[FairfieldLife] Amma AIMS Hospital Donation Racket?
POSTED THIS WEEK ON EX-AMMA WEBSITE ABOUT AMMA'S INDIAN HOSPITAL, AIMS (The nickname is short for Amrita something or other): AIMS Hospital Organ Donation Racket? This article can be found at cultofthehuggingsaint.com Shaji said... Karen: I am extremely disturbed by what I read. No parent should have to go through such a nightmare. I hope you are successful in convincing your daughter to leave this cult. Recently, I had an experience which was much worse. This god woman runs a hospital in Kochi in India which is yet another scam. The following is a brief description of the course of events ... My dad walked in for a routine health check up on July 7,2007 at their health clinic and ended up being convinced by their so called experts that he had blocked arteries. The cult methodically isolated my parents from myself and my sister who lives in Chicago and much against our wishes my dad went in for an angiogram and they screwed it up royally causing his kidneys to go in to a shock. A routine test which nearly proved fatal in his case. The doctor did not perform a check to see whether he was allergic to the dye used in the test. They covered this up and kept telling my mother that it was his age (which was 70 by the way). After he recovered from this my Dad wanted to get out of there, but they would not release him citing his purported heart condition. Over the next week and half they systematically brainwashed my mother into getting him to undergo the angioplasty on August 2, 2007. His operation was scheduled for 2 AM in the morning on Aug 2. At 10 PM in the night on Aug 5, my mother was urgently called in to the administrator's office to discuss my dad's condition. She is told he has a leaky valve and they need a security deposit from her for $3500 to arrange for the valve and a triple bypass. She was in no state to make an informed decision, so she handed them the money. The operation was completed as per schedule and then the surgeon told her that everything was 'o.k.' and that my dad should be awake in the next 24 to 48 hrs. She asked him about the valve, and the surgeon expressed surprise and said there was nothing wrong with his valves, and went on state that my dad had 20%, 30% and 15% blockage in 3 arteries which did not actually merit a bypass. An angioplasty would have sufficed, but they performed a bypass anyway. My mother then confronted him with the security deposit bill she was charged for the heart valve replacement and the surgeon got irritated and told her to pick up the matter with the hospital accounts department in the morning. She went their first thing in the morning and was told that they figured out the error but she would not get the refund as it had been donated to the amrita hospital trust which performs free surgery for needy patients. My mother says it is a noble cause but does agree the manner in which the donation was made on her behalf and that too by deceit. They told her they will look into it once the final bill is settled. In the meanwhile my dad's condition worsened and he died due to post surgical complications. My sister and i were enroute to Kochi from San Jose and Chicago respectively when the death occured. My sister had a GSM phone with her so she got the news while in transit in Gatwick airport, so she immediately starting pressing the hospital for a post mortem. She was told it would be done. They embalmed the body instead of performing the postportem. My sister expressed dismay that the post mortem was conveniently skipped. I was oblivious of all this since i was boarding a flight out of Singapore while all of this transpired. My sister wanted to visually inspect the body but found it impossible since the whole body was covered in a tape, like a mummy. Due to Hindu religious beliefs she could not convince our family members to undo the covering. My sister was alerted by a colleague of hers at Smalley Bearings in Chicago about organ donation racket that was associated with this cult's hospital. Her colleague wanted her to visually inspect his back for any signs of kidney removal. We have been trying to uncover what actually transpired which sent a man visiting a health clinic to his death. At every step of the way we are continuously being stonewalled by this cult and the hospital. The hospital staff is totally uncooperative. We are yet to see the refund for the heart valve which was never replaced. We did not even get a breakdown of the procedures done and none of the medical records have been made available to either to us till date. We are planning to take legal action here in California and Illinois since Amrita hospital trust has an arm here in Pleasanton California. Again my sympathies are with you and sincerely hope that you get your daughter back soon where she belongs. I know how difficult it is to cope with a loved one's loss. Sincerely, S. R. Nathan San Jose, California
[FairfieldLife] The forbidden word/ was Facts Evidence
Angela wrote: Conspiracies are nothing special, but are an ordinary part of every day politics. And making the term conspiracy taboo is without a doubt a conspiracy in collusion with the spin meisters and opinion fabricators of the world in the interest of all conspirators and against all free and inquiring spirits. Bronte writes: It's mind-boggling that people who know our leaders are capable of every other type of atrocity balk at the prospect that the same people could be capable of conspiracy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Account of Financial Fraud and Danger
Archer, YOU post this information to your Amma devotees' website if you find these allegations disturbing. YOU do the research and hash it out, since you are the one involved in this cult, not me. It's not my job to convince you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These accusations are disturbing if true, but I'm not in a position to rebut them. As I said, I don't have first-hand experience of anything going on in India, and my experience with Amma in the US has been positive and uplifting. I suggest again that you post such things to HYPERLINK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ammachi_free_speech_zonehttp://group s.yahoo. com/group/ammachi_free_speech_zone, where you might get some informed responses, pro and con. But of course, your forgone conclusion is that gurus and Indian spirituality in general are bad, so maybe it suits you better to post to sites where no one will challenge what you say. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1095 - Release Date: 10/26/2007 7:54 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hi, Hughes
Hughes wrote: I hope you read the Blind Watchmaker it changed my life in that it opened my eyes to something thats going on in the world that people think they know about but don't really. It's not about conspiracies or anything like that, it's simply a book about how life got to be so complicated without any help, it's both awesome and humbling. I recommend it because it's an object lesson in how to marshall evidence, construct an argument and demonstrate when your opponents are wrong and why. Mr Icke could do with reading it as it grounds you in respect for the process of science as opposed to wild theorising. It makes you see the world differently. Bronte writes: I think being scientific is so important in research of any kind: documentation is essential. When I read he said she said, I get disgusted. That is no more than gossip. Nothing to build knowledge on. I do, however, find Icke documenting most (not all) of his information. I've actually written him complaining that he ought to do it more, but like most of us -- me included -- he gets carried away by his feelings sometimes and goes on little tirades. Definitely not scientific, and you are good to call us all on it when we do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Account of Financial Fraud and Danger
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some other tidbits from my friend. In case you're losing track of the relevance of this, Aniruddhan is the fellow who wrote the thing Bronte posted. Rick, I AM losing track. I posted a number of things, not just one, so which piece are you referring to? Who was the Joint Secretary in charge of accounts -- are you saying now that guy was only a consultant, never Amma's joint secretary as claimed? Or are we talking about two different people? It would be helpful, in referencing an item, if your friends and you would quote from it so the readers can identify which article they're referring to. There is more material coming in from the website about Amma's AIMS hospital. I'll forward one of the pieces. Dear MH, Thanks for the great reply. Mind if I share it without revealing your identity? Yes, I, too, thought that Aniruddhan is creating future hell for himself. My heart tells me not to buy into the stuff he's saying. Much love, J --- MHC wrote: J--Well I did find it mildly interesting in the same way I find gosip mildy interesting--it passes the time. Perhaps all the dirt is true, I don't know. Many people look for things to be logical and make sense and I don't do that around Mother anymore if I ever did. I''ve cast my lot with her and If she turns out to be a false Messiah or whatever, well, I guess I'll go down with the ship. And if she turns out to be the real thing as I am convinced beyond any shodow of a doubt that she is, well, she'd better take me with her in that case too. I'm stuck on Master's words: Loyatly is the highest virtue. Poor Anniruddin. J wrote:Dear MH, I'm forwarding this to you because the post in question (the SRF walrus site is actually an anti-SRF board, no doubt handled by Ananda.) concerns our old friend Aniruddhan. In fact, from the flawless prose, the use of a pseudonym, etc. I think the poster is probably none other than he, representing himself as only knowing the guy who was doing consulting. (I thought it was Donna doing the actual consulting.) I know Aniruddhan always loved peudonyms and often used them on e-mails he sent me. Love, J No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Account of Financial Fraud and Danger
Rick wrote: Yeah, I posted that in the spirit of full disclosure, not because I thought it would strengthen my case. I'm not the blind loyalty type. Bronte writes: Archer, if you really hold the attitude you expressed in your long post to Nabloss today, and here, you won't be misled for long. Just as you saw through the illusions of TM eventually. Good for you for examining these things. The answers are out there. Check out the archives on that ex-amma website, and you will get reams of first-person accounts from long-term devotees, many of whom served in the Indian ashram for years and years before leaving. Don't be afraid of researching this, of finding out more truth. It can only lead you to still better things.
[FairfieldLife] To Nabby re: Archer / Re: Another Account of Financial Fraud and Danger
Nabloss wrote to Archer: You are trying to justify that you are spreading rumours. Wether they are true or false, contentwise, are of no importance. At least to me. The stuff you are spreading about MMy could be true or not. It is of no importance for me if it is true, as I have stated before. It does not diminish his positive influence on my life or the influence he has had and continue to have on the life of this planet. Bronte writes: Nabloss, I too have had positive influences on my life on account of Maharishi. I have also had negative ones, but I treasure the positive. There's no denying, in my mind, that MMY contributed good to my life. At the same time, I personally know one woman who had a sexual encounter with him -- she told me the story. She is a person outside the TM movement who actually likes Maharishi and sees no problems with his having been sexual. I also know another woman, whose name is highly regarded within the TM movement, who confided in Rick about a very explicit sexual invitation MMY made to her on more than one occasion. She insisted that Rick keep it confidential. This is not a rumor he subscribes to, but his firsthand experience of a firsthand account. I know this same woman shared a troubling story that bordered on sexual with my old friend Sharon Ballyntine, a TM governor who died some years back. Sharon told me that the anonymous person shared with her that when she went in to see MMY privately, he would always put his head in her lap. Again, this undisclosed person is a very high-ranking TMer, whose name is as deeply written into TM movement history as Larry Domash or Keith Wallace. She's almost that famous. If Rick says she told him this, I believe him, and I believe Sharon who told me the troubling head-in-the-lap part of it 23 years ago. Also, there is Conny Larson, who you may remember as one of MMY's skin boys from Sweden. Conny is a personal friend of Rick's, as Rick was not in the inner circle but right on the fringe, a member of International Staff for many years. Conny wrote an autobiography recently, and he sent a copy of it to me as he was looking for an American editor. In it he tells of female disciples slipping into MMY's quarters at late hours of the night, coming out dissheveled much later, and the knowledge among the skin boys that sex was going on. Mostly the book is about Conny's experiences some time later as a disciple of Sai Baba, who sexually molested him time and time again, as he did many young, blonde, male disciples. Conny tells this humiliating story in an effort to bring out the truth, and the book has already been published and well-received in Sweden. In the story, four ashramites confront Sai Baba about the sex, are asked to stay in the room for a few minutes, get locked in, and later are found murdered. There is a lot of funny stuff going on with these gurus, and that does NOT mean there are not genuine practitioners of meditation, like yourself, who are focusing on the good they've learned and putting it to good use. Your love and loyalty are admirable. Your gratitude is beautiful. MMY deserves much of it. He gave us so many good things. But there is another side to the story that hasn't been seen, and people who follow the gurus have a right to know it. Then they can do with that knowledge what they choose. Where I stand on these matters is this: deep within us all is a pure field of eternity, and we are eternal individual spirits that live and breathe within That. We are unbounded at our core, the universe is our nature, and our purpose here is to express divine freedom, love, creativity and joy. Some teachers have appeared who pointed us the way toward connecting with that nature, so real but hidden by thoughts. Along the way of our learning, so many teachers took advantage of us. But the truth about our nature is the same and never can be taken away, although it can be and has been twisted and manipulated, to serve the purposes of others. I'll never throw out the baby with the bath water. I'm so glad and grateful to know who I am. But I will do everything in my power to expose the behavior of spiritual teachers who take the sincere spiritual aspirations of the innocent and use them to serve their selfish purposes. It confuses the real meaning of spirituality, and of self-realization. Nabloss wrote to Archer: The reason I labelled you white trash is because you are thriving in that gossip. Gossip without substance because your source does not want to talk. Bronte writes: Archer gossips in the sense that he shares little snippets from people's past, like what band someone belonged to, and he usually cruises on the surface of discussions in FFL instead of going deeply into them. But what he has written about people's accounts of sexual encounters with MMY isn't gossip. And it's clear in the Sexy Sadie files in the archives of this forum that he's not the
[FairfieldLife] Back to Archer/ on ethics and higher consciousness
Rick wrote: I don't think, as I once did, that everything he says must be true because he's enlightened. It also raises interesting questions regarding the correlation of ethics and higher states of consciousness. Are they as tightly correlated as Maharishi said they were? Apparently not. Is there any absolute value to ethical standards or are they just a matter of culture and personal preference? Bronte writes: Surely ethics is not just a matter of personal preference. The concept of morality has to do with how individual action affects the whole. What's right can't just be a matter of what I feel like doing. The whole -- others -- have to be considered. It's also not just a matter of culture. In the Filipano culture, it's considered fine if a man lies to his mate, even cheats on her. Does that make it all right, because the culture accepts it? In ancient civilizations, human sacrifice was popular. Does that mean it was ethical? I wouldn't say there are absolute standards to ethics, though, either -- the only alternative to a matter of personal preference that you present above. I believe in situation ethics, defining what's right to do in the moment based on the unique parameters of the situation. But the choice has to be made in light of the larger perspective, not just the personal one. Neither, though, should personal need be sacrificed on the altar of of cultural prejudice: situations like Iran, where women's rights are unheard of, or marriages where people stay with a partner knowing it's for neither one's highest good. The answer of what's right or wrong should come from the place in the heart where the ego unites with the Infinite, where both are present together, and the ego is in its most expanded state. Then personal desire is fairly heard in the courtroom of the eternal, and a just decision gets rendered that benefits all. Your paragraph above is too reminiscent of the excuses the enlightened give for their hurtful behaviors: they are above the considerations of good and evil. No one ever is. This is more neo- advaitan-type thinking, that blurs the edges of responsibility. There is always a right, or best, action in a situation. There are always choices that lead to less-than-a-great outcome, or to suffering. To take the position that higher states of consciousness and ethics are not correlated opens the door to people doing whatever they darn well please as long as they feel cosmic enough to justify any actions. It also means enlightenment is just a feel-good, selfish thing, not something that benefits the whole. But true enlightenment can't be like that. It must be a state where the individual ego, rather than being subsumed by the infinite, is transformed into perfection. Hurtful, destructive traits are gone. The person is a saint, the peak of human evolution. If one's definition of enlightenment does not include this (as is the case in the Wednesday Night Satsang's collective guruship, for instance), enlightenment is nothing more than spiritual masturbation. Its own self-centered little drama, where the whole universe is mood- made to be part of itself but where people can be treated like shit. You can't divorce character from genuine higher consciousness. Because the Infinite, which we're one with in those states, is a field of love and grace, not selfishness or hurtfulness. Character has to be perfect when the individual spirit is established in That. That's the place where right decisions come from, solutions which provide the greatest good for all. People who admit character flaws but tell us they are enlightened are false teachers. They're the pied pipers leading most of the New Age movement right into the side of the mountain.
[FairfieldLife] gone and back again
Yep, Bronte has certainly made good on her promise to stay away. Sal Sal,you just keep drawing me back with all that dripping charisma of yours.
[FairfieldLife] To Lurk
Bronte: I do, however, find Icke documenting most (not all) of his information. I've actually written him complaining that he ought to do it more, but like most of us -- me included -- he gets carried away by his feelings sometimes and goes on little tirades. Definitely not scientific, and you are good to call us all on it when we do it. Lurk: The thing is, Bronte, you give no quarter when blasting the inconsistencies and flaws you see in guru school of thought. Why do you tolerate it in Icke's theories? Hi, Lurk! Have you read Icke, either of this two most recent books? If you read them, you might understand why I don't blast him. I don't find flaws or inconsistencies in the guy. I sometimes find him petty and sometimes he is too hasty shooting off his mouth and not substantiating his evidence. But enough evidence is there to make me pay notice. Again, it's not his reasoning I have a problem with. He has a remarkable ability to breaks the boxes of my preconceptions and show me a whole new way of looking at data I previously thought could only be interpreted a certain way. And often, his observations resonate with me deeply as truth. Certainly not all the time, but enough that I highly recommend those last two books as a read: Tales from the Time Loop and Infintie Love Is the Only Truth: Everything Else Is Illusion. I always admire a fresh perspective and original thinking. Icke provides this. IMO, the world could use a lot more of it! - Bronte
[FairfieldLife] To Archer/ On Believing What the Trusted Tell Us
Rick wrote: I also know people much closer to Amma than these critics ever were. I've driven and chatted with the woman who is Amma's private attendant who sleeps in her room, etc., as well as her public attendant. These two are with her 24/7. I was very impressed with both of them. They are down-to-earth, unassuming, natural, good- humored, and not at all weird or secretive about Amma, the way their counterparts in the TM movement would probably be. They may be unaware of the things you bring up, but I doubt it because they are like her shadows, and hear everything. In fact, not only those two, but the swamis who have been with her for decades would impress just about anyone with their simplicity, humility, and genuineness. Maharishi used to say that you can judge the quality of a guru by the quality of the people around him, and if that is true, these folks are an impressive testimonial. Bronte writes: Yes, Maharishi said that, and look at the quality of guru he turned out to be. It's just more dogma to repeat that statement, Rick. You have to look past what Maharishi says or Amma says or Amma's attendant says. Remember all those years you said you knew that MMY had something funny going on his room at night with the girls, all the skin boys who left the organization, telling you and the others when they left what MMY was up to? When I asked you why you stayed on in the movement in spite of that, you said it's because you thought the skin boys were just unstressing heavily, that they were imagining things. It was a case of you not being willing to see what was right in front of you, because you had so much of yourself invested in it. Very human, very understandable. But a big mistake. Now there are lots of questions surfacing around Amma. The ex-amma website, which has only been up a short while, has hundreds of posts with remarkable first-person accounts. Are you willing to read them? Of course that won't be easy. It's much more comfortable to say I know a few people who are in like flint with her, and if anything was amiss they would know it and tell me. That's an excuse for avoiding looking openly at evidence. If what you believe is true, you will come away more convinced of it after reading what the critics have to say. Or maybe you'll come away more convinced but still be wrong in your opinion. No matter. At least you'll have looked. You'll have opened up to new information that at a later date may prove relevant, in the context of other information that later comes to you. You told me the skin boys knew what was going on all those years but couldn't admit it to themselves. They made up excuses for MMY in their minds. They were good kids, trying to find a justifiable place for what they were seeing within their worldview. How do you know it's not exactly the same thing with these higher-up Amma people you place such unquestioning trust in? Just because they're good people, or seem to be -- do you rest your judgment on that? That is a weak basis on which to form a sound opinion, especially on a matter of such import. You play a major role, Rick, in advertising Amma to the world and bringing in new recruits. I think you have an obligation to all the people you influence, not to mention to yourself, to read and consider the claims these people are making. To read them, and to keep your eyes and ears open. To ask questions.
[FairfieldLife] To Judy/ Re: gone and back again
Judy, I've been trying to look at your good qualities, of which your brilliance and preciseness are certainly part, and to like you. But you are mean-spirited. You like to put people down, to humiliate them, to make issues of minor points and deflect attention from the big ones if that can make you look smarter and anyone else look stupid or bad. You do this in general, but in particular with people whose viewpoints you dislike. Cheap shots, Judy. You reveal far more about yourself than about the people you attempt to shame. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 brontebaxter8@ wrote: Yep, Bronte has certainly made good on her promise to stay away. Sal Sal,you just keep drawing me back with all that dripping charisma of yours. Nothing wrong with changing your mind, but it would be nice if you could bring yourself to acknowledge that you'd done so instead of pretending you hadn't stalked off in a huff because the person who led you to join had proved himself a traitor and you intended to put many miles between [you] and him permanently.
[FairfieldLife] To Judy/ Re: gone and back again
Okay, Jude. I'm done. You're on my don't read list along with your buddy Turq. I have better stuff to do than sap up your venom, babe. - Bronte --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look, toots, you're not on such firm ground attitude-wise yourself, along with your pal Angela. Tough beans that you don't like it when you get a little of your own crap thrown back at you. As Barry would say, live with it. You were the one who joined this group insisting that everybody play nice, and you've done anything but. If you find yourself shamed when your own words are quoted to you, that should give you a little something to think about. Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble, but in your case, and many others, it isn't viewpoints I object to but *behavior*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 brontebaxter8@ wrote: Judy, I've been trying to look at your good qualities, of which your brilliance and preciseness are certainly part, and to like you. But you are mean-spirited. You like to put people down, to humiliate them, to make issues of minor points and deflect attention from the big ones if that can make you look smarter and anyone else look stupid or bad. You do this in general, but in particular with people whose viewpoints you dislike. Cheap shots, Judy. You reveal far more about yourself than about the people you attempt to shame. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 brontebaxter8@ wrote: Yep, Bronte has certainly made good on her promise to stay away. Sal Sal,you just keep drawing me back with all that dripping charisma of yours. Nothing wrong with changing your mind, but it would be nice if you could bring yourself to acknowledge that you'd done so instead of pretending you hadn't stalked off in a huff because the person who led you to join had proved himself a traitor and you intended to put many miles between [you] and him permanently.
[FairfieldLife] Hi, Hughes
Hi, Hughes, I did read that post, and thanks. Good for you for going to the bother of doing some research. I respect your opinions, even where I disagree, and have that book you recommend on my reading list. Best regards, - Bronte --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 brontebaxter8@ wrote: Hey Bronte, did you miss my post David Icke - the verdict from a week ago? Perhaps it's worth the effort to find it as it might shed a bit of light on DI and his thought processes, all my own opinions of course but I'd be interested to see if you agree with me on any of it. I have a good reading suggestion for you as well, which will give you a different perspective on life for sure. I think we ARE shell-shocked. We are in denial. When someone moves past confusion that into a radical understanding or solution, they are hooted down as crazy or anti-American. David Icke, for example. Here's a guy who has connected all the dots in a brilliant way that deserves real consideration, but all you have to do is MENTION that name to get branded as (quoting a former friend) a bug-eyed cult zombie. People are scared to think outside the box, because of the implications. Things are so seriously cockeyed and wrong, that even to peak over the edge of the box is practically terrifying. Better to pretend things are fine, have friendly debates about what political candidate will save America, and totally disregard the problems that go so deep no phony political system can ever address them. We have a two-party system? The people elect the president? Our last election proved both concepts to be illusions. Two presidential candidates, from opposite parties, who never knew each other at their shared alma mater, Yale, though they were just a year apart and in the same elite Yale secret society! The electoral college decides who gets elected, not the people. Democracy is an illusion and has been for a long time. How is it we miss that? For one thing, because we're told how free we are, by the very people who run the show for us. Because they give us a two-party system that allows only the people who are one of them to make it to the top, filtering out all genuine people as candidates long before the time of the national vote. Keep 'em busy arguing over who's better, Obama or Hillary, and do whatever you like behind the scenes to tighten the snare a little more around freedom, because, who's really watching? The press ideofies anyone with intelligent criticism -- Icke for example again. Embarrass him on national television, twist his words and get everyone laughing at him, and no one will hear the little voice of a man who saw through deceptions no one else was sharp enough to question. You are right to be outraged. You have great integrity. Keep shoving it in our face, and eventually the very discomfort of that has to wake people up. It's not a popular position, but a heroic one. Such outcries are our only hope. You go, Edg. - Bronte -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. I'm going to re-post below my early essay about true evil in the world. This essay got exactly zero thread comments, yet in it I wave a flag of desperation for today's downtrodden. I think it is an example of important whining that has conceptual clout and deserves to be repeated endlessly until the situation is rectified. In it I present one of the most repugnant concepts I've ever put into words here, but not a single person here reacted. How to interpret this silence? I think most of us are shell shocked -- too banged up to care about the injustices of the world -- merely treading the water lost in a sea of political impotency. I could have written the essay as a sugary sweet cheerleading for the love-virtues that need to be supported in the culture's consciousness, but I doubt that such an essay would have gotten any responses here either. In fact, I've posted MANY wonderfully sweet tales and poems and cool ideas, but I've gotten flamed here more often than patted on the back. My karma, but, so too has everyone here posted unrequitedly about their POVs. When it comes to neighborliness, we're in short supply. I don't need pats on the back cuz I do that for myself far better than anyone here could, cuz I am a good writer/narcissist with a jyotish chart to prove it, but geeze I keep coming here and posting what I consider to be emotionally involving, well presented, POVs about core truths of life, and, like everyone here attempting the same kind
[FairfieldLife] Regarding Edg's Comments on American kids dumber than dirt
Edg, I loved this. This is you at your best. And you make a very good point. Elitism is crap, wherever it rears its ugly head. It's also true that our kids are dumbed down, taught by teachers who teach to the test because they'll be fired if their students don't perform on the standardized testing. I have a beautiful, idealistic neice in this situation. Fresh out of teacher's college, she got a job teaching fifth grade and was so excited to have a chance to make a difference. But what she had to spend 80 or 90 percent of her time doing was teaching answers to the standardized tests, which had nothing to do with real education. At the end of the school year, she asked to be transferred to second grade, because there aren't standardized tests at that level, and she thought she'd be free to really teach. But she wasn't allowed to transfer. I was a schoolteacher in the days before standardized testing took over and dictated to teachers what to do. Even back then, in most schools, a creative teacher who could develop exciting lessons of her own was considered a little suspect. The dutiful teacher who humbly followed the textbook chapters and never did anything original that challenged the students was considered a good, safe bet. But now it's a far more serious situation, with the most creative teachers getting disgusted with the profession and moving on to other careers, leaving behind those who are willing to tow the line and teach kids to tow the line. And what kind of citizens will those kids grow up to be? - Bronte --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About 50 years ago Issac Asimov wrote an essay entitled something like: Forget It. In it, he listed the kinds of information that a hundred years early was considered vital knowledge, and I was aghast at what kids were expected to memorize, back then, and feeling like I had dodged a bullet by being born in a later era where, you know, everything was actually important to know. I never was required in elementary school to know that a hogshead was two barrels. There's no knowledge set that won't date. I can hardly watch a movie over ten years old because the production standards are so antiquated -- like Curtis and Turq's complaining about the Beatles music being tailored to the fidelity of the AM radio speakers extant then. All our ears are being made evermore sophisticated by ordinary life's educational impact. Just so almost any knowledge taught in schools today is going to age rapidly in today's e-world. And don't forget Henry Ford. Henry was involved in a libel trial and had to testify in front of a jury with an incredibly hostile lawyer cross examining him whose purpose in life was to make a fool out of Henry. The lawyer took the tact that he'd show Henry was an uneducated bumpkin, and that he'd ask Henry questions that Henry wouldn't be able to answer. I cut and paste quote a googled-netizen's description of Henry's answer: His response . . . was to testify or state that if he had a legal problem, he could push a button on his desk and several top Harvard Law School graduates would quickly enter his office to do his biddingsimilarly, if he had an engineering problem...push another button and several MIT top grads would enter his office to assist with THAT problem, etc. (See: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=306615 ) Don't obscure the point by making Henry a straw dog -- Henry was a bastard of deep degree -- what with his union busting and his anti-semitism. The point is that the self-vaunted educated Harvard-type ilk are mere minions to those who are not interested in acquiring an encyclopedic acumen at one's ready, but are instead involved with the big questions of policy -- how to use that knowledge. (For his failings, Henry is a tainted hero, but read Buckminster Fuller description of Henry in Nine Chains To The Moon. Henry really faced some evil forces-afoot, and empowered the ordinary worker with an astounding pay rate for the times -- allowing them to buy the very cars he was making. Not sure if his good out weighed his bad, but) For most of my life, I've thought of an ivy league education as something attained in a romantic ashram where everyone was a scholar and seemed to be able to remember EVERYTHING -- Yamantaka in modern guise with a girdle of PhDs instead of a belt of skulls. But given that the haughty elitists are churning out such scholars on a regular basis and given that an evil dog like Bush can still ruin the country, of what use have these scholars been to America/world if they can not even stand up and be leaders -- make policy decisions instead of, you know, quoting the exact words of some poem by Ezra Pound that faintly applies to the discussion at hand? Don't get me wrong; I know tons of stuff too, and can impress most crowds with bon mots
[FairfieldLife] Regarding Edge's Remarks on Proud to be a Whiner!
to be able to politely talk about what Hillary intends to do? Don't expect me to pause. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 brontebaxter8@ wrote: snip to ...result has not only defined and sharpened my perspective on the subject but has inspired a book which I now have started writing. The title: Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment: Allegations of a New Age Heretic. Why am I not surprised? :-) Be sure to include a chapter on, What to do when someone won't let you monopolize the conversation in the group he moderates? The content could include such tidbits as, Make a big deal out of stalking off the forum, but hang onto the grudge and then, within days, come back to the forum to post negative arti- cles about the teacher that the offending person likes. *That* will wow them over at Publisher's Weekly. :-) Bronte, I have to say that I nailed you as a compulsive Whiner with your first posts here, and you have (unfortunately) not disappointed. I consider it a real pity that someone with a mind as potentially sharp as yours can't get past her scars from the past to some kind of balance in the present. I have challenged you in the past here to do one simple thing -- some- thing that should be a breeze for someone who considers herself as smart as you obviously consider yourself -- write something positive. One post. One in which there is zero negation or putdown of something you don't like, only a presentation of something you *do* like and that you think might be valuable for other folks. One post in which you are *for* something, not merely *against*. You have proven yourself incapable of performing this simple task. As I suggested when I proposed the challenge, I honestly don't think you *can* any more. If (a big if) you ever write the book you claim to be writing, I'm sure there will be a large and profitable market for it. But you should know that when it hits Santa Fe, the owners of the best bookstore in town will take one look at it and put it on the shelf in the section of the store clearly labeled, WHINERS. Really. The owner and the employees of the store originally labeled this section CRITICISM, but after noticing the tone, the content, and the consistent me-fixation of the authors, they ordered a new sign and called the section WHINERS. The patrons of the store, even the ones who browse there, love it. It captures the tone and the mindset of the books stocked there. The thing that *all* of the books in the section have in common, no matter which spiritual trip or psychiatric practice or self-help technique they're ragging on, is that they are only negative. There isn't an ounce of positive suggestion for something *else* to do within a one of them. They're just someone whining about what's *wrong* with all these trips. It's EASY to criticize. I do it myself from time to time, and know just how easy it is, especially with easy targets like the TM movement. But there is neither any creativity nor balance in *only* criticizing. To achieve balance, one has to get *past* the ego-hurt and be able to accept the good things that came along with the bad ones. And to achieve any measure of creativity, one has to be able to propose something *else*, something that could actually *help* someone else, something they might consider doing *instead* of the thing being criticized/whined about. So far, you have proved yourself incapable of getting to this Next Step. I resubmit my challenge. Since you clearly intend to hang around here and post your whining, *supplement* it from time to time with some creative suggestions of your own for something *else* one could do. These supple- mental posts should contain *no* negation (What I recommend is that one *not* do X.). Give it a try. It's a lot more difficult to write shit like that than it is to whine. So far you've been taking the EASY (and intellectually LAZY) path, and not only have you been taking that path, you've been demanding that people *admire* you for taking that path. I don't. The day you can transcend the EASY path and propose a completely positive *alternative* to that which you criticize, on that day you have my respect. Not until.
[FairfieldLife] For Turq/ Re: Proud to be a Whiner!
Turq wrote: Bronte, I have challenged you in the past here to do one simple thing -- something that should be a breeze for someone who considers herself as smart as you obviously consider yourself -- write something positive. One post. One in which there is zero negation or putdown of something you don't like, only a presentation of something you *do* like and that you think might be valuable for other folks. I honestly don't think you *can* any more. Bronte writes: Turq, I am going to spend one last post responding to you, and then I'm done until you get over yourself. I didn't comment on this remark the first time you made it because it was three days after I sent you a positve post: pages of lyrics from Joni Mitchell songs I had typed out for your pleasure. Pure enjoyment there, nothing negative. But three days later, you couldn't even remember it. Why, because you're deadset looking for the bad in other people? I do have answers of my own for the problems I see in the world, but I don't talk about them to folks who don't see a problem to begin with. In this forum, no one agrees with me that the trouble I see (in the guru game) is real. Why suggest solutions to problems no one believes exist? Better to present evidence or arguments when I find them for the problem being real. That is the most positive thing one can do in the face of an evil that wears the mask of good. I have nothing to prove to you, cowboy. You don't like other people's critical posts? Good. You want to think Bronte's negative? Wonderful. I'm going to do what I like, because you cannot intimidate or embarrass people on this forum into doing what you want. You speak of getting attention, but a chat room is a not a stage, and you are not a ringmaster or a competing circus performer. There's plenty of room for everybody here to speak their minds. Let people do what they want, and if you can't handle that, expect your own whiner posts to be ignored. This is the last thing of yours I'm reading until you get off your high horse. Smoke away in your rants if that gives you jollies. Most of us will not be listening. - Bronte If (a big if) you ever write the book you claim to be writing, I'm sure there will be a large and profitable market for it. But you should know that when it hits Santa Fe, the owners of the best bookstore in town will take one look at it and put it on the shelf in the section of the store clearly labeled, WHINERS. Really. The owner and the employees of the store originally labeled this section CRITICISM, but after noticing the tone, the content, and the consistent me-fixation of the authors, they ordered a new sign and called the section WHINERS. The patrons of the store, even the ones who browse there, love it. It captures the tone and the mindset of the books stocked there. The thing that *all* of the books in the section have in common, no matter which spiritual trip or psychiatric practice or self-help technique they're ragging on, is that they are only negative. There isn't an ounce of positive suggestion for something *else* to do within a one of them. They're just someone whining about what's *wrong* with all these trips. It's EASY to criticize. I do it myself from time to time, and know just how easy it is, especially with easy targets like the TM movement. But there is neither any creativity nor balance in *only* criticizing. To achieve balance, one has to get *past* the ego-hurt and be able to accept the good things that came along with the bad ones. And to achieve any measure of creativity, one has to be able to propose something *else*, something that could actually *help* someone else, something they might consider doing *instead* of the thing being criticized/whined about. So far, you have proved yourself incapable of getting to this Next Step. I resubmit my challenge. Since you clearly intend to hang around here and post your whining, *supplement* it from time to time with some creative suggestions of your own for something *else* one could do. These supple- mental posts should contain *no* negation (What I recommend is that one *not* do X.). Give it a try. It's a lot more difficult to write shit like that than it is to whine. So far you've been taking the EASY (and intellectually LAZY) path, and not only have you been taking that path, you've been demanding that people *admire* you for taking that path. I don't. The day you can transcend the EASY path and propose a completely positive *alternative* to that which you criticize, on that day you have my respect. Not until.
[FairfieldLife] Question for Alex from Bronte
Thanks for explaining that! So, I can't read the attachments I post because I don't receive FFL email. Can other members read the attachments I posted (the people who do get FFL email)? - Bronte -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: [snip] Attachments are only available to people who receive FFL traffic in email. Yahoo strips off the attachments on the Yahoo Groups website. The Ammachi ashram story you're trying to post has been covered on the Guruphiliac blog: http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/search/label/Ammachi%27s%20Goongate http://tinyurl.com/ywef92
[FairfieldLife] Proud to be a Whiner!
It seems to me, Turq, that you have a whiner/ mono-topic of your own: pooping on other people's posts. You think you are so positive, but a big percentage of what you churn out is criticism. Not that that's always awful. I actually enjoy most of your rants, because they make me think. But you are rather like a pot calling a kettle black. As far as mono-topic posters go (those people you call whiners), some of us get the same kick out of reading their stuff as you get out of reading the lighter stuff. I know I can count on Ron, for example, to present a certain perspective on spiritual life that I won't find anywhere else on this forum. He gives me an insight into his unique world. It doesn't matter that I am 180-degrees-opposed to his perspective, or that he writes from it all the time. It makes him, to me, rather an expert on the subject, and I get value from that. I know Angela's an expert on Nazi Germany, and look forward to her posts that share her specialty knowledge. For my own part, I'm highly intrigued at this stage of my life by the god-guru connection, and people can count on posts on that subject from me. I've loved dialoguing with other posters about it, especially the ones who disagree passionately, and the result has not only defined and sharpened my perspective on the subject but has inspired a book which I now have started writing. The title: Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment: Allegations of a New Age Heretic. Let's hear it for Turq's whiners! The specialty-interest people. You make the world a more fascinating place, and I'm honored to among your company. - Bronte --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: Someone just sent me this. Another side of the Amma movement? - Bronte Announcing the Whiners-R-Us Yahoo group For those who (like Sal) are afflicted with the particular character flaw that enables them to read my posts :-), here is a followup to last week's Flaccid Mind Syndrome and The Judo Theory of Social Change posts. This one, like those, is in the nature of a Public Service, a primer on how to identify a subspecies of Internet Troll called the Whiner. Like Trolls (http://www.members.aol.com/tantricone/share/trolls.htm), Whiners (http://www.streamwood.net/whiner.jpg) tend to drop in to long-established chat groups in search of 1) attention, 2) attention, and occasionally, 3) attention. But whereas the Trolls can manifest themselves and their quest for attention by just posting anything they can think of to stir things up and cause unrest and inspire flaming, Whiners tend to focus on one specific subject. Trolls have range -- they can find something contro- versial to post about almost anything. Whiners tend to be monotopical. They arrive on the group talking about one topic that offends them mightily, try their best to get everyone as upset and offended about it as humanly pos- sible, and can rarely be steered *away* from the topic. When someone in the group suggests that the Whiner might just have become a tad obsessed or monotopical, the Whiners react as if they have been punched in the very nose they've stuck into someone else's idea of how to relax for a few minutes on the Internet. The Trolls rarely act all offended or hurt when someone points out that they are Trolls; they *enjoy* being a Troll. But the Whiners *definitely* act offended. For the Whiner, being offended is the water of life, the soma that triggers and facilitates their preferred states of attention -- righteous anger, playing the victim, and indignation. Another clue when trying to identify a newbie as a poten- tial Whiner is that the topic he or she is monotopical about is almost always negative, *against* something as opposed to being *for* something. Trolls can actually post some positive suggestions or ideas or information from time to time, but the Whiner seemingly cannot. Even when challenged to post one -- just one -- post in which they don't rag on anyone or anything, they can't. When they try, a slam or an attempt to turn the subject back to The Eternal Monotopic somehow always manages to sneak into the supposedly-inspiring post anyway, as if they can't help themselves. They can't help themselves. That is almost the *definition* of the Whiner. For what- ever reason, something in their past has left them not only scarred, but compulsively fingering and playing with the scar 24/7. The scar is the most important thing in their lives. *Nothing* is more important than focusing on the scar, badrapping the people or organizations that they believe caused the scar, and trying to get other people to *also* focus on those people or organizations and badrap them, and in the process focus a lot of their attention on the poor, abused, scarred Whiners
[FairfieldLife] Is Ego an I or a Me?
So what is the ego, an I or a Me? Me is something that things are done to. I is a doer. People who perceive the ego as something that must dissolve for enlightenment see it as a Me a something that reacts to the world. The haven or goal for these perceivers is a place out of world out of space and time, the source of pain. For them, dissolving the ego seems desirable. It is a release from the let-downs and limitations of life. People, on the other hand, who perceive the ego as something precious and sacred that should never be dissolved they see it as an I, an instrument of God expressing in the world. Their goal or haven is perfection of the world space and time transformed to reflect the original joyous divine intention. They perceive that divine intention to be, to date, unrealized. For them, dissolving the ego seems like a cop-out, an abandonment of God's purpose for life. The Me/ego philosophers see the I/ego philosophers as afraid. Afraid of letting go of their object-identification, their limited self- identity. But the I/ego philosophers see the Me/ego philosophers as afraid. Afraid of the responsibility of remaking the world. So what is the ego, an I or a Me? It can be both. In its state of victimization, when it has lost its conscious connectedness to the Infinite, the ego is a Me. A target for suffering, an experiencer of failure, disappointment and lack. In its state of realization, when it is one with the Infinite, the ego is an I. A creative agent expressing divine mind in new and original ways. The I/ego acts in alignment with the will of the Divine. It intuitively knows that divine will made the world as a playground on which to express joy through the medium of diversity. To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Since the ego is empowered by the divine, though, it has the capability of self-annihilation. The Infinite permits this, because God would never keep its children existent against their free will. The Divine allows spiritual suicide. It enfolds its disenchanted children deep in the arms of unbounded bliss and love. The ego dies, they find nirvanic bliss. But they lose the capacity to fulfill the purpose for which they were created, the spiritualization of matter. They lose their ability to be conscious co-creators with God. The Infinite also permits its other children, the ones who cherish their individuality, to experience cosmic bliss. They, too, are enfolded in the same infinite love when they bring their attention back to its Source. This causes their Me to dissolve into I, and they become powerful doers, their actions aligned with Infinite mind but directed by personal desire and original thought. For them there is no gap between their mind and Mind, no detachment between I and desire. Their fresh thoughts are imbued with Infinity, their heartfelt desires are buttressed with cosmic support. These are the people who speak the message of The Secret. The successful, spiritual, world-loving enlightened. Eastern thought has virtually no room for I/ego philosophers. Maharishi is the closest to one that I've known India to produce. The I/ego group seems to have been born of Western Transcendentalism, their flowering occurring with the New Thought movement of the early 1900s. Goddard Neville, Joseph Murphy and Ernest Holmes were among the first teachers of the philosophy. Perhaps it appears other places in history, I'm not sure. According to the The Secret DVD, the knowledge has been in many cultures and active but hidden throughout time. Today, Unity Church and the teachings of Ramtha reflect the I/ego philosophy. Maybe Wayne Dyer, but I haven't studied him enough to know. Others, too, I'm sure, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment. Since I left the TMO and moved west, I've made friends with many people who espouse I/ego ideals. Most of these folks live them, demonstrating high levels of enlightenment. Some have had teachers or studied books. Some studied Ramtha, Christian Science or TM. Others have had no teacher but their inner deep reflection. If you ask, they will tell you that Silence is the backdrop of their thoughts most of the time for some of these people, all of the time. They demonstrate flexibility in situations, but firmly hold to their goals. They usually get what they want, often by almost miraculous means. If they don't get a desire fulfilled, they find a new way to go after it. Their dreams and goals are I not Me in nature: harmonious and generous, not narrow and selfish. These people tend to be buoyant, full of what you would call Shakti. Some are less charismatic humble, thoughtful, quiet the kind of people
[FairfieldLife] You guys rock!
Wow. This forum. You go to sleep for the night, all caught up on your FFL, and you wake up in the morning to more than you can read in 4 focused hours. And good stuff, too! This chatroom has addicted me, but how do you guys keep up and have a life, too? I just postponed movie plans for today because I sat here so long I couldn't keep the original ones. And when I put off a movie, I HAVE to be hooked. You guys sharpen my mind, focus my thoughts on significant things, and make me feel I'm growing new friends. I am very delighted to be here, and thank all of you for the opportunity. Okay. Just this is it and now I'm gone for the day (unless I really really have to read just one eeny weeny teeny tiny post more) ... Bronte
[FairfieldLife] Love, the Ramtha School and Kundulini
I sometimes experienced kundulini years ago when I did TM but nothing earth-shattering. I experienced a heck of a lot of it years later in the Ramtha School, which targets kundulini raising as one of its goals. The first time I had a kundulini experience was in Avoriaz, France on an ATR. I didn't even know what it was. I had been meditating just four years, and on that course I fell in love. Every time I meditated, I felt love for that man, and I would experience this soft strong rush of energy, like a river of cloud, up both sides of the inside of my neck, and inside my ears, flowing into my head. It made a a gentle steady whoosh sound, like the ocean. Ever since, when I feel great love, I feel that. When I started experimenting with intentional kundulini-raising in the Ramtha school, I realized it was the same as the powerful love experience. Of course kundulini can be much more intense, even really uncomfortable, and it has been for me sometimes. I know some people have found it painful and particularly distressing. I disagree with what some posters have written here, that kundulini is just a clearing of blockages in the physical nervous system and not important to full enlightenment. I think the uncomfortableness comes when the river encounters an obstacle, but I don't think the river itself is a blockage. To me that wouldn't make much sense. In the Ramtha school, people were taught to image a volcano in their first chakra (first seal in Ramtha terms). Then we'd do a forced sharp breath while envisioning pushing the volcano's energy up. We would play with that image -- erupting the volcano -- while blasting kundulini breaths to push the volcanic stream higher and higher up the spine. Kind of like those things at the fair where you bang the thing and the ball goes higher and higher, with the goal being to ding the bell at the top. We were told to envision the energy going all the way to the top of the head every time we blew. Everyone got very high on this, as it made the energy climb higher each time you did it. It was very empowering and enlivening. After a 40-minute session like this, we'd do exercises to develop our psychic abilities. I never used to be psychic before the Ramtha school, and I'm a lot more that way now. Plus it really enlivened my energy. I know it made me a lot smarter, I think because of the energy going into the head. I got a lot of good stuff out of that school and sometimes still practice the technique.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love, the Ramtha School and Kundulini
How long were you involved in Ramtha? Any other highlights from that association - that you care to share? lurk I studied there for ten years. I left because it got into some weird stuff, like wild drinking as a path to enlightenment. Also because Ramtha was becoming too guru-like for me. I don't know if Ramtha is a real entity who is being channeled or if it's JZ Knight (the channel) acting, but however they pulled it off, they did teach us some pretty amazing things. In reply to Ron, who commented that developing psychic abilities has nothing to do with enlightenment ... bud, I disagree. IMO, the fully enlightened person would have access to divine abilities, psychic ones being part of it. When all the chakras are open and lit up with the power of kundulini energy -- available on a permanent basis -- the human being is capable of miracles. That is more my idea of enlightenment than the nonattachment model. At least it's what I strive for, whatever one wants to call it. Being nonattached hold little appeal for me. But that's another topic. Bronte
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love, the Ramtha School and Kundulini
How long were you involved in Ramtha? Any other highlights from that association - that you care to share? lurk I studied there for ten years. I left because it got into some weird stuff, like wild drinking as a path to enlightenment. Also because Ramtha was becoming too guru-like for me. I don't know if Ramtha is a real entity who is being channeled or if it's JZ Knight (the channel) acting, but however they pulled it off, they did teach us some pretty amazing things. In reply to Ron, who commented that developing psychic abilities has nothing to do with enlightenment ... bud, I disagree. IMO, the fully enlightened person would have access to divine abilities, psychic ones being part of it. When all the chakras are open and lit up with the power of kundulini energy -- available on a permanent basis -- the human being is capable of miracles. That is more my idea of enlightenment than the nonattachment model. At least it's what I strive for, whatever one wants to call it. Being nonattached hold little appeal for me. But that's another topic. Bronte
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM-Free Blog: Why was the KGB interested in TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HYPERLINK http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-was-kgb-interested-in-tm- and.htmlht tp://tmfree.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-was-kgb-interested-in-tm- and.html No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/880 - Release Date: 6/29/2007 2:15 PM Has anybody watched this clip? A KGB defector tells his experience, claiming Stalin-Leninist principles are alive and well and not far from claiming America. Check it out.
