Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Oct 02, 2001 To: Oct 09, 2001 Page: 5 of: 5


From the Mishler Interview -:- Loss of self -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:23:35 (EDT)
__ Ppeg -:- Evidence please -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:47:24 (EDT)
__ __ Suedoula -:- Re: Evidence please -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:32:15 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Evidence, Peg -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:53:21 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- well -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:45:21 (EDT)
__ __ Francesca :C) -:- Mishler is dead -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:45:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ salam -:- hey Fran -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:49:50 (EDT)
__ __ George -:- There is no evidence -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:28:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ XXX -:- So true George! -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:46:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Susannah -:- Re: So true George! -:- Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 22:44:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Maharaji DID ask for money... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:09:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ XXX -:- Chuck Please read this quote from EV! -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:32:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Being cynical and honesty... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 14:59:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Re: Being cynical and honesty... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 17:34:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- You tell him, Barbara -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 19:44:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ XXX -:- About the Krishna costume! -:- Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 12:54:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Maharaji and Santa have some things in common... -:- Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 04:55:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Thelma the Church Ladyb) -:- Krishna costume! I agree, XXX -:- Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 13:16:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ XXX -:- HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GOD, EVER!!!!!!! -:- Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 14:11:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susannah -:- Re: HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GOD, EVER!!!!!!! -:- Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 22:51:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- shouting can't change the facts -:- Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 18:01:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ XXX -:- Re: shouting can't change the facts -:- Tues, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:59:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Thelma the Church Ladyb) -:- Don't go, Triple X! -:- Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 14:37:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ XXX -:- Re: Don't go, Triple X! -:- Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 14:55:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ PEG -:- Why are you so stroppy ChuckS? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:09:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Oopsy... -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:14:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- hey, Peg, Chuck was answering XX -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:36:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :o -:- Chuck dear Peg's gd people! -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:32:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Peg -:- Thanks! Me Chuck Pat Fran all good!! [nt] -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:06:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- ****FUNNY PREMIE POST TIME**** -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:42:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- That has to be a parody -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:44:47 (EDT)

Is Maharaji pleased -:- like Winston Churchill was... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:01:17 (EDT)
__ Gail -:- Speaking of Sir Winston -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:50:05 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Speaking of Sir Winston -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:13:53 (EDT)
__ Jerry -:- Gary Condit -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:07:28 (EDT)
__ nausea -:- OJ plays golf... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:46:37 (EDT)

Dermot -:- Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:01:44 (EDT)
__ salam -:- tantrum 201. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:54:07 (EDT)
__ Cynthia -:- Re: Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:44:24 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- And yet... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:15:00 (EDT)
__ Nigel -:- Come back soon (nt) [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:48:50 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Re: Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:28:45 (EDT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Understanding -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:13:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: Understanding -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:27:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Myth of objectivity -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:41:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, but would YOU say it? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:29:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Verstehen -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:19:32 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:46:31 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: Bowing out without a tantrum -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:21:00 (EDT)

Pat:C) reposting Scott's -:- Cultic magical thinking of terrorists -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:57:06 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Scott T thinking -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:58:47 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Your leak is showing. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:49:24 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Again, same problem, John -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:32:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ test -:- Re: Again, same problem, John -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:16:22 (EDT)

Happy Ex -:- Maharaji takes a second wife! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:07:01 (EDT)
__ ()) -:- ROFL -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:48:54 (EDT)
__ __ Blonde Gopi #3 -:- That bastard said would be me -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:10:20 (EDT)

tommy tucker -:- An Englander Speaks! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:01:49 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- What a dumb post! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 20:17:02 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- You had me 'til the last sentence. -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:10 (EDT)
__ JHB -:- This is a public service for Americans -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:16:51 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Hm, did I say that? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Jim, Oh Jim -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:26:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's not the question -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:35:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- uhhh, well, actually -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:39:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: uhhh, well, actually -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:12:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Re: uhhh, well, actually -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:42:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Still, same confusion. -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:57:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- no -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:37:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Same goes for IRA, Jim -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:16:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Yes, but ... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:03:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Sunday bloody Sunday -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:43:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- So this is about Religion? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:48:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: So this is about Religion? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:02:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Samuel Butler -:- from Hudibras -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:23:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oliver Protector -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:39:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- And Marxism is a secular religion. [nt] -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:53:17 (EDT)

hamzen -:- chillin out in tough times -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:53:03 (EDT)
__ Stonor -:- Hamzen ... -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:58:17 (EDT)

hamzen -:- New forums required? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:44:50 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: New forums required? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:52:34 (EDT)
__ __ hamzen -:- You can post there without registering -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:05:36 (EDT)

suchabanana -:- eiydhiwndy - implications -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:44:14 (EDT)
__ Francesca :) -:- Everyone knows it's wndy! -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:57:15 (EDT)
__ __ suchabanana -:- rtn wtmycch bssgdmkj jsca wyalfiwy -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:26:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Francesca and Such -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:45:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Suedoula -:- When You are Happy. . . -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 22:41:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.' -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 16:08:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- isn't it too silly, Sue? -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:19:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Suedoula -:- Re: isn't it too silly, Sue? -:- Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 20:37:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Hi, Sue -:- Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 04:17:59 (EDT)
__ Disappointed -:- Fatman was there in my eiydhiwndy nt -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:57:23 (EDT)
__ __ Disappointed (corrected() -:- Re: Fatman wasn't there in my eiydhiwndy nt -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:58:34 (EDT)

Jim -:- When do we drop the politics??? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:53:51 (EDT)
__ Vera -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:04:48 (EDT)
__ Peter C -:- Hilarious -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:19:35 (EDT)
__ __ judge -:- YOU are -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:52:09 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Premie, by chance? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:37:28 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Very poor taste. -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:23:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- This ghost ain't Casper -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:52:10 (EDT)
__ Jerry -:- It'll play itself out -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:29:59 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- Soon - before Iose all my friends here -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:02:40 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Before you go. -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:56:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- I'll keep in touch via email -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:17:37 (EDT)
__ __ Disculta -:- Tarred and feathered -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:10:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- male nipples -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:19:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- To suck on, Silly Girl... -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:05:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Disculta -:- Ooohhh! -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:35:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Amen, ditto and halleluiah -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:21:27 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:29:28 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- I did that wrong - try again here -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:30:35 (EDT)
__ cq -:- Drop politics? Why? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:11:51 (EDT)
__ Timmi -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:56:09 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:53:51 (EDT)
__ __ berni -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:08:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:22:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ berni -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:58:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:01:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ berni -:- thanks, but no thanks -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:21:09 (EDT)
__ Peg -:- Does anyone know of any other message board -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:52:29 (EDT)
__ __ Barbara -:- The Democratic Underground -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:11:31 (EDT)
__ Moley -:- Soon maybe Jim, but before we do - Blair's speech -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:41:02 (EDT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Globalization -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:51:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- What's that spell? -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:40:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Proper English -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:58:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave }( -:- Globalisation, you misunderstand -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 21:54:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Globalisation, you misunderstand -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:03:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Globalisation, you misunderstand -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:20:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Look here Jerry -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:24:09 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- The difference between USA and UK -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:50:16 (EDT)
__ such -:- Re: When do we drop terrorism cult discussions? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:20:37 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: When do we drop terrorism cult discussions? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:51:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ such -:- we'll see how it plays out [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 21:33:41 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:16:59 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- One last graceless dig huh, Scott ?? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:42:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- We're experts in grace now are we? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:31:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Okay Prig, drop it [nt] -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:35:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I beg your pardon? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:26:06 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- He said 'Prig' -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:04:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Thanks John -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:19:07 (EDT)
__ magiclara -:- Re: When do we drop the politics? -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:09:24 (EDT)
__ __ Cynthia -:- I'M FOR MAHARAJI -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:19:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- the trouble is- smug premies . -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:49:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Re: the trouble is- smug premies . -:- Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:24:06 (EDT)

Francesca -:- From al Quada moles -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:34:43 (EDT)
__ The Lord formerly known as gerry -:- Oh Woe unto your post, Francesca... -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:10:40 (EDT)


Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:23:35 (EDT)
From: From the Mishler Interview
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Loss of self
Message:
I found this an interesting segment in the interview with Bob Mishler:

'Well, the kind of peace he's offering is not real peace. It's called annihilation of your individuality. If you can call that peace... well, I guess a frontal lobotomy would do the same thing. It would be a lot quicker, and would probably have very sure results.

He wants people to continue working because it's by them coming to the festivals, paying their admissions and giving their donations when they're kissing his feet that he makes his money. He doesn't have any other income. He lives a very, very extravagant lifestyle.'
__________________________________

Maharaji still works in this manner. Preaches the dumbing-down mumble jumble and calls on everyone to come to Amaroo to kiss the feet and leave the envelope (cash preferably; visa and mastercard accepted but preferred through Visions International; no checks or money orders).

I still see the dumbing down of the mind in new recruits and especially in the old timers who still follow the herds to slaughter. But the new recruits have doubts and a place to pursue them, which the old-timers never had.

Hi Glen, how's your bunions?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:47:24 (EDT)
From: Ppeg
Email: None
To: From the Mishler Interview
Subject: Evidence please
Message:
He wants people to continue working because it's by them coming to the festivals, paying their admissions and giving their donations when they're kissing his feet that he makes his money. He doesn't have any other income. He lives a very, very extravagant lifestyle.'

Forgive me but I am quite new here and when people say things that imply that M is cold bloodedly milking his premies for money I get suspicious, curious, and sick at the thought. I am imagining that he is just deluded and trapped.

I know Bob Mishler could possibly have evidence for this but he could also just be angrily sounding off.

If anyone has any more solid evidence that m is actually consciously doing this could they tell me or direct me to the info.

If there isn't any I think its best not to imply that there is... it only gives weight to the premie view (which I held when I first visited here) that we are all just a load of angry and dissapointed people who wanted him to be God for us.

after all there's enough true stuff isn't there?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:32:15 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: Re: Evidence please
Message:
Hi Peg,

I'm pretty new around here, too. I don't know if I have any answers to your concerns, just wanted to let you know that there is a wide range of experience among those of us in this forum. When I first started coming around I was a little surprised by the intensity of the feelings of some who post here. Accusations were made against M that I had never considered.

I moved out of the Ashram before M officially closed them. I was slipping away from M and his teachings bit by bit and I think I must have been already out the door when he started to deny saying the very things that had drawn me to him and kept me around for almost 10 years. So although I sometimes regretted losing those years I spent in servitude, I didn't feel the anger I was hearing from some who post on this board. I have also been away from M for more than a decade. But I was intrigued by the banter and camraderie on this Forum and many of the experiences of people here reflected those of my own.

I have been spending some time surfing through the EPO site (thank you, John and all who have put the time and effort into such a multi faceted site.) I keep thinking I have read all there is to read and then discover there is more. Peg, you might find some of the answers to your questions about M and his motives in some of the other interviews on the site, specifically those from Michael Dettmers. I found them eye opening to say the least. I have also gained much from reading the Journeys. Anth's was particularly moving for me.

So I hope you'll feel like hanging around with this diverse bunch. One thing is for sure, it's never a dull moment!

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:53:21 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: Evidence, Peg
Message:
BTW have you read the whole of Bob Mischler's interview? It's on EPO. The first time I read it about 2 years ago I dismissed it as the words of someone who had obviously not experienced Knowledge and was therefore judging Rev Rawat with his mind. After I left the cult I re-read it and suddenly understood it very clearly. Parts of it are angry (just as many of us exes have felt angry for being conned.) But most of it is quite calm and matter of fact.

Like you, I prefer first hand evidence and do not like to be swayed by others. So I took a look at what has led up to Rawat's owning over one hundred million dollars of property (supposedly he is also an investor but I don't know the value of his portfolio of stocks.)

He arrived in the west practically penniless. Have you ever heard him tell the story of having to sleep in his car in San Francisco in Aug 73 because he was a house guest of some gay guys in the Castro whose demands he did not like? He had nowhere else to go so he slept in his car at Ocean Beach. He later lost any money or property coming from Shri Hans' estate in a court battle with his brother who got the whole lot, Premnagar etc.

30 years later he has a 25 million dollar house in Malibu. I don't know how much the Reigate house is worth. He has a 7 million dollar yacht and a fleet of luxury cars, artwork and Rolex watches worth god knows how much. He sold the house in Malibu back to the people who had bought it for him for 8 million more than they originally bought it for, pocketed the cash and then leased it back from them.

Meanwhile tens of thousands of us westerners have given him money over the past 30 years in the form of monthly pledges or trust funds or inheritances. All this money was given to spread Knowledge to every land and bring peace to this world. Well, there are a lot more Indian premies but a lot fewer western ones. Knowledge really has not been spread and in fact has become so twisted and secretive that it is now impossible to tell sane westerners about it.

So where did all his wealth come from and why was it spent on him for more luxuries than he can ever hope to enjoy in one life time while Knowledge has not been spread the way we all once hoped it would be?

I never was happy with Rawat's profligate spending on himself but justified it by saying to myself that he was god and deserved everything he wanted. It never really bothered me until I left the cult and then I began to see that his lavish lifestyle really was grotesque and totally unnecessary especially since the money was not used for the purpose for which it was collected.

No, Peg, the evidence all points to Rev Rawat's being a cold-blooded and greedy conman.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:45:21 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: well
Message:
Next time you meditate, go into the spirit world [you really got to be there, if you know what I mean] and summon Mishlers' spirit and ask him. Can you also ask him to come to f7, it is cyber after all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:45:32 (EDT)
From: Francesca :C)
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: Mishler is dead
Message:
Peg,

That is a radio interview with Bob Mishler, who was the president of DLM and close confidant of Maharaji for a number of years. But he died a number of years ago.

I have no reason to disbelieve him -- the information was probably true at the time, and still, I don't think M does much to make a living except 'spread K.' DLM/EV will not open its financial books to followers and has a church exemption which keeps it from having to file with IRS in the US.

So it is really easy for EV and premies to say that those types of allegations are not true, because the truth is in the books.

I would imagine that his finances are a tangled web. The white pages on EPO has information on the shell corporations that own his yacht, and even the homes he lives in.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:49:50 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Francesca :C)
Subject: hey Fran
Message:
Did you you know that he died in suspicious circumstances. Yes ma'am, his plane crashed while he was going to some anti cult meeting. Some people say that ^%6&6 !@#$%^ was involved.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:28:01 (EDT)
From: George
Email: None
To: Ppeg
Subject: There is no evidence
Message:
There's not one scrap of evidence that Maharaji is living off money from premies and he never asks them for any money and never ever has. Maharaji has his own source of income (he is a pilot) and I believe he's also a watch designer. Add to this the fact that he's a musician, having made several highly successful music CDs and also music videos and anyone with half a brain can see that he doesn't need money from premies.

Knowledge is free, as it always has been and Maharaji generously gives his own hard-earned money to help propogate his free gift. He takes time out from his busy pilot's schedule to talk freely to people when he's asked to by Elan Vital.

He's even tried to save money by buying a yacht so that he can travel to speaking venues more cheaply and give even more money to help propogate his free gift of knowledge. No, Maharaji is an extremely generous man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:46:29 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: George
Subject: So true George!
Message:
There's not one scrap of evidence that Maharaji is living off money from premies and he never asks them for any money and never ever has. Maharaji has his own source of income (he is a pilot) and I believe he's also a watch designer. Add to this the fact that he's a musician, having made several highly successful music CDs and also music videos and anyone with half a brain can see that he doesn't need money from premies.

Knowledge is free, as it always has been and Maharaji generously gives his own hard-earned money to help propogate his free gift. He takes time out from his busy pilot's schedule to talk freely to people when he's asked to by Elan Vital.

He's even tried to save money by buying a yacht so that he can travel to speaking venues more cheaply and give even more money to help propogate his free gift of knowledge. No, Maharaji is an extremely generous man.


---

Just a few quotes from EV to prove that Maharaji is independently wealthy and doesn't need premies.

'Today, Maharaji continues to volunteer his time as speaker and teacher on behalf of several nonprofit organizations, which arrange speaking engagements for him, and distribute video, audio and satellite broadcasts of his addresses. He maintains a full travel schedule, often traveling around the world up to three times each year.

However his work continued, as did the process of putting down roots in America. In 1974, when being driven up the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, he saw a dilapidated structure atop an isolated mountain and it caught his eye. The leaking bungalow, built as a weekend retreat by a Hollywood director, was some way off from the celebrated beachside community. Maharaji was unaware of the prestige of the area, but the beauty of the landscape was breathtaking and gave him a sense of refuge from the very adult responsibilities that he had to face on a daily basis.

The family still lives in the same house, now rebuilt and added to. Maharaji relishes it as his quiet family retreat, when taking a break from his busy schedule of relentless travel and tours.

In private he comes across as a shy person though with an outrageous sense of humor.'

I'm sick and tired of the loosers here criticizing this ordinary human being, who is no different from anybody else. There is also not a scrap of evidence that he once claimed to be Lord of the Universe!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 22:44:59 (EDT)
From: Susannah
Email: susimae@yahoo.com
To: XXX
Subject: Re: So true George!
Message:
OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!!!
Wake up and smell the Patchouli Oil!

A man doesn't have to overtly ask his followers for money. If he did, he would be immediately labeled a fraud. No, he sets himself up as the Lord, and who can deny God? He may not ask, but his big guys do, on his behalf. I remember all that
---
-'GooMeradji would like a new sports car, we are trying to raise so much for this or that surprise for Maharji...'

Not surprising to any of you, I'm sure, these tactics are used by those who purport to be Christians, aka televangelists (some, not all). They say to 'sow seed' (money) into 'my' ministry and you will 'reap' a harvest, and yes, lots of money is needed to further the kingdom of God!' And many of these 'preachers' are living lavish, opulent lifestyles. Like a pryamid scheme. And they will NEVER say that they live this way because of the donations of others. They always say they are working, or writing books
---
or ususally they will say they have been blessed by God with prosperity.

I'm afraid that Mr.Maharaji borrowed alot of his financial ideas from Elmer Gantry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:09:11 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Maharaji DID ask for money...
Message:
Maharaji asked for money directly, during one of the Long Beach programs, '96 or '97. It was memorable, because it was unusual. He usually gets other people to ask for money for him, behind the scenes. I remember thinking at the time, that I would never be able to say to people ''Maharaji never asks for money'', because here he was, asking for it! It may have been the same program where he was whining about how hard it is to be a millioniare. I remember thinking, ''We should ALL have such problems''.

Money comes to Maharaji indirectly though holding companies, which own various properties and luxury items which he has full use of, without paying taxes on them. All the benefits of ownership, without the responsibilities

Any questions about what happens to money collected for the purpose spreading Knowledge could be settled once and for all by simply making the books open to public inspection. Many non-profit organizations, even Churhes, do this, even though they are not required to by law, because they want there doners to see that they have nothing to hide. But if you try to find out anything about M's finances or the finances of the various non-profits under his control, there is a wall of secrecy around them. The PAM's maintian that there is nothing hidden in the books, while refusing to disclose their contents.

There is plenty of evidence of Maharaji's greed and unethical behavior, on the EPO website and many other places. If you can't be bothered to read it, or simply refuse to believe it because you don't want to doubt the purity of The Master, that's your problem. Don't bother running those old saws by us here; they have no substance, and are just too boring.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:32:36 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Chuck Please read this quote from EV!
Message:
According to EV 'Today, Maharaji continues to volunteer his time as speaker and teacher on behalf of several non-profit organisations, which arrange speaking engagements for him, and distribute video, audio and satellite broadcasts of his addresses.'

Do you know what 'non-profit' means Chuck? It means he doesn't make any money from these organizations. His money comes from his watch patent, his hugely successful CDs sales, his skills as a pilot, and lastly from free-will love offerings from devotees.

You are so cynical!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 14:59:09 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Being cynical and honesty...
Message:
Does M fly planes COMMERCIALLY for a living? Who does he fly for? And how much money does a watch patent and a few obscure CD's bring in? Enough to support the extravagant life style he and his family enjoys? Not even close. And every premie knows, Maharaji is NOT a teacher, he has told the premies so many, many times. He's only spoken about like that to aspirants and outsiders. It's another LIE.

Of course I know what a non-profit is, don't be obtuse. M doesn't own anything on paper, it's all held by non-profits FOR him, so he gets the benifits of ownership without any of the tax liability. There are various ways to filter cash to M, that don't count as PAYMENT. Most likely all perfectly legal, he has lawyers to keep him out of trouble. But what about ethics, don't they count?

Any question about what happens to funds donated for the purpose of spreading Knowledge can be answered by simply opening the books, which many non-profits do voluntarily. If there is nothing to hide, then hide nothing.

I know you and many premies think it is cynical to 'question the purity of the Master'. That was my point to Peg. That was one of the reasons I left. That's one of many things that makes it a cult. Stick with it if you want to. But I don't believe anyone has to sacrifice honesty to experience the truth. If you think that is cynical, so be it. I think sacrificing honesty in the name of the truth is cynical.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 17:34:22 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Re: Being cynical and honesty...
Message:
Chuck:

I think Mr./Ms. Tres Equis is spoofin' ya. I sure hope so for Tres Equis' sake.

B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 19:44:04 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: You tell him, Barbara
Message:
He won't believe me and keeps pointing out that those were the exact same concepts of the local premies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 12:54:03 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: About the Krishna costume!
Message:
Many exes use the fact that Maharaji once wore a Krishna costume to support their twisted contention that he actually thought of himself as Krishna, i.e. god incarnate. That's sick!

Let me set the record strait on this one. People in the West wear Santa Claus or Father Christmas costumes at Christmas don't they? Does this mean that they think they actually that person? No, and it's the same with M.

If I dress up as Dracula for Halloween does that mean I think I actually am Dracula? No it doesn't!

So please keep your sick and twisted opinions to yourselves and let people like me continue to dive into that ocean of bliss.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 04:55:43 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Maharaji and Santa have some things in common...
Message:
Little children may believe Santa is real. Their belief in Santa may cause them to feel happy. But that doesn't make Santa real, he is just a myth. People dress up as Santa, and say they are Santa, but Santa still isn't real, except in people's minds.

Ditto the Sat Guru, the Master. Children stop believing in Santa when they become more aware and undertand more. The Sat Guru constantly warns his premies not to doubt him, because there is, indeed, so very much to doubt, if only they would. There IS life after Sat Guru, just like there is life after believing in Santa. And at least Santa never told you that you would break into a thousand pieces if you left him, or rot like a truckload of vegetables (and lie about saying it many years later on his website).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 13:16:18 (EDT)
From: Thelma the Church Ladyb)
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Krishna costume! I agree, XXX
Message:
All that tinselly Hindu drag was absolutely fabulous. It got so boring after he stopped doing the wobble dance that I left. He would not have lost so many of us if he had just continued saying he was god and dressing up like a Hindu Santa. People love fairy tales.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 14:11:32 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: Thelma the Church Ladyb)
Subject: HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GOD, EVER!!!!!!!
Message:
IT WAS THE MAHATMAS! What, am I surrounded by fools! Haven't I already explained this!

That's it, I'm outta here!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 22:51:59 (EDT)
From: Susannah
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Re: HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GOD, EVER!!!!!!!
Message:
Even if he never said it, he allowed it to continue. By not correcting the mahatmas and the premies by saying, 'I am a mere man, please don't worship me as God', he was giving his approval by omission.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 18:01:34 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: shouting can't change the facts
Message:
Any person outside your cult would unhesitantly disagree with you upon even a fast, cursory peak at the quotes section of EPO alone. You're having a nightmare.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:59:11 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: shouting can't change the facts
Message:
What started as a joke on my part, has obviously gone too far.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 14:37:39 (EDT)
From: Thelma the Church Ladyb)
Email: None
To: XXX
Subject: Don't go, Triple X!
Message:
Your posts are so clear and inspiring. I was just about to go back to the Lotus Feet because of your beautiful satsang.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 14:55:34 (EDT)
From: XXX
Email: None
To: Thelma the Church Ladyb)
Subject: Re: Don't go, Triple X!
Message:
Excuse me Thelma, but do I detect a sarcastic tone in your message. Am I correct in thinking that you are making a filthy, demented mockery of everything I stand for?

I don't know who you are sister, but you are one twisted lady!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:09:47 (EDT)
From: PEG
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: Why are you so stroppy ChuckS?
Message:
Thanks for the first part of your reply.

The last bit 'If you can't be bothered to read it, or simply refuse to believe it because you don't want to doubt the purity of The Master, that's your problem. Don't bother running those old saws by us here; they have no substance, and are just too boring.' pissed me off.

are you asking me not to have doubt in my mind about anything said here...or not to post unless I have something riveting to say? Well tough! I don't do riveting! if you find me boring just don't read my posts! I have read epo I believe what i read there mostly I think but I hadn't found the definite solid proof that he was totally cold blooded ..that's what I was asking about.

Personally I would like to ask these mundane questions just because they are there in my head, and I am grateful for anyone bothering to reply and accept it if people haven't got the time or inclination. I know i sound a bit like Pauline Premie sometimes... I am Not a premie but I was not so long ago and am still finding my feet.

Peg with a stamp of her foot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:14:49 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: PEG
Subject: Oopsy...
Message:
Sorry Peg. The comment you found offensive was in response to George 'No evidence...' and XXX. There is plenty of evidence, and I just get tired of premie trolls saying there isn't. No offence to you indended, this IS a place to ask questions, and discuss M related things.

I had in fact, been thinking, the forum should get back on topic so that comments like yours:

''Forgive me but I am quite new here and when people say things that imply that M is cold bloodedly milking his premies for money I get suspicious, curious, and sick at the thought. I am imagining that he is just deluded and trapped.''

... could be given more attention, instead of being lost in the shuffle of war politics. I had felt the way you describe too, for a long time. I think as a premie you are -we all were- conditioned to always give M the benifit of a doubt, and it can take a while to learn to look at him and his motives more objectively. There is a LOT of information, and it takes time for it to sink in and assimilate. And old habits (making excuses for M) can die hard.

It's not like you have to start hating him. Everyone is different. Even now I don't really hate M, not with any passion. I just don't like his lies, and I want alternate information to be available, so others may extract themselves, if they want to.

I think the final turning point for me was the CAC website. I had pretty much stopped posting here, and would have just kept in touch occasionally, but the CAC website affected me personally. It convinced me finally that Maharaji is just plain greedy. I still have trouble using the 'evil' word, but I don't think it's too strong. He knows what he is doing. He KNOWS.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:36:35 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: PEG
Subject: hey, Peg, Chuck was answering XX
Message:
.....not you. His response was to the one just above his which I told him was probably a parody but he thought it was real. Yes, we still disagree after being together for 20 years.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:32:45 (EDT)
From: Francesca :o
Email: None
To: PEG
Subject: Chuck dear Peg's gd people!
Message:
I know that words on the screen get in the way -- Peg's a recentex and a great heart and spirit. She's new here and asking some of the questions others have asked long ago.

Oh, and Peg, Chuck GOOD PEOPLE too. :p

LOVE to YOU both good peoples,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:06:12 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Francesca :o
Subject: Thanks! Me Chuck Pat Fran all good!! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:42:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: George
Subject: ****FUNNY PREMIE POST TIME****
Message:
There's not one scrap of evidence that Maharaji is living off money from premies and he never asks them for any money and never ever has. Maharaji has his own source of income (he is a pilot) and I believe he's also a watch designer. Add to this the fact that he's a musician, having made several highly successful music CDs and also music videos and anyone with half a brain can see that he doesn't need money from premies.

Knowledge is free, as it always has been and Maharaji generously gives his own hard-earned money to help propogate his free gift. He takes time out from his busy pilot's schedule to talk freely to people when he's asked to by Elan Vital.

He's even tried to save money by buying a yacht so that he can travel to speaking venues more cheaply and give even more money to help propogate his free gift of knowledge. No, Maharaji is an extremely generous man.


---

Ah for the good, old simple days of dumb premie posts like this one! Maharaji the watchmaker; Maharaji the musician ....

Peg, the evidence is overhwelming. Start with the multi-million dollar yacht he had John Miller secretly find and buy for him at the very moment when he was sending out fundraisers to shake down deep pocket premies. No, there are no blatant admissions on Maharaji's part that he's fleeced his flock for thirty years. The circumstantial case is undeniable though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:44:47 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That has to be a parody
Message:
It just has to be.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:01:17 (EDT)
From: Is Maharaji pleased
Email: None
To: All
Subject: like Winston Churchill was...
Message:
...when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He knew this would bring the U.S. into the war.

Maharaji isn't being held accountable for his actions like before Sept. 11. Gary Condit is another one who has been forgotten.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 20:50:05 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: gcmacdougall@yahoo.com
To: Is Maharaji pleased
Subject: Speaking of Sir Winston
Message:
MJ once told us that he was given an ashtray that had belonged to Churchill. Since it was valuable, he said he stashed it in his safe.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:13:53 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: pdconlon@hotmail.com
To: Gail
Subject: Re: Speaking of Sir Winston
Message:
Hi Gail. Yes, I remember that. Was it in Long Beach in 97?

I don't know you but I'm Patrick Conlon from San Fran and I've been posting here for 9 months.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:07:28 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Is Maharaji pleased
Subject: Gary Condit
Message:
Gary Condit already was old hat. In fact, if there ever was a case of lynching by journalism, Gary Condit's was it. It's just as well he's no longer in the public spotlight. As for Maharaji, I doubt he cares. We'll get back to him soon enough.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:46:37 (EDT)
From: nausea
Email: None
To: Is Maharaji pleased
Subject: OJ plays golf...
Message:
The problem is that he has too many people say he is great and that humans have learned to say something is wrong with them and they need a savior. Inheritance of the ignorants before us: We all need a savior! (NOT!)

Look at the Chatolic Church. All the Chatolics I know are pathetic beings, gray in sorrow and fear but for generations were not able yet to overcome 2000 years old lies. Words, empty words and a strong faith... Believers, and look at the state of the world. I blame craziness, wars and separations between us humans on religions.We, the ones who think he is fake are a minority compared with the thousands who depend on him, and the story keeps rolling. How bad can it be?:-)

Two years after leaving the cult I am still disgusted with the fact that he manipulated us, many of us for more than 2 decades, and cannot let go, cannot accomodate what I know. It is not resentment or hate as most premies seem to believe, but a need for justice. How can it be that he can get away with what he did to us? How can it be that we are such a suckers that cannot do something about it? Even after leaving the cult we remain scattered and without a common goal. Many groups gather for a cause. We gathered to spread the lie but cannot gather to fight the 'ENEMY'...and he continues making others fall in his trap. aughhhh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:01:44 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
I'm just sick of this place. It reminds how I felt when I had enough of the LG forum.

I tried to be as polite and reasonable as possible but with a loopy fucking feminist on one side and ultra Pax Americanas on the other ....I just don't belong here.

And NO Scott I don't owe you,any other person or AMERICA any apologies.

I was true to my beliefs, thoughts, feelings.

If anyone is upset by that ....TOUGH.

Ciao

Dermot

PS: To all the decent folks here, either side of the argument....nice knowing ya.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:54:07 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: tantrum 201.
Message:
sorry jhb.

you don't need to agree with nobody. Look at me.())())())

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:44:24 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
I'm just sick of this place. It reminds how I felt when I had enough I tried to be as polite and reasonable as possible but with a loopy fucking feminist on one side and ultra Pax Americanas on the other ....I just don't belong here.

And that's not a tantrum? Come on Dermot. It's good for you to take a break. Breathe some fresh air. Loopy fucking feminist? Thank you for the compliment. Btw, I don't belong to any feminist groups or organizations. Have you read When God Was A Woman yet? IT's not a feminist book. It's a book written about ancient history. Or isn't that scientific enough for you?

Why the hate toward women? I don't blame all men for the power they have in the world. I am quite disappointed, however, when any man cannot understand why mothers in Afghanistan have no power over their stone throwing boys. Get it? Women have no power to do anything. And lots of women and men have worked hard over the years to try to change their plight.

I am not a scientific person. If you and the others here think you will break this terrorist situation down to science, you're not thinking clearly. It's about people who are in a fanatical, dangerous cult. Not everything in the world is cut and dried.

Every word you read or receive through the media isn't fact, either. Loopy feminist? Thank you. I appreciate it, truly. Read some history. You are not to blame as an individual for the world situation as it is, vis a vis, women being suppressed in the past and present except to the except to the extent that you are immediately critical of any views that are based in fact, about the suppression of women in world history. Err...when did women get the vote right in the USofA? When did they get the right to own property? Why? How? Women. And men, but mostly women.

Sexism happened in the Maharaji cult. It even happens here, right on F7. Get some fresh air. Get some new thoughts and read something that expresses a view you seem to despise about womanism or feminism.

Go work on a sexual assault hotline...that'll educate you, too. Do something active other than keyboarding.

I had a temper tantrum. Wow. Sorry for being human.

And your above post is not exactly a tantrum, but it is filled with anger.

Think about it...
Cynthia, (just call me loopy the woman)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:15:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: And yet...
Message:
I am not a scientific person. If you and the others here think you will break this terrorist situation down to science, you're not thinking clearly. It's about people who are in a fanatical, dangerous cult. Not everything in the world is cut and dried.

And yet I maintain it's within the purview of social science. In the so-called 'natural (physical) sciences' (which is probably what you mean by science) you look for correlation coefficients (percentage of variation in the dependent variable explained by the model) along the lines of 0.9 and above. In social science you're lucky to get a correlation coefficient above 0.3, but that's more than enough to begin to solve serious problems. So if you say empowering mothers will have an effect on the behavior of stone throwing boys, and by experiment or other empirical means you can demonstrate that you've explained 30% of the variation in that male behavior by your model, and the coefficient for the 'female empowerment' variable is high, then you've got a wedge to start changing things on both sides of the equation. Don't write science off just because it doesn't always agree with you.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:48:50 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Come back soon (nt) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:28:45 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
Dermot,

you have been great. There is a real problem here with those who confuse understanding (meaning a scientific, amoral, value-free view of how things work or have come about) with justification (considered as the moral basis of sentient action).

To understand is not to justify. This is true whether one is talking of a volcanic or a social explosion. I feel a grave danger that understanding as such, is being made into a Thought Crime.

But to say such a thing is most unwelcome to Crusader ears.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:13:08 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Understanding
Message:
There is a real problem here with those who confuse understanding (meaning a scientific, amoral, value-free view of how things work or have come about) with justification (considered as the moral basis of sentient action).

That's an interesting statement, John. Do you think there's really a chance to understand this issue given the sources of information we have about it. It's not as if a scientific experiment has been performed to get to the roots of terrorism. So how do you propose we come to a scientific conclusion on it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:27:21 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Understanding
Message:
The major point I find myself emphasising again and again is just this distinction between understanding and justification.

It is clear enough when expressed in the abstract. Unfortunately, when a wrong is done to us, we are likely to feel attempts to understand the assailant amount to some sort of justification for his action. But it is baby thinking, magical thinking, to imagine that by ignoring the surrounding circumstances and conditions we in any way make ourselves safer.

To develop an amoral and scientific understanding of the roots of terrorism, a helpful first step might be to define the term exactly.

Presently, it is used in a patrisan and political way (crudely put -- our guys are freedom fighters; their guys are terrorists). Unless the term can be applied consistently by a disinterested outsider we are unlikely to be dealing with anything real -- what constitutes 'terrorism' would be more a matter of relativistic perception and taste.

That the attack on the WTC was terrorism, I do not doubt. But what definition would exclude our demand that bin Laden be turned over on our say-so (without indictment or evidence) or a military bombardment will follow? Some would argue that that is merely to use terror to persuade the Taliban Govenrment to do what pleases us.

There will be attempts to define the term, the better to be objective. But there are many distinguished jurists who wonder whether any useful definition could exclude the activities of Mssrs North; Kissinger; Sharon and Gurion; not to mention our very own Mrs Thatcher.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:41:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Myth of objectivity
Message:
. But there are many distinguished jurists who wonder whether any useful definition could exclude the activities of Mssrs North; Kissinger; Sharon and Gurion; not to mention our very own Mrs Thatcher.

Lots of harm has been done by political actors of various kinds, with good intentions and bad. To define this as terrorism causes needless confusion. If there are distinguished jurists wondering about that send them to me. Again, you can define terrorism in such a way that many political actors will incorporate some small element of it, but by and large conventional religious or political zealotry is outside the phenomenon. We might quibble at the margins, but we aren't dealing with a marginal situation here, in spite of your conflating Thatcherism with al Queda. It reminds me of the Marxists who defined capital as 'congealed labor.' It seems a very minor mistake, until you look at the consequences.

More on the difference between 'magical thinking' and conventional religious and political zealotry later.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:29:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Yeah, but would YOU say it?
Message:
That the attack on the WTC was terrorism, I do not doubt. But what definition would exclude our demand that bin Laden be turned over on our say-so (without indictment or evidence) or a military bombardment will follow? Some would argue that that is merely to use terror to persuade the Taliban Govenrment to do what pleases us.

There's always someone who'll say anything but what do YOU say? I'd say that this would be a silly comment, myself. The evidence against bL is overwhelming and the Taliban knows it. Not just for this attack either, don't forget the embassies and the Cole. Harbouring him is akin to an act of war in my books. After all, who needs an army when you've suicide terrorists capable of turning domestic airlines into a Kamikazee air force?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:19:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Verstehen
Message:
John:

I don't know how to state this more plainly. You don't understand, whether you're justifying or not. Your distinction might be relevant if that were the central issue, but it isn't. And the reason you don't understand the phemomenon is simply that you've jumped to the conclusion that it is essentially a political phenomenon. That might be true of the terrorists' *audience* but not of the terrorist themselves. The two groups are related, but it's their differences that are significant not their similarities.

See my post below under 'Reconciliation -- On Topic'

You guys are so wound up in your anti-Americanism, and I was so preoccupied with defending against it, that we missed the basic mechanism. In my defense, I've always felt it had more to do with cult thinking than political grievance but I didn't come up with a 'thick description' until yesterday. The whole thing is very counter-intuitive. I think the mechanism I've outlined will be more or less true depending on the mix of motivations of the actors. That is, some terrorists are more motivated by conventionl zealotry than others. As a first approximation I think the mechanism is basically applicable to 'suicide bombers.' I think it also has relevance to other sorts of terrorism, but probably to a lesser degree.

So again, any suggestion that you were 'justifying' the attack was an over-reaction, either on my part or yours. You were only justifying it in the very narrow sense that responding to the attack as though it's a political demand reinforces the magical thinking, and also sets up a situation where terrorism becomes a tool in negotiation. I maintain that terrorism actually *interferes with* and *obstructs* any genuine desire for reconciliation on the part of the offended group. It does exactly the opposite of what it's 'audience' within the minority community wants done. I don't know how open you are to that, but to my mind it pretty much wraps it up. Reconciliation, if it is to exist at all, has to be decoupled from terrorism and has to separate the terrorist from his/her audience in order to break the cycle. I didn't just jump to this conclusion. I've been pulling the pieces of it together since I first began posting on Forum II, back in early 1998. Ask anyone.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:46:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
John:

There is a real problem here with those who confuse understanding (meaning a scientific, amoral, value-free view of how things work or have come about) with justification (considered as the moral basis of sentient action).

To understand is not to justify. This is true whether one is talking of a volcanic or a social explosion. I feel a grave danger that understanding as such, is being made into a Thought Crime.

Now hold on a minute here, pardner. I claimed you were insensitive to start recounting the manner that the US had brought it on ourselves before the rubble had stopped bouncing. If I defended the US from your ideological nonsense then I'm truly sorry. That defense apparently diverted you from the understanding that you were on the wrong track anyway. I would never lynch someone for pissing on my front door. My real concern was not with your insensitivity but your failure to understand the event, because of your need to *categorize* it or pigeonhole it into your pre-existing ideological cosmology. In a word, you got it wrong. You don't understand the attack, because you jumped to conclusions (as did Dermot and a number of others). I still think you're jumping to conclusions, and no I *don't* think you understand the attack or how to deal with it (the second misunderstanding being determined by the first). I've pretty much been saying that since day 1.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:21:00 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Bowing out without a tantrum
Message:
I don't belong here either. What did you think of Tony Blair's speech? I thought it was right on the button. Email me if you want and/or try and post something in The War Room.
[ The War Room ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:57:06 (EDT)
From: Pat:C) reposting Scott's
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Cultic magical thinking of terrorists
Message:
Scott posted this below in a thread that is fairly inactive and it may get lost. (He suggested it as a way of returning to topic.) It's too good to be missed. He certainly said it all for me and I no longer need to add anything more to this discussion in political terms. I definitely see terrorism completely in cultic terms. Scott calls it ""magical thinking"" which I think is too charitable. I call it religious insanity and superstitious sociopathy. Here are Scott's words:

Fortunately we know that the ultimate cause of terrorism is not our actions either historically or now. The ultimate cause of terrorism is 'magical thinking.' It's the conviction that something going on in your life in the everyday world is linked to great cosmic events. Not the other way around mind you, because that's just political empowerment. The basic cause of terrorism is the notion that history has you by the ears and it's marching you through the gates, swamping your individual will. It's not merely a delusion that *you* know the direction that this cosmic course must take, although that's what Hannah Arendt thought. It's more than the notion that it's *your* responsibility to compel God's will, because if that's all it were then it might be simple patriotism which would peter out as everyday events pulled you this way and that. No, it's the notion that everyday events are pulling you in one direction, and one direction only, constantly reinforcing the conviction that there's no room for doubt or questioning or discussion. I don't see how there's much wiggle room for a liberal attitude in response there, do you? However, one thing you can do that might save fighting a battle or two is treat the magical thinking directly. You can 'bust' it, and you can do things that demonstrate that the 'magic' just isn't happening.

So if you can demonstrate how our analysis of past US actions (accurately recounted) serves that goal then I'll buy it. But every scenario I can think of serves the opposite goal, because our acknowledgement of a wrong convinces the terrorist or recruit that their thoughts are magic, and their will is destined. The irony here is that terrorism does precisely the opposite of what the terrorist's 'audience' wants, because it binds the hands of the opponent from taking any sort of conciliatory action.

On the other hand, if we make clear our intention to not negotiate and not seek any reconciliation, committing ourselves to the destruction of the opponent, then we can afford to be conciliatory to those interests not expressed by the terrorist, or not seen as their primary objective. We can win his audience away from him, break his pattern of magical thinking, and restore sanity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:58:47 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Pat:C) reposting Scott's
Subject: Scott T thinking
Message:
Scott: The ultimate cause of terrorism is 'magical thinking.'


---

---

Very useful Scott. Do tell the President. You'll be able to give him a demo too, I'm sure.

ahahahahahahahahahaha!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:49:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Your leak is showing.
Message:
Suggests I talk to the President and then launches into maniacal laughter. 'Nuff said.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:32:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Again, same problem, John
Message:
Who cares what the PRESIDENT thinks? How about you? Scott's right and you know it. These guys start with a very bizarre cultic proposition and find justification as they need it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 15:16:22 (EDT)
From: test
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Again, same problem, John
Message:
test
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:07:01 (EDT)
From: Happy Ex
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Maharaji takes a second wife!
Message:
Just kidding. Thought it might bring things back on topic here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:48:54 (EDT)
From: ())
Email: None
To: Happy Ex
Subject: ROFL
Message:
He cannot be that honest to do something like that: The appearences are too important to be a successful cult leader.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:10:20 (EDT)
From: Blonde Gopi #3
Email: gopi3@krishnalila.com
To: all
Subject: That bastard said would be me
Message:
He promised me that I was to be the next Mrs. Rawat. He said he was leaving Marolyn this time for sure.
HE PROMISED. HE REALLY DID! That bastard!!! So who is the unfortunate victim?

Blonde Gopi #3

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:01:49 (EDT)
From: tommy tucker
Email: None
To: All
Subject: An Englander Speaks!
Message:
Why did this war against terrorism not start sooner?
Why didn't the U.S. come to the aid of England in fighting terrorism these past 30 years?
We have been exposed to many attacks from the IRA and felt in danger of our lives but there was no rallying together of American forces off the coast of Ireland with an ultimatum to Gerry Adams and crew to hand over those who bombed the City of London, Guildford and the many others - or else they would send in troops and destroy the christian fundamentalists.
No more likely the U.S.A was funding them
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 20:17:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: tommy tucker
Subject: What a dumb post!
Message:
This doesn't deserve any greater reply.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: tommy tucker
Subject: You had me 'til the last sentence.
Message:
And which Christian fundamentalists are you talking about, Protestant or Catholic? Personally I think there's a lot of evidence to support the theory that the US is behind the fact that such a high percentage of condoms break during the last 30 seconds of intercourse, and why do so many people over 60 need Viagra to get it up anyway? What's up with *that* America?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:16:51 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: tommy tucker
Subject: This is a public service for Americans
Message:
To most Americans, Ireland is a romantic island where the bad British (and they certainly have been in the past) continue to prevent a united Ireland. The cold fact that the the majority of the population of Northern Ireland do not want a united Ireland escapes them, so they continue to arm the IRA, the continuity IRA, and the Real IRA, and innocent people continue to be killed as a result. Irish terrorism is a difficult problem that requires clear minds, an understanding of the root causes of the problem, and an ability to rise above emotion to find a long term solution. Those who donate in the Irish bars in Manhatten need to understand this.

Of course the vast majority of Americans do not support Irish terrorists (I hope). In fact, the Good Friday agreement was negotiated thanks to the efforts of the US government and Senator Whatshisname. But those of us who have lived through the IRA campaign in England would just like ordinary Americans to think a little about the effect of terrorism outside their borders.

Jim earlier claimed that the Irish terrorists had a legitimate cause so were qualititavely different from the IF terrorists. This sounds dangerously close to supporting the IRA. I replied that they do not have a legitimate cause (the unification of Ireland) but he didn't reply.

As I have said, I support American and NATO action against the IF terrorists. I also support Blair's vision of action to eradicate the causes of terrorism. I hope and trust that the US government have wise counsel, and that a better world will arise from this crisis.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:39:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Hm, did I say that?
Message:
Jim earlier claimed that the Irish terrorists had a legitimate cause so were qualititavely different from the IF terrorists.

John,

Here's what I said the first time you asked:

I don't have any problem seeing the IRA and Islamic fundamentalist (IF) terrorist threats as qualitatively different. The former arises from a legitimate political agenda and is an expression of legitimate political grievances. Britain has a very tricky path to walk in that it has to address the political problem without seeming to dance to the terrorists' fiddle in any way, shape or form. The IFs, on the other hand, do not have a legitimate political grievance much as so many people are eagre to project one on to them.

and here's how I tried to explain myself further when you asked:

First, who cares if the IFs think their cause is legitimate? I don't and that's what matters when you're asking how I distinguish them from the IRA. The IRA are fighting for a united Ireland which, they believe, they'd enjoy were it not for historical English domination and oppression. I might not even agree with their views but I really don't even know all that much about the situation. I do know, though, that they're not just espousing the brain-washed nonsense of a killer religious idea. And, while I also don't agree at all with their terrorist history, the point is I believe that it stems from a rational agenda. Might not be my agenda but it's rational.

The IFs, on the other hand, are fighting for something that's sublimely ridiculous, in my opinion. So, to me, it's not a rational goal and their activity does not invite speculation as to how the U.S. could behave better in the future.

And, no I'm not anti-British and you can't derive that from my opinion.

The point I was trying to make, however poorly worded, was that the IRA have a rational agenda, one that's based on a reasonable grievance -- as best I understand. I accept the goal or reuiniting Ireland as a legitimate and rational goal. I don't accept the goal of destroying the 'evil and sinful United States of America' as such. That's what I meant. Again, I'm not saying I agree personally with the IRA goal but I think it's rational in a way that the IFs' isn't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 09:26:23 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, Oh Jim
Message:
Jim,

You are correct when you say that you don't know much about the situation in Northern Ireland. The central point here is that the majority of the people who are living there now (and who's forebears have lived there for hundreds of years) DO NOT WANT a united Ireland. Is that clear? So how in hell can you describe the terrorists cause as rational and legitimate?

You are worse than those you criticise here. At least no one here is saying that the IF terrorists have a rational or legitimate cause. No one is saying that - do you agree? But, you, without even knowing much about it, describe people who have routinely blown up parts of the city I lived in for 20 years, as having a rational and legitimate cause.

Shame on you.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:35:15 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That's not the question
Message:
It's not simply a matter of whether the majority supports their view that makes their cause rational. Anyway, though, would you say that the majority of all Irelander's, North and, ahem, 'regular', don't want unity? In any event, that's not the deciding factor.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:39:44 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: uhhh, well, actually
Message:
no one here is saying that the IF terrorists have a rational or legitimate cause.

I have suggested that opposition to American partisanship over the Israel/Palestine issue; opposition to sanctions against Iraq; and opposition to US troops in Saudi Arabia are each legitimate and rational causes.

I mentioned these issues as they were mentioned by bin Laden in interviews I have read.

Can one not be rational and oppose these policies and practices? To use violence to further one's opposition may indeed be illegitimate, but to work peacefully to oppose those policies and practices is still allowed.

Or have I missed something? I've not been watching ALL the news lately!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:12:47 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: uhhh, well, actually
Message:
I agree with Jim, here, John. If it was just for the reasons you state, I'd say that bin Laden has a reasonable gripe. But since he sees us as the kaffir (nonbeliever) on sacred ground, and believes it is his sacred duty to remove us, I'd say he's being irratonal. The guy's a religious nut.

The question I have is would the current resurgence in IF have occurred if America's policies were different? One thing that stands out for me is that while things were good and Saudis were virtually guaranteed a successful living, with the right education, IF didn't have such a strong hold. Now that it's tough to find a nice, cushy job after college, you've got all these extremists running around screaming 'Death to America!' Makes me think it's all over economics. As long as things were good, America wasn't such a bad guy. Now that things are tough, it's time to return to the old ways and destroy the infidel.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 17:42:34 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: uhhh, well, actually
Message:
The question I have is would the current resurgence in IF have occurred if America's policies were different? One thing that stands out for me is that while things were good and Saudis were virtually
guaranteed a successful living, with the right education, IF didn't have such a strong hold. Now that it's tough to find a nice, cushy job after college, you've got all these extremists running around screaming 'Death to America!' Makes me think it's all over economics.

As long as they can live well, and the government (of even forces of occupation) stays off their backs, most people are happy, you have a point there.

I think in retrospect it may well unwise to have cosied up so uncritically to the Saudi regime. It is a fundamentalist puritan society (shar'ia law) with, of course, a very influential and conservative clergy. There is no free speech or freedom of the press; no elections; and women's rights are significantly fewer than are men's. Yet it also has a large 'westernised' ridiculously wealthy Establishment (the Saudi Royals and assorted liggers) that has come to its riches and power via oil -- and from sucking up to the Buyers of that oil. So American troops are now in Saudi Arabia, and to ordinary Saudis they look like they're there to protect the oil (for America) and the class that has become wealthy beyond reason from selling the oil. Memories of the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait don't help either. You get the picture, I'm sure.

But Saudi is an intensely repressive society. We know that over here, as there have been a number of cases where Brits have been transparently framed to protect Saudi police rackets and corruptiom. Look, if they do that to Westerners, how do you think they treat ordinary Saudis?

Bad news, then, to have cosied up so uncritically to a corrupt dictatorship, now the whole region teters on a knife edge. Now the West has need of a friendly Saudi Arabia we discover our friend is facade, and its people resentful and suspicious of the West that they see as having helped keep its corrupt and bloated Royal class in obscene wealth and dictatorial power for so long.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:57:37 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Still, same confusion.
Message:
I have suggested that opposition to American partisanship over the Israel/Palestine issue; opposition to sanctions against Iraq; and opposition to US troops in Saudi Arabia are each legitimate and rational causes.

Rational goals, but in this case not causes.

I mentioned these issues as they were mentioned by bin Laden in interviews I have read.

And I maintain that you can't predict Bin Laden's behavior based upon these issues alone, so they aren't his real motivation. They're the motivation of his audience, but for him they're only a temporary rationalization. What's more, taking the track he has taken makes fulfillment of those goals (while his movement exists) virtually impossible.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:37:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: no
Message:
bL's udnerlying reasons -- that the U.S. is a sinful nation and thus U.S. soldiers defile holy muslim land by their presence, is not rational. What is it? It's religious! Read: irrational.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:16:52 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Same goes for IRA, Jim
Message:
I simply changed bL to IRA and US to UK in your words.

The IRS's underlying reasons -- that the U.K. is a sinful nation and thus U.K. soldiers defile holy Irish land by their presence, is not rational. What is it? It's religious! Read: irrational.''

IRA terrorism is purportedly about territory but it is fueled by religious insanity and perpetrated by the same kind of people - idiotic, macho, cult-crazed maniacs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:03:22 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yes, but ...
Message:
... while there may be truth in what you say, the fact remains that the IRA would never have got going again without the Bloody Sunday massacre. The protests that lead up to the massacre were part of the Civil Rights protests of the sixties -- and those protests were occasioned by civil and legal inequalities within the North.

What you say is true of the vanguard, but without a civil wrong (or strong sense of one!) the vanguard a just an almost harmless bunch of militia nuts with too much of a sense of tradition.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 19:43:20 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Sunday bloody Sunday
Message:
It was for those very reasons that I used to side with the IRA until as recently as ten years ago. I must confess that I also hated the English since they had put 120,000 of my Afrikaner ancestors in concentration camps during the Boer war. I inherited a hatred of the English from both the Boer and Irish sides of my family.

But I've drawn my own conclusions since then and see that bombing civilians in London has nothing to do with the IRA's purported grievances.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 13:48:55 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: So this is about Religion?
Message:
dipping in a bit tenatively here:

Territorial concerns masking Religious concerns which are ultimately masking--Economic concerns? Jerry's theory makes sense to me.
[ The Phoney War ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:02:53 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Re: So this is about Religion?
Message:
And the economic concerns are mostly fuelled by Marxism. Bin Laden believes and has stated many times that capitalism is the enemy. Mix sour envious Marxism with fanatical religious mania and you have a deadly cocktail made up of the bitterest and most murderous elements of human nature.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 18:23:44 (EDT)
From: Samuel Butler
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: from Hudibras
Message:
Well, talking of fundamentalist puritans, here's a piece from 17th Century England. Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Sir Hudibras's Religion

187 For his Religion, it was fit
188 To match his learning and his wit;
189 'Twas Presbyterian true blue;
190 For he was of that stubborn crew
191 Of errant saints, whom all men grant
192 To be the true Church Militant;
193 Such as do build their faith upon
194 The holy text of pike and gun;
195 Decide all controversies by
196 Infallible artillery;
197 And prove their doctrine orthodox
198 By apostolic blows and knocks;
199 Call fire and sword and desolation,
200 A godly-thorough-reformation,
201 Which always must be carried on,
202 And still be doing, never done;
203 As if religion were intended
204 For nothing else but to be mended.

205 A sect, whose chief devotion lies
206 In odd perverse antipathies;
207 In falling out with that or this,
208 And finding somewhat still amiss;
209 More peevish, cross, and splenetic,
210 Than dog distract, or monkey sick.

211 That with more care keep holy-day
212 The wrong, than others the right way;
213 Compound for sins they are inclin'd to,
214 By damning those they have no mind to:
215 Still so perverse and opposite,
216 As if they worshipp'd God for spite.

217 The self-same thing they will abhor
218 One way, and long another for.
219 Free-will they one way disavow,
220 Another, nothing else allow:
221 All piety consists therein
222 In them, in other men all sin ...

posted by JohnT
[ HUDIBRAS, PART I (excerpt) ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:39:00 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Samuel Butler
Subject: Oliver Protector
Message:
Cromwell so rattled the British aristocracy and monarchy that they opened the society to the middle class, and moved away from the absolute monarchies of the Stuarts. Oliver Protector served as an innoculation for Great Britain, against the sort of carnage that eventually took place in the Reign of Terror. They'd have done *anything* to avoid another Cromwell.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:53:17 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: And Marxism is a secular religion. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:53:03 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: All
Subject: chillin out in tough times
Message:
For those of you with fond remembrances of Nick Drake and John Martyn (still going I know), ie the better end of singer songwriters from the 60's/70's, who can't adapt too easily to modern music, but want the new wisdom, check out

David Gray 'White Ladder'

and for those of more into chilled beats

Groove Armada 'Vertigo' & anything by Air

The house generation over here in the uk have embraced this new acoustic scene for chillin out bigtime.

From the indie guitar end see also, Badly Drawn Boy, Coldplay and if you like it a little weirder ie cello's etc Goldfrapp

Then there's the obvious female hippy hip-hop of macy grey, lauren hill (from the fugees) & erikah badhu(sp?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 00:58:17 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Hamzen ...
Message:
I know it's hard in times like these, but you should've marked your post OOT.

Yes, I remember 'Bless the Weather' John Martyn, but you're the only person who I've ever heard mention him ... bless you. I almost bought one of his albums years ago, but the cover was too melodramatic, so I didn't. Not sure about your recommendations, but no time to check them out.

Good to see you posting,

Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:44:50 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: All
Subject: New forums required?
Message:
After reading a few of the posts in the thread two below started by Jim re dropping the politics, it struck me that although this site is primarily about gm etc there have always been off-topic threads.
With the throughrate here being about a day before a topic has gone it struck me that it would be good to be able to have split forums, especially since the migration to anything goes (too) has always been minimal.

So in the spirit of, I've set up a couple of forums at the same site, and they can always be added to.
Well designed forums, admittedly with a small banner, and, salam please note, you can even add flash movies to your own posts if you register, as well as posting topical news by admin on the main pages.

Would rather not do the admin, but will if I have to.

What do you think of?

http://expremie.proboards.com/

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:52:34 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Re: New forums required?
Message:
It looks good. The format takes a little getting used to and you have to open topics up to see the posts on those forums. What would people think about registering?

As you can see, someone else has set up a forum for discussion/news about current world events. I wonder if that's what is needed?
[ The War Room ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:05:36 (EDT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: You can post there without registering
Message:
you just can't insert your own tags etc.

Although you have to open a topic up to see what's there you do then see the whole thread on one page.
You can also get to any of the other forums within that site.

Downside apart from the less open thread listing is that I'm not sure it's so fast as either the hotboards or bravenet ones.

Let's hope the bravenet one is the goer, rather not have to do admin as you of all people would appreciate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:44:14 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: All
Subject: eiydhiwndy - implications
Message:
eiydhiwndy [even in yer darkest hangover i will not desert you] - a refashioned encrypted cult mantra, which was first spouted and inculcated way back when by you-know-who, dat concept-maker?

which reminds me, this subject keeps coming up: da 'Lard': to be or not to be, dat is da question...?

so, make up yer mind already... Prem's cult dilemma

jest da FAQs, ma'am... eiydhiwndy - dose implications, hmmmm....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:57:15 (EDT)
From: Francesca :)
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Everyone knows it's wndy!
Message:
Lots of that der wnd. Hot wnd. Cold wnd when he yells. The whirrled of der Master.

iai = it's all inside
lnrfdiym = leave no room ...
afg = always have faith in god

Maybe he's a Druid???

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:26:00 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: annagraham_goddog@livevil.org
To: Francesca :)
Subject: rtn wtmycch bssgdmkj jsca wyalfiwy
Message:
rtn - remember da gnome,

ndias - never dilly-dally in attending shatsong

wtmycch - without da massa u cain't cum om

bssgdmkj - bogart shri sat rugu dev miragey keeps jays

jsca - jay sat shit andon

wadahamar - waa dada has money

ncnd - no cheat, no deceit

wyalfiwy - what you are lookin fer is within ye

lfotllou - lotus feet of the living lard of the universe

tpok - the possumbillingbody of kolledge

gfootc - get Fakirananad out of the country!!

bttigtpsbr - by the time i get to phoenix she'll be risin'

atpol - a thousand points of light

ugnsmp - you guys need some more planes?

dlm - definitely lunatic mission

ev - electro-voice

lawki - life as we know it

thf - the holy family

akos - as Kabeer once said...

inetbr - it's not easy to be rich!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:45:04 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Francesca and Such
Message:
The Visions catalogue actually described the EIYDHIWNAY as ''hieroglyphs.''

Another quote from ''This Issue of Happiness: An Introduction to Maharaji's message.''

''When you are happy, the issues don't matter. Happy people get on with the business of being happy.''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 22:41:34 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: When You are Happy. . .
Message:
''When you are happy, the issues don't matter. Happy people get on with the business of being happy.''
Oh Pat,

This one is too good. Can you just see it? Tee shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers! Maybe even a song. Wait -- someone beat us to it.

Don't Worry, Be Happy :)

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 16:08:13 (EDT)
From: suchabanana
Email: bananas@dharamsalsa.org
To: Suedoula
Subject: m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.'
Message:
[repost from 9/29]
Subject: m:'When we are happy, the issues don't matter.'

Message:
What about the suffering/happiness of others? What about lil' issues like WTC, terrorism, security/civil liberties, genocide, refugees, oppression, and da survival and pursuit of happiness of billions of people?

The health and well-being and freedom of us all -- as a connected subjectively aware species among the myriad life forms existing within the environment of an orbiting planet in a connected cosmos of relational materialized energy -- does matter.

'In the eternal goodness of the divine nature (as in a miraculous mirror) the essence of all creatures is seen as one.'
-- Meister Eckhart

If my brothers and sisters in this world are suffering or being persecuted, then how can I wallow selfishly in my own bliss? If the rainforests which replenish the oxygen for all of earth's breathing life are decimated, how can I sit in satisfied silence? If the flowing waters which provide earthly life's sustenance are poisoned, how then can I remain oblivious or passively unconcerned?

Nay. Let us be not wasteful, ostentatious, or consumed with the material pleasures and accumulations of the gluttonous lower self. For, regardless of any spirituality, in active cooperative kindness and compassion for others resides a nobility of the human spirit not attained by wistful meditative self-absorption.

To be happy within oneself is good. To remember and respect the plight of others, too, is better. We are all equal in the sight of the universal energy. We are also interconnected. What oppresses or harms another who is less fortunate may one day harm us, too. In point of fact, some issues Do matter.

Peace and lentils,
[ http://www.treeloot.com/play/help/popups/bananabucks_shock.html ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 04:19:26 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: isn't it too silly, Sue?
Message:
The one thing that you would notice if you went back into the cult (the way I did last year after an absence of 17 years) is just how self-centered and childish current PWKs are. They care nothing about anyone other than themselves and Rev Rawat.

I may be an agnostic but I do still believe in christian charity and concern for others. (If I were a christian I would probably join you in your Unitarianism.)

You will also see from the posts here by cultweasels that they really have become very nasty and unloving people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 04, 2001 at 20:37:26 (EDT)
From: Suedoula
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: isn't it too silly, Sue?
Message:
Hi Pat,

You have piqued my interest -- why did you venture back after such a long absence? You can give me a link if you like, especially if this tale's been told and told.

I don't think being a Christian is a requirement for being a Unitarian. I'm going to have to go and look this up now but I think Unitarianism was a reaction away from organized Christianity. At least I can say that for Emerson. Unitarians are a kind of 'write your own' kind of theology. So maybe there is more christianity for some than others in the mix. Each minister brings his or her own to the mix as well and I have to admit that the biggest draw for me is to sit among like minded people in a peaceful spot and listen to our minister who expresses his religion through poetry.

I have been reading the posts of those who still follow their massa and while I agree that some of them can be nasty, most I find simply obtuse. I was wondering if one of the effects of meditation was that one no longer could express one's feelings and opinions in anything but parables.

Best,
Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 04:17:59 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Suedoula
Subject: Hi, Sue
Message:
I pulled away from the cult after seeing that Rawat was a conman in 81. The first time I ever wrote him a letter was to tell him that. Of course he didn't answer. ;)

But I kept up the meditation because I trusted it. I had done it for 2 years before getting K. After 17 years of enjoying it I thought I would check out Rawat's scene again and help him to show it to others. I missed doing service.

Well, I'm glad I went back because, in the back of my mind I had always rationalized away all the stuff about him I did not like. Seeing how many lies he was telling about his past (revisionism) and seeing how secretive and weird the cult was cured me of trying to justify him forever.

One of the things that most bothered me was that half of the premies here were on SSI for mental disabilities and the other half were either social misfits, neurotics or hypocrites.

And none of them seemed to think that part of living the truth meant telling the truth. Most of them were either bare-faced liars or given to fanciful fibs. That's the obtuseness that you find on LG. It isn't the meditation. It's the fact of having to live with a religion that is not a religion and an crazy, irresponsible socalled Master.

I won't go into deatil about this because I have posted long deconstructions of Maharajism in the past. Sorry I don't have links but I do have copies which I could email you if you wanted. Or maybe I'll rewrite them and polish them up and repost them.

The funny thing is that I found that the difference between me and the nutty premies was that, during the 17 years that I was away from premiedom, I had practiced mental health, positive thinking etc which all came from the American Enlightenment or New Thought movement in New England of which Emerson was one of the founding fathers.

I am an agnostic (maybe atheist - I don't know as I'm not interested in being dogmatic one way or the other) christian with a fondness for the New Thought/Science of Mind branch of christianity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:57:23 (EDT)
From: Disappointed
Email: None
To: suchabanana
Subject: Fatman was there in my eiydhiwndy nt
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:58:34 (EDT)
From: Disappointed (corrected()
Email: None
To: Disappointed
Subject: Re: Fatman wasn't there in my eiydhiwndy nt
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:53:51 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: When do we drop the politics???
Message:
I THINK -- although I'm not exactly sure -- we should drop the politics here and keep the forum focussed on its real subject matter. And I'm not just saying this because I feel that disappointed and exasperated with many of your reactions to the Islamic Fundamentalist attack and what it means about the U.S. I THINK I'd be saying this even if I agreed with most of you, although, to be fair, maybe I wouldn't. In any event, though, we should be mindful of the fact that once we settle into being nothing but the Ex-premie Political Club, we might find it surprisingly hard to get back on track vis-a-vis the purpose of the forum.

Obviously, few of us gave a damn about our old cult leader two weeks ago. Maybe we still don't care about him like we did before September 11. But, if that's the case, it still doesn't mean that we should overwhelm this forum with politics, does it? Perhaps the easy solution would be to either move all the political discussion over to AG or start another simple forum just for Ex-Premie America-bashing (just kidding).

What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 14:04:48 (EDT)
From: Vera
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
Yeah, tho my political views are probably different to his, I've been thinking the same as Jim. The political discussion seems to bring out the worst in people - lots of blind anger, litle mutual respect: lots of heat, litte light.

Also the premies may be saying: 'They're all fighting among themselves over there now. Maharaji really knew what he was talking about when he spoke about those rotten vegetables.'

I tend to think unity - hard-won in our case from a shared cult-exit - is more important than political divisions, which are inevitable, and which you can anyway read about anywhere.

Certainly shifting the politics to AG or a dedicated board may be an idea.

My thoughts anyway.

Vera

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:19:35 (EDT)
From: Peter C
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hilarious
Message:
Hey Jim.... miss the bashing.... Uh?

I can hear you thinking.... 'what is going on, before Sept 11 I was the leader of this board, setting the pace, driving it, being adored by the ex-premie masses... and now, who the fuck is this Bin Laden to steal my glory.... I want it to go back to the pre Sept 11. I want and crave my position. Fuck this bin laden business. Who cares!'

... What a pathetic asshole!

PC

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 06:52:09 (EDT)
From: judge
Email: None
To: Peter C
Subject: YOU are
Message:
And you thought you have something to say and that it sounded good. My gosh, premie/lovers: hahahhahahahhahaa. Try ignoramus.

Did you give blood? Do you have blood? Are you still human? I doubt it. Cult members are strange beings and you are the proof.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:37:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Peter C
Subject: Premie, by chance?
Message:
You might not be a premie but then again ... are you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:23:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Peter C
Subject: Very poor taste.
Message:
You must be a real blessing to your mother.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:52:10 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: This ghost ain't Casper
Message:
Probably another shrivelled, misanthropic cultweasel.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:29:59 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It'll play itself out
Message:
Just like the presidential election did. When the topic's no longer interesting, people will let go of it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:02:40 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Soon - before Iose all my friends here
Message:
and am tarred and feathered. Take the major OT stuff to AG.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:56:26 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: freewheeling@bigfoot.com
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Before you go.
Message:
Let me know where your restaurant is located, in case I get to SF and want to hook up with another politically incorrect white supremacist bitch magnet for conversation and some good food. Just email me.

--Scott (Just kidding about the bitch magnet stuff. Well, not really but it's a long story. Let's see...) T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:17:37 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I'll keep in touch via email
Message:
We can plot about old fogies taking over the world. It's a pity they didn't freeze-dry Churchill though. The last Brit pol I liked. Well, he was half-yank.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:10:40 (EDT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Tarred and feathered
Message:
It made me laugh to think of you this way. Would it make a good 'pat du jour?'

Jeez! Okay:

Q: What is the purpose of male nipples?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:19:43 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: male nipples
Message:
You said: ''Q: What is the purpose of male nipples?''

You mean your man hasn't shown you yet?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:05:54 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: To suck on, Silly Girl...
Message:
...but of course you know that!

I'm sick of politics because I feel powerless and words on a forum don't give me any real power.

I'd rather suck on male nipples!

Love,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:35:08 (EDT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Ooohhh!
Message:
I guess that makes them A DECOY FOR OTHER NIPPLES!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 19:21:27 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Amen, ditto and halleluiah
Message:
...but of course you know that!

I'm sick of politics because I feel powerless and words on a forum don't give me any real power.

I'd rather suck on male nipples!

Love,
Cynthia


---

That's not all that male nipples are good for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:29:28 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
I found this site while surfing the net. Looks like it could do with some use.
[ Page Link ]
[ Graphic Link ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:30:35 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I did that wrong - try again here
Message:

[ The War Room ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:11:51 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Drop politics? Why?
Message:
Ever since the forum separated from EPO, this place has been simply somewhere where (mostly) exes and the occasional premie can talk about whatever they want to. Constant focus on the Maha is no longer obligatory.

I think a much healthier atmosphere exists on forums where the topic is not restricted to any one particular subject. They're certainly much more entertaining.

As long as threads which are about the Maha are clearly evident/marked, then those who ONLY want to discuss him and his organisation can simply ignore all the other threads.

I'll put money where my mouth is too, and willingly donate towards the cost of such a forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:56:09 (EDT)
From: Timmi
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
I think a nerve was struck that maybe many people didn't realize, or didn't want to think about. bin Laden is obviously capable of the same kind of mind-takeover that rawat is. And, probably, they use some of the same techniques to do it. (Not techniques of 'knowledge', but of mind control.) This is not meant to keep the political discussion alive, but rather to suggest that the realization of how bin Laden was able to control these people's minds is a very frightening thing to people's whose minds have been controlled by another. I hear rawat say all the time in videos, tapes and broadcasts, words designed to make the premies feel and believe that they cannot survive without him. And from where I am, the premies accept that and believe it. I have heard some of them say, 'Without Maharaji, I couldn't survive.' That is a direct quote. It sickens me to see someone so crippled by another's abuse of and hunger for power and control. Rawat doesn't care at all for these people. Only in as far as they keep him supplied with money and adoration, is he concerned. Beyond that, the premies are nothing to him. If the $25,000,000 residence, the $45,000,000 jet, the $7,000,000 yacht and whatever else he has were to vanish, what would he do? I would issue a challenge to rawat. If what he offers truly will bring happiness and everything else doesn't matter, give all that stuff away. Go get an adequate apartment or house, buy a regular car and fly commercial. According to his own teachings, he should be equally happy in those circumstances. Well, rawat? How about it? Are you telling premies the truth about knowledge? Or is it all a bunch a crap? Most of us know the truth already.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:53:51 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
I think our discussion of politics this last couple of weeks is a big slap in the face to maharaji. As a wrinkle in time, it was whip cream on top of the cake. Not only is maharaji rotten, he just happens to be very insignificant in the larger scope of things.

The politics will die down of their own accord, just like every other time. And juicy stuff about the guru will re-surface, just like every other time. I don't see any thing to worry about.

I also think the occasional periods of political discussion point to just how healthy it is to be free from a spiritual guru.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:08:25 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: bernee@flashmail.com
To: Rick
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
I agree Rick,
And what should be the real subject matter of the forum?
If it is just Maharaji bashing - then isn't the present world situation much more important.
I remember becoming really bored with the subject of knowledge and Maharaji - and still am. I know that this forum provides a good service to those who need support leaving the cult and those who are contemplating joining it, but that all seems like small potatoes next to what's going on.
Also, in this case, doesn't the war against terrorism also means a war against religious fundamentalism and there's shome relation shirley.
And Jim, did you read my last post below regarding the suffering of strangers?
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:22:56 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
Hi berni,
It's very interesing how lively the debate is here. Maybe it just seems that way because I'm finding others that agree with me.

Also, it's interesting how the premies can hardly discuss anything on their own forums. They aren't just unable to think when it comes to maharaji; they seem unable to think about anything.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:58:43 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
Hi Rick,
re:it's interesting how the premies can hardly discuss anything on their own forums. They aren't just unable to think when it comes to maharaji; they seem unable to think about anything.

c'mon now, I can't help finding this amusing but naughty. Some of my best friends are still premies and we were once the same - oh no did I just say that?
I, of course was always the level headed, reasonable premie that never tried to persuade anyone else that I'd found the answer to all life's problems and that if they didn't join me in my view of life, they were missing out on the TRUTH, and they would NEVER FIND TRUE FULFILLMENT because everything was based on the DIVINE LOGIC the secret of which was bestowed by the LIVING PERFECT MASTER..... oops I must have relapsed there for a minute.
O.k. maybe I did prosletize a bit after the odd rabble rousing satsang
But that was then....
cheers
berni

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:01:21 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
berni,
Have you been over to any of the premie forums? They aren't discussing the politics of late, so it's hard not to think the programming doesn't have something to do with it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:21:09 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: thanks, but no thanks
Message:
Hi Rick,
I have had enough of the premie world - since long ago.
Although I have been known to have a quick look on occassion - I just couldn't at the moment.
It's interesting that you say those sites are not as active as the rest of the world. Just about every other forum on the internet from gardening to astro-physics are talking about the horrific event of September 11th - trying and make sense of it and wondering about what is to happen as a result. Everyone, like us, compelled to add their meagre opinions to the debate, no matter how powerless.
Premies are probably too busy meditating - and who could blame them?
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:52:29 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Does anyone know of any other message board
Message:
Where politics is discussed? This could be published here and whoever was interested could visit.
If there was there would probably be a load more info and slants for those who want to carry on. I haven't found anything myself that's as lively as this but I'm not that good at looking.

Peg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:11:31 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: The Democratic Underground
Message:
Peg:

Here's a link to the Democratic Underground. This link is to the main page, and on the home page is a link to their forums (fori?). When you go to their list of forums, the second one down is for sole discussion of the 9/11 attacks.

B.
[ Democratic Underground ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:41:02 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: moldy_warp@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Soon maybe Jim, but before we do - Blair's speech
Message:
I just saw Tony Blair's speech at the Labour Party conference this afternoon.I found it inspiring as he managed to somehow steer a path between views such as yours and views such as mine. He said some things that I think would hearten you, and some stuff that heartened me too.

He gave a very moving account of his meeting with some of the relatives of the dead, and how they did not want revenge, but justice.

He promised to stand by America until the end of the business, telling the Taliban that they would have to hand over Bin Laden or relinquish power. There was some analysis afterwards as to whether or not he was giving them one more chance. Of course, if they don't, it means he is committed to a bringing down the regime.

He spoke movingly about how America had made mistakes in the past, as had Britain, but that was no excuse for an 'I told you so' attitude that a few party members seemed to hold. (though I don't think any forum folk think that way at all BTW)

He talked of the best memorial to the dead being an attempt to find a way out of the mess of inequality and global conflict. Globilisation being a fact, and not a dirty word, we need to use it for good, not be isolationist, but see our interdependence.
He used the analogy of a kaleidescope - Sept. 11th shook up the pieces and before they settle again, we should seize the opportunity to change things for the better, to address the huge inequalities in the world. (something like half a million Afghan children never reach their fifth birthday).

All people are equal ... America stands for freedom, we need to bring freedom from oppression to all the peoples of the world... Muslim people are our brothers and sisters... if Rwanda was happening now, we would have a moral duty to go in there.

Heartening stuff - pro America, and no Us v Them mentality either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:51:41 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Globalization
Message:
Globilisation being a fact, and not a dirty word, we need to use it for good, not be isolationist, but see our interdependence.

Globalization has been and will continue to be used for one thing only.

Profit.

You live in the same dream world Scott does, that we're in the business of exporting our brilliant ideology of freedom and democracy. Our leaders have no such interest at heart. Making the almighty dollar is what globalization is about. And that means exploitation.

Let's be real, okay?

And how come you Brits nver learned how to spell? It's Globalization, with a 'z', not an 's'.

Sheesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:40:03 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: What's that spell?
Message:

G H O T I

FISH!

GH as in rough
O as in women
TI as in attention

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 10:58:36 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Proper English
Message:
Sally Salter, she was a young teacher who taught,
And her friend, Charley Church, was a preacher who praught;
Though his enemies called him a screecher, who scraught.

His heart, when he saw her, kept sinking, and sunk;
And his eye, meeting hers, began winking, and wunk;
While she in her turn, fell to thinking, and thunk.

In secret he wanted to speak, and he spoke,
To seek with his lips what his heart long had soke,
So he managed to let the truth leak, and it loke.

The kiss he was dying to steal, then he stole;
At the feet where he wanted to kneel, then he knole;
And he said, 'I feel better than I ever fole.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 21:54:06 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave }(
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Globalisation, you misunderstand
Message:
Listen to Tony Blair's speech of yesterday before passing such comments. He was talking about globalisation that is already happening and is inevitable. Globalisation in order to rid the world of the terrible atrocities that happen in Africa, Asia and Europe, as well as America.

Condemning globalisation is like condemning alliances between different States in the US. Would it be sensible to keep everything seperate in each state? If the state of NY had not called upon help from all over America since September 11th, would that not have been ridiculous?

Countries throughout the world are becoming less insular, less seperate and less able to define their borders in terms of catastrophes which threaten the world. Global warming, if it exists is a global problem. So too is the threat of terrorism. While only the US has helped with Britain's Northern Irish problem, it does indicate that countries should not be seperate and that global co-operation is the way to go.

You should be pleased - President Gearge W Bush does not agree with Tony Blair's vision of globalisation. Listen to Blair's speech and you'll see why.

By the way, it is globalisation of ex-premies, through the internet, that has caused such a problem for Maharaji.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:03:18 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: Re: Globalisation, you misunderstand
Message:
Listen to Tony Blair's speech of yesterday before passing such comments.

You got a link? I can't find it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 22:20:54 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave }(
Subject: Re: Globalisation, you misunderstand
Message:
Dave:

Good explanation. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:24:09 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Look here Jerry
Message:
Go get your own language .....leave our English alone :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:50:16 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: The difference between USA and UK
Message:
From Sky News:

He (Tony Blair) addressed Dennis Skinner's claims he was riding on George W Bush's ''coat tails'' by calling for a wider effort to ''re-order the world'', including giving Palestinians a ''land of their own'', and critising elements of US foreign policy, such as on climate change.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:20:37 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop terrorism cult discussions?
Message:
For those who can stomach the reality... another perspective:

From: Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)

Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events through the lens of
military history.  I have joined the cast of thousands who have written an
'open letter to Americans.'
Dear friends and fellow Americans                
14 September, 2001
Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's
attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise.
As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a
different perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will be won
or
lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers.

Let me briefly explain.

In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this
act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss
them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was
committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take
this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics,
but
I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made
with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it
was
a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we
may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we
think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the
formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.

These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not
underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the
world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated 'the moral is
to the physical as three is to one.' Patton thought the Frenchman
underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more
important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing - better
said anxious -- to give their lives for their cause.

How committed are we America? And for how long?

In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack
demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught
to
most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and
surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been
trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was
not
a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military
competence to be displayed in the battle to come.

This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in
the
good ol' U.S. of A.

These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must
not
fear them. In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the
world's only 'superpower' (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this
fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare
us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or
seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much

better than the enemy, and we have some excellent 'counter-terrorist'
organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield
seizures, or the occasional 'body snatch,' (which may come in handy). We
will
be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any
indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man.
Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already
deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the
lives of everyday citizens. Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a
search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public
must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked
out.

For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself

and presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted
because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This
will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear 'centers of gravity' to
strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will
certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect
metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves
aboard the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it will be
won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by
software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.

Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our
adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to
fight
a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American
public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe
in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally
acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only
look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap 
(also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America
without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched
to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat
upon less than three years later when they returned. Although we hope that
Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the
concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks,
but! also less audacious 'sand in the gears' tactics, ranging from livestock

infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities.

These attacks are designed to hit us in our 'comfort zone' forcing the
average American to 'pay more and play less' and eventually eroding our
resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will
of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy
has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn.

He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right,
but
if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the
most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that
there is a 'remarkable trinity of war' that is composed of the
(1) will of the people,
(2) the political leadership of the government, and
(3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in
that
order.
Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not
just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or
Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to

win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few
more
hits, learn from our! mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do
that, we will eventually prevail.

Everyone I've talked to In the past few days has shared a common
frustration,
saying in one form or another 'I just wish I could do something!' You are
already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your
President and military, and the outcome is certain.

If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain.

God Bless America

Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:51:41 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: such
Subject: Re: When do we drop terrorism cult discussions?
Message:
Such:

I'm not sure I agree that el Quaeda are as formidable as he suggests, but agree with the rest of it. According to the testemony of the Physician who was held as a material witness (and completely cleared) some of the people held as terrorists with him (those two who were nabbed on the Amtrak in Texas) were doing a lot of crying and whining. Cult thinking creates this veneer of magical thinking that acts as a buffer from the real world, but when the buffer is removed the seeming toughness evaporates. And it's not the big things but the minor inconveniences that erode that veneer, because the cult is all... big picture. What do you think?

--Scott
[ Scott T. ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 21:33:41 (EDT)
From: such
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: we'll see how it plays out [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:16:59 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
Jim:

There's a natural connection between the two topics, though we don't seem inclined to move in that direction. Many of the exes and premies seem to see this as a political issue motivated by genuine concerns about US objectives and practices. I think that's preposterous, but as you say it's clearly off topic anyway. The basic issue is the extent to which cultic practices are behind the actions, and the role that plays in turning common resentments, frusrations and envies into murderous and suicidal actions.

I submit that we know more about this than the general public, but not really enough to be comfortable with the topic. Anyway, I've done about all I indend to do in addressing what I feel are ill-informed and ill-considered opinions. I think I can be more effective using my skills and knowledge elsewhere, and I have a living to make. So, I think along with Pat I'm leaving the field to Rick, Dermot and the legion of ghost personalities claiming personal offenses based on vague disinformation. I just want to warn them about that large receptacle waiting for 'history's discarded lies.' They bear at least some responsibility for their own marginalization.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 16:42:15 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: One last graceless dig huh, Scott ??
Message:
Hard to resist though I suppose from a man of stature such as your good self. After all, you've skills and expertise sorley needed in more exalted company.

I respected those of you who held opposite views and respected your right to hold them. I also interpreted Jims post as a concilliatory gesture. Sort of like, yeah we've split camp here but regardless of politics we have other stuff in common. Notwithstanding his usual, ultimately inoffensive jibe about always being right.

Not so for you though Scott huh?

I read you wrong, I guess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:31:13 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: We're experts in grace now are we?
Message:
Dermot:

Jim, concilliatory? Ohhkaay. So, your claim is that the majority opinion on the forum *isn't* marginal in the larger society, and they aren't placing the values they link to it in the same marginal basket? Anti-terrorism, anti-racism, anti-war all wound up in the same tight insightful little ball, right? Well, if you say so.

And I do think I can do more elsewhere. As does Pat, apparently. We sure aren't doing much here. You seem to think Vera's got a point even though she/he/it has been openly manipulative and deliberately misleading (as well as wildly inaccurate), so I figure that if her little game isn't transparent enough for you I'm just wasting time. I don't know what else to think. Further debate sure isn't getting *us* anywhere. On the other hand Jim's phenomenal political sensitivity has always been lurking there, just under the surface. I'm really gratified to see that it's finally broken free and has begun to flower.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 17:35:17 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Okay Prig, drop it [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 18:26:06 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: I beg your pardon?
Message:
You propose that the US had some role to play in provoking the deaths of 7,000 people; claim it was just some innocuous error in 'manners' equivalent to using a butter knife to slice the bread, and then chide me for being 'graceless' when I figure you and your 'friends' to be rigid and unyielding in their largely unsubstantiated views. I think you're more open, and probably more graceful, than Rick and some of the others so I'll apologize for including you with them. And I'll drop it, but I'm not likely to forget it. In my estimation you still owe an apology or two yourself, and not over some slight miscalculation in manners.

-Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:04:38 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: He said 'Prig'
Message:
It's a simple enough point, even for a cultist.

If I walk alone through a tough neighbourhood at night laden with jewels and gold and I am mugged, the fact that I stupidly advertised my wealth and vulnerability does not justify a robbery against me.

If my friends say to me 'You should have hidden your gold chains, then perhaps you would not have been attacked.' that does not justify the robbery either.

If they say 'There are people in that neighbourhood who have been beaten savagely by their parents and siblings. They were not helped by their schools and cannot find work. Now they are ignorant and violent, strung out on crack, and desparate for cash. Why did you walk alone at night through those streets, festooned with your wealth?'

If they say that, should I then reply 'how dare you justify the attack. Nothing can justify a mugging!'


---

---

---
--

That's not supposed to be a metaphore or analogy for recent events. It is merely to make a very obvious point. To understand does not mean to justify.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:19:07 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Thanks John
Message:
I really had no idea what the word meant until you defined it. So just to clarify, when you say that the attack on the WTC was *motivated* by our selfish godless pursuit of wealth you're not *justifying* the attack, just *understanding* it. Oh, I see. My mistake.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:09:24 (EDT)
From: magiclara
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: When do we drop the politics?
Message:
I agree totally. I think it was helpful following the attack but I am not sure it is now. If people want to carry on discussing politics perhaps there could be another forum with an appropriate title. As this is called Ex premie forum I suspect Rawat, EV and LG forum participants must be really pleased to see that maha is not being discussed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:19:47 (EDT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: magiclara
Subject: I'M FOR MAHARAJI
Message:
Get your attention?

Let's talk about Maharaji. I wonder if he donated any money to anything.

Magiclara, you're right about the EV monitors, they've probably been slacking off, too!

And Jim, I think the current political situation has been talked to death here. New stuff will happen probably, but I'm tired of reading it. I'm rationing my intake of pundit lately.

Anyway. Any gossip about Maharaji? If he does go to Amaroo this December for his birthday, he'll probably start a new tunnel project that leads into his underground residence...AND he likes hot weather.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 15:49:54 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: the trouble is- smug premies .
Message:
the world events have the premies in deep denial of their co-dependance on jumanji. a 'nothing to do with me' attitude which smugly implies a escape route via the Speaker.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:24:06 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Re: the trouble is- smug premies .
Message:
You're right, Zelda ... it's deadsville over at Life's-not-Great- until-we-receve-rawat's-grace-to-ignore-reality-again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:34:43 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: All
Subject: From al Quada moles
Message:
This is from the LA Times, Sept 24 2001

THE TERROR NETWORK

Life Inside Al Qaeda: A Destructive Devotion
By MARK FINEMAN and STEPHEN BRAUN
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

September 24 2001

NEW YORK -- The soldiers of Al Qaeda move seamlessly from nation to nation, continent to continent, changing names, passports, entire identities time and again.

Osama bin Laden's men shed their devout sacraments to elude detection, shaving beards in secular lands and carrying duty-free cigarettes and cologne to throw profiling border agents off the scent.

Some work in dead-end covers as fishermen, grocers or burger flippers, while others carry suitcases bulging with down payments for Kalashnikov rifles, night scopes, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, enriched weapons-grade uranium. Their commitment is unyielding. They film their own suicide videos before they hop into Toyota pickup trucks loaded with hundreds of pounds of TNT, turn on audio cassettes chanting praise to those who will die for the cause, and blow themselves to bits to weaken the social foundation of their worst enemy: the United States.

The profile of Al Qaeda, Arabic for 'the Base,' unreels in recorded testimony tucked away in the federal courthouse here in lower Manhattan. Largely unnoticed by the public at the time, a trial that ended in May generated insights into the terrorist organization that ultimately would be linked to the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

A jury found four Al Qaeda members guilty of staging the August 1998 suicide bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people.

Bin Laden himself was charged in the 308-count indictment as the leader of the conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals in Africa and for exhorting his Al Qaeda followers to murder. A $5-million reward was offered for information leading to his arrest.

The Al Qaeda depicted in the 76-day trial is capable of relentless, selfless efficiency and, at the same time, amateurish dysfunction. The same secret organization that succeeded in demolishing two embassies in two different lands almost simultaneously was also prone to petty feuds and embezzlement, capable of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in scams and bad business decisions.

But it also is an Al Qaeda of mind-boggling commitment.

'What makes his group different from [covert groups] we've seen before--the Russian and German spying operations in the Cold War, the killers in Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah--is that so many of them are willing to die,' said Robert M. Bryant, former deputy director of the FBI.

For David P. Baugh, who defended Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali--a would-be suicide bomber who survived the embassy blast in Nairobi, Kenya--the testimony is woven with clues to some of America's most asked questions today.

'The issue is: Why is this happening? Why do they hate us?' Baugh said in an interview last week.

Some answers came through testimony about Al-'Owhali, a young Saudi who told an FBI interrogator why he so wished to die for Al Qaeda. Other answers came from Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, a Sudanese nearly twice the age of the Saudi. Al-Fadl had defected from Al Qaeda with many secrets. His testimony formed an operative flow chart of Al Qaeda for U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The older man was well-acquainted with Al Qaeda's inner roots; the younger man stood as testimony to its bitter fruit.

Dubbed 'Confidential Source One'

Al-Fadl knows more about Al Qaeda than most. He was there when the group was formed in 1989 by Bin Laden and a group of like-minded moujahedeen freedom fighters, the CIA-backed Islamic guerrillas who ground down the Soviet army in Afghanistan and drove it into retreat.

At age 38, Al-Fadl ultimately would give U.S. intelligence agents and prosecutors their first--and perhaps best--blueprint of Al Qaeda: its origins, its structure, its modus operandi and its petty human failings.

Al-Fadl offered little evidence against the defendants in the embassy bombing trial. His testimony was aimed squarely at Bin Laden, buttressed by similar accounts by two other Al Qaeda defectors and by terror mission documents left on computer disks seized by FBI agents in Nairobi after the blasts.

For America, Al-Fadl was a gem, a secret federal witness known for five years only as CS-1, 'Confidential Source One.'

When he was finally unveiled, tanned and wearing an Islamic skullcap on the witness stand in the embassy bombing trial in February, Judge Leonard Sand granted prosecutors' requests that courtroom artists not sketch him. Federal marshals checked the artists' bags each day before they left to make sure.

Al-Fadl sketched his own early life as that of a drifter. From his small hometown of Ruffa in Sudan, he went to Saudi Arabia. He was deported in 1981 after he was arrested for smoking marijuana. He headed to Atlanta, North Carolina then Brooklyn, where he worked as a grocer.

But in New York, he found religion at the Farouq Mosque, where Emir Mustafa Shalabi was urging all Muslims--young, strong, male and able--to head to Afghanistan and fight the Soviet infidels who had invaded in 1979. It was a holy call to arms that would become Bin Laden's fertile recruiting ground.

'We have to make jihad out of them. . . . You have to follow the rule of the emir,' Al-Fadl recalled.

The siren song echoed in mosques around the globe. Fellow Muslims were under attack. Islam was perceived in danger.

So, like thousands of others in the years to come, Al-Fadl left in 1988 for Peshawar, the dusty and destitute Pakistani border town that was home to hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees. It was the launch pad for the jihad, or holy war.

There, at gritty guerrilla training centers that often doubled as refugee camps, he learned to fire a Russian-made Kalashnikov rifle, to hit helicopters with rocket-propelled grenades and to slip in and out of identities. His friends there knew him only as 'the Sudanese.'

As the days passed, Al-Fadl told the jury, as his fervor was honed, he came to 'follow the rule' of a new emir.

Al-Fadl said he met often with Bin Laden, the ascetic Saudi exile, in Peshawar's cramped guest house chambers and gardens. Often, they spoke in veiled terms about the overarching reach of jihad.

It was in 1989, Al-Fadl recalled, in an explosives-training camp in the battle-scarred Afghan town of Khost, that he learned of Al Qaeda's birth. The group's 'general emir' was Bin Laden. And when asked whether he wanted to be one of the founding members, Al-Fadl readily agreed.

He was handed a document by an Al Qaeda commander. 'I read it,' Al-Fadl testified, 'and after that, I swear in front of him and I sign the papers.'

It was an oath of allegiance to Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Called the bayat, the basic and once-secret rite of Al Qaeda endures through today. It is not unlike the omerta oath taken by members of the Mafia, which President Bush has compared to Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden, whose father bequeathed to him part of a corporate empire in Saudi Arabia, structured 'the Base' as a cost- and personnel-efficient terrorist conglomerate.

At the top, Al-Fadl explained, is the 'shura council,' veteran clerics and military leaders from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and other nations--all freedom fighters who have proved themselves in jihad.

The council is divided into four committees, Al-Fadl said. A military group is headed by field commanders. There's a group of mullahs and religious clerics who mesh Islam with Bin Laden's jihad battle plan. There's even a media group that handles Al Qaeda's public relations. Al-Fadl said he became a key player in the fourth committee: finance, the trusted aides who would buy farms and other businesses to give cover for Bin Laden's terror operations.

As for recruits to this new holy army, Al-Fadl said, the brutality of the Soviet occupation, the Persian Gulf War's Muslim casualties and oppressive Arab and African regimes took care of that.

Along with their weapons training, they learned to cluster in small cells, operate on scant bits of command information, hew to the discipline of silence. And, always, Al Qaeda's moles followed Bin Laden's exhortation 'to be patient.'

Thousands of motivated, rootless young Muslims from Manila to Mecca, Jakarta to Jidda, Bosnia to Brooklyn flocked to Al Qaeda's core. And as the bayats stacked up, Bin Laden's commanders enforced a strict regimen: All recruits would live furtively, slip in and out of their enemy's lands like ghosts.

'You need to be a normal person,' Al-Fadl was told by one commander. 'If you go with beard and Islamic dress, the intelligence officer [in target countries] . . . want to ask a lot of questions.'

Leave the Koran and prayer books behind, Al Qaeda's men were told. On a trip to Egypt, Al-Fadl got the standard line from his commander, Abu Talal al Masry: Buy cologne and cigarettes.

'He [would] say if somebody in customs' sees the cologne and cigarettes, 'he is not going to think you in Islamic group or anything like,' Al-Fadl testified. The cologne, he added, would make them think 'I like smelling' good for women.

Al Qaeda also began acquiring ventures, mimicking Western corporations. Al-Fadl bought farms, one for $250,000 to grow sesame, peanuts and corn in the Sudanese countryside. He sent the crops to Afghanistan in planes that returned with British and American-made night goggles, rifle scopes and other advanced military gear, he said.

The origin of the money was unclear. Some came from Bin Laden's personal bank account in Khartoum, Sudan, Al-Fadl testified. Other Al Qaeda leaders had accounts in banks in Malaysia, Hong Kong and Dubai, and one patronized Barclays Bank in London. There were hundreds of thousands in donations to the jihad too, from the Arab world--religious corporate sheiks and fundamentalist governments.

Bin Laden told Al-Fadl: 'Our agenda is bigger than business.' The companies were fronts for the terror cells and cash cows for future operations. Al-Fadl was given several units to run.

Soon, the jihad found its natural enemy--America's huge Gulf War military presence in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden and his clerics expanded their target list in 1992 as the U.S. sent peacekeeping troops to Somalia. All Americans, even civilians, were now at risk. Jihad warriors no longer 'had to worry' about distinctions, one cleric told Al-Fadl. Bin Laden was even blunter a few days later. 'The snake is America,' he told Al-Fadl and other disciples, 'and we have to stop them. We have to cut the head of the snake.'

Bin Laden's commanders were already ordering arms: Stinger-missile shipments. Anti-tank rockets. A plane.

Cash flowed freely for bigger and bigger equipment. Bin Laden acquired an $80,000 satellite phone from Germany--later junked when he discovered that it was being monitored by U.S. agents. And he entrusted an Egyptian, who had trained at a Texas flight school, with $210,000 to buy a small corporate jet. Bin Laden was ebullient with the purchase until the jet fell into disrepair and crashed on a Khartoum runway.

In 1993, Al-Fadl said, a Bin Laden lieutenant told him to check out a deal to buy weapons-grade uranium offered by a former Sudanese government minister.

When Al-Fadl ultimately traded $1.5 million for a 'heavy, shielded cylinder' purportedly containing the deadly ore, he was given a $10,000 bonus in cash, he said, adding that he had no clue whether the cylinder actually contained uranium--or whether the deal even went through.

But the bonus still wasn't enough for holy warriors like Al-Fadl, who complained about his Al Qaeda salary of $500 a month. So, several years later, he stole $110,000 from Bin Laden's accounts. When he was caught, Bin Laden seemed understanding at first.

Then 'The Director' hardened.

'He say, 'I can't, I can't forgive you until you give all the money,' ' Al-Fadl recalled, 'and the meeting end like that.'

So did Al-Fadl's Al Qaeda career.

He went to the visa office of an unidentified U.S. embassy in mid-1996, patiently explaining that he was among Al Qaeda's founders and feared Bin Laden's wrath. He was soon in the protective hands of American intelligence.

Portrait of Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber

That same year, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali's career as an Al Qaeda suicide bomber began.

It was in the mid-1990s that the young, zealous Al-'Owhali stepped foot in the Khaldan camp, the first in a series of progressively advanced Al Qaeda training facilities that he would attend in Afghanistan's Hindu Kush mountains and barren desert plains.

Before he was done, according to the FBI agent who debriefed him, Al-'Owhali would become a trusted member of the Third Martyr Barracks, First Squad of the El Bara bin Malik Division of the Army of Liberating the Islamic Holy Lands.

In short, he was on his way to paradise in the name of Allah, assigned to slip into the front seat of the Toyota truck that blew up the embassy in Nairobi.

Prosecutor Michael Garcia said Al-'Owhali 'was young, he was wealthy, he was educated. He was 21 years old. Not a sheltered 21, but an educated and hardened 21.' Al-'Owhali did not testify during the New York trial. But FBI agent Stephen Gaudin explained from the witness stand how Al-'Owhali got that way.

Gaudin had spent four straight days interviewing Al-'Owhali at the criminal investigations division of the Kenyan police in Nairobi after the young man signed an agreement waiving his rights. Al-'Owhali's only condition before he 'told his whole story' to Gaudin was that he be tried in the U.S. 'to face his enemy.'

Al-'Owhali's story is a portrait of an Al Qaeda suicide bomber.

The scion of a prominent Saudi family, Al-'Owhali was born in Liverpool, England, and moved to his parents' homeland as a boy. There, he was steeped in devout Islam, attending a religious university in Riyadh. He read books about Muslim martyrs and listened to the speeches of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted of plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

When Al-'Owhali arrived at the Khaldan camp, he was ready to fight, he told Gaudin.

Basic training lasted just a month: light weapons, demolition, communications, religious ideology. Al-'Owhali told Gaudin he excelled and was given an audience with Bin Laden, who 'impressed on them the need to fight the Americans and cast them out of the Arabian Peninsula.'

Al-'Owhali then graduated to the jihad camp for training in intelligence, information management, kidnappings and hijackings, Gaudin said, adding that the young man 'explained to me that Al Qaeda is not a particular place, but it's a group, and it stands for the base of God's support, and that Bin Laden is in overall charge of Al Qaeda.'

Al Qaeda's top-tier camp, which accepted Al-'Owhali only after he battled bravely for months alongside the Taliban for control of Kabul, the Afghan capital, was to provide an advanced degree in the equivalent of terrorist management.

Gaudin said Al-'Owhali called it 'the operation and management of cell training,' where he learned video skills for target surveys, advanced communications and the detailed, four-tiered structure of Al Qaeda's terror cells: intelligence, administration, planning and execution.

At one point during his final training, Al-'Owhali told Gaudin, one of his superiors said, 'There are targets in the U.S. that we could hit, but things are not ready yet, we don't have everything prepared yet.

'First we must . . . have many attacks outside the United States, and this will weaken the U.S. and make way for our ability to strike within the U.S.'

Gaudin testified: 'At the end of this training, he had met with Mr. Bin Laden several times and had expressed to him interest in missions that he would like to do, and Mr. Bin Laden told him that, take your time. Your mission will come.'

Soon, Al-'Owhali was ordered to shave his beard and go to Yemen. He was given a passport identifying him as an Iraqi, Abdul Ali Latif, Gaudin said.

Al-'Owhali told Gaudin he spent about two months living with other Al Qaeda camp graduates in the Red Sea nation. With the help of well-established Al Qaeda operatives there, he got a Yemeni passport with yet another identity: Khalid Salim Saleh bin Rashid.

Al-'Owhali was then ordered to Pakistan, where a senior Al Qaeda operative told him 'that the mission was going to be a martyrdom operation that would result in Al-'Owhali's own death; that there was going to be . . . a target against the United States where Al-'Owhali would be assisting in driving a truck full of explosives,' Gaudin testified. The target: 'somewhere in East Africa.'

'He was never specifically told that this mission was Osama bin Laden's mission, but he always believed it to be so,' Gaudin added. 'The way things work is that Osama bin Laden, it's not likely that he would take direct credit for attacks like this.'

Finally, Al-'Owhali was told to make a martyrdom video that 'would be played upon the successful completion of his mission,' Gaudin said.

But in the end, Al-'Owhali didn't die.

The reason, his attorney and Islamic scholars say, is an important nuance in understanding Al Qaeda.

His precise mission was to ride in the passenger seat of the bomb truck. His partner--a close and equally committed friend from the Taliban wars named Azzam--was to drive. At the embassy gate, Al-'Owhali was to hop out, throw stun grenades at the embassy's entrance guard, lift the gate for the truck to pass and then blow up with it. Al-'Owhali threw the grenades. The gate went up. The bomb blew, along with Azzam, and Al-'Owhali was left with only cuts and bruises.

He went to the hospital instead of paradise, later explaining to Gaudin that 'to die after your mission had already been complete . . . is not martyrdom. It's suicide,' which is a taboo in Islam.

But it was only at the end of Gaudin's week of exhausting interviews with Al-'Owhali that the agent asked him what so many Americans are groping to understand now.

'What would it take for this fighting to stop, you know, how can we prevent this? How can we end this?' Gaudin said he asked Al-'Owhali.

What Gaudin got was boilerplate Al Qaeda: Stop supporting Israel; pull all U.S. forces out of the Arabian Peninsula; and stop 'preventing Muslims from instituting sharia [Islamic law] worldwide.'

It's unclear today whether Al-'Owhali's views have changed. The 12-member jury convicted him and three other Al Qaeda members in the bombings. It decided not to order the death penalty after his lawyer Baugh argued that Al-'Owhali was in a rage toward America for its support for Israel, its forces in Saudi Arabia, its war on Iraq and the punishing sanctions against that country. Ten of the jurors said they did so because they didn't want Al-'Owhali to become a martyr who would inspire future bloodshed.

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed 13 days ago, Al-'Owhali and nearly a dozen others charged in the embassy case were in their cells on the 10th floor of the Metropolitan Correctional Center, just six blocks away.
[ al Quaeda article ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 13:10:40 (EDT)
From: The Lord formerly known as gerry
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Oh Woe unto your post, Francesca...
Message:
Verily it shall be first to be smitten and casteth into the Lake of Fire. For it is Written below and Spaken again above that this is the House of Ex-Prem.



Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements


All Rights Reserved

Return to Index -:- Top of Index