used by Robert Priddy. Priddy made mention that he was/is known as "Robert", "Rob", "Bob" (a name used by Thorbjörn Meyer), "Robin" and "Priddles". Despite Alan's issues with me using a known name of Priddy's, Alan doesn't seem to care, in the least, that Barry Pittard constantly refers to Sathya Sai Baba as a "bugger" (which is vulgar slang for a "sodomite"). This shows how Alan cares less for vulgar and derisive names, used by Anti-Sai Activists, but cares more when I refer to Priddy by using one of his known names.

Secondly, it is abundantly clear that Alan did another one of his "just-skimmed" researches into the alleged Hislop Letters. Alan said, "While the website claims to be scrupulously neutral, bias is evident in the way that some important documents (e.g. an email which shows that Hislop, a very senior western devotee, was aware of reports of sexual abuse in the early 1980s, but chose to ignore them to avoid a crisis of faith, are classified as "fluff"." Click Here to view my article about these alleged letters (which has been on my site since March 29th 2005). Just to be absolutely clear, the email in question came from Alexandra Nagel, not Hislop. Nagel's email was written in 2001, not in the 1980's. The alleged Hislop Letters were unknown for a period of 20 years and surfaced 6 years after Hislop died. These alleged Hislop letters were never "emails" to begin with.

I am not aware of classifying my responses, relating to the alleged Hislop Letters, as "fluff". Most of the articles that pertain directly to these alleged letters are marked with a red sphere, and a link to my article is provided (Ref. 01 - Ref. 02). Since my site has undergone considerable evolution (with comments to over a thousand articles), there may be a "fluff" icon attributed to an article that I commented on prior to writing my Hislop article. It is apparent that Alan did not read my article about these alleged letters, but saw a comment I made in my Letters Section I page. Since Alan got this information from my Letters Section I page, he overlooked the side menu where my Hislop link is provided. I suggest Alan stop "just-skimming" through my comments and actually search my site or contact me to see if I have already addressed any concerns he may have. If he sends me the link, to any pages he wants addressed, I will update it with the necessary information.

Alan also likes to make reference about seeing things "from the heart" and how "it is a sign of spiritual greatness to let go of hatred", but when Reinier was attacking Alan, he did not see things "from the heart" and only let go of his hatred after Reinier removed his attack pages against him. In our email correspondence, Alan used some vile expletives to refer to Reinier (he even used the same vile language in email correspondence with Lisa). Consequently, I find it amusing how Alan tries to preach about love publicly, but reacted with anything but love in his private email correspondences. Alan makes no demands from Anti-Sai Activists to let go of their hatred. Apparently, this is a one way street that excludes everyone but me.

Update: January 05 2006: Click Here to read my email correspondence with Alan Kazlev that discusses the issue of him talking dirt behind my back, despite publicly professing "Love" and "Letting go of hatred". Since Alan's view of Sanjay is favorable, I don't understand why Sanjay would misrepresent Alan's words by saying Alan called me a "slimy character" in a private email. As it turns out, Alan was emailing Sanjay and couldn't remember using that exact term.

**Return To Alan Kazlev Deception Main Page**