Actual Freedom – A Diatribe from Gardol Yack

How I Achieved Actual Freedom
by Gardol Yack
Part One; Section One

May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Greetings. Since I have recently achieved actual freedom, I want to share my experience with you.

RICHARD: So as to inject a modicum of intelligibility into this 18,679-word diatribe – ‘a dissertation or discourse directed against a particular person or work’ (Oxford Dictionary) – here is what Gardol discloses towards the end:

• [Gardol]: ‘... I became actually free of my addiction to the AF website. I achieved actual freedom from the seductive siren call of Richard’s tease. (...) Yeah, a cheap trick, I know. But I had to do it. I wanted to post a warning sign somewhere near the quagmire of the AF website. I used the title ‘How I achieved actual freedom’ as both a tease and a meme’. (

Here is a useful word:

• ‘deceit: the action or practice of deceiving; concealment or misrepresentation of the truth in order to mislead; deception, fraud, cheating; an instance of deception; a device intended to deceive; a trick, a wile, a stratagem’. (Oxford Dictionary).


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): In a pathematic comeback, dated Sunday, January 18, 2009, Gardol classified this four-part post of his as being a harangue – ‘a speech or piece of writing characterised by strong feeling or expression; a tirade’ (American Heritage Dictionary) – and not just a dissertation or discourse directed against a particular person or work. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I’ve read Richard’s response to my harangue ...’. (

He also categorised it as being his rant – ‘to speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave’ (American Heritage Dictionary) – on two separate occasions. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I like that they posted my rant ...’.
• [Gardol]: ‘(...) the point I made in my rant ...’.

Consequently, as it has thus been made apparent that the neutral word diatribe – ‘a dissertation or discourse directed against a particular person or work’ (Oxford Dictionary) – did not accurately reflect the true nature of his four-part post, Richard hereby apologises for the implied insult which he (inadvertently) occasioned by inconsiderately using it.


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Excuse me for jumping in here with such a long email post. It turned out very long as I included snippets from the Actual Freedom website.

RICHARD: As those (unreferenced) snippets, which actually constitute the bulk of Gardol’s post, all relate to the extraordinary way of knowing that an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human experience/ human history – upon which his entire case against an actual freedom from the human condition pivots – it is pertinent to note that after presenting the first and second of the Commonly Raised Objections (CRO’s), as a textual basis for his argument, Gardol then skips straight to the fourth CRO.

Here is the third CRO, in its entirety, with the reason for its oh-so-convenient omission patently obvious to the discerning eye:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard claims to be the first one on the planet to experience Actual Freedom: How can he or anyone know this to be a fact?
• [Richard]: ‘The following link provides a description of how I experientially know: A Brief Personal History
I recently supplied a brief exegesis of what can be found on that page: A Brief Exegesis
I also knew early in 1981, at the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience as I had had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) six months prior wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race had made of such experiences was a degradation of the actual.
Speaking in the context of the only religio-spiritual language I knew then (from the culture I was born into) I would say, to anyone prepared to listen, that everybody has got it wrong because nobody has to physically die to get to heaven ... that eternity was just here right now because, as it was already always happening, it cannot cease at physical birth and recommence at physical death after a 70+ year interregnum.
After the ‘something turning over in the base of the brain/nape of the neck’ event of September 1981, and as the western-style mysticism I was experiencing moved deeper into being an eastern-style mysticism (I can recall telling my then wife at that time I was jumping out of the frying pan into the fire as somebody had to sort this mystery out), I just knew that, in order to be able to speak meaningfully about going beyond enlightenment I had to go through enlightenment so as to, not only understand it experientially, but to be able to have insider information, so to speak, to pass on to my fellow human beings.
For what is the point of enabling peace-on-earth, and thus demonstrating the actual way to live life for a benighted humanity, if one cannot explain the how and why [and what for] of it? Common Objections #3

Here is a useful word:

• ‘cherry-pick: to sift through, e.g., evidence or options, selecting only what you like or what supports your strategy, plans, or preconceived notions’. (Encarta Dictionary).


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): Whilst specifically referring to cherry-picking, in his ye-shall-know-them-by-their-fruits comeback on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol thereby effectively acknowledged that he ignored the above third CRO because it did not support his point (a theme he relied upon for his main argument) that a cunning entity is, ipso facto, an untrustworthy witness . Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I ignored parts that did not directly support my points’. (

Also whilst specifically referring to cherry-picking he, thereby, effectively advised that he only selected the quotes which were relevant to that point of his. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I picked quotes for relevance to my points’. (ibid.).

Howsoever, whilst doing so he falsely accused Richard of making an assumption that the above cherry-pick was [quote] ‘cunning’ [endquote] and then pointlessly protested, because Richard never said any such thing, how he did not [quote] ‘cunningly’ [endquote] leave stuff out. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘And the assumptions he made about me. My cunning ‘cherry picking’. Please. (...). I did not cunningly leave stuff out’. (ibid.).

In view of what Richard actually did write, as clearly evidenced by a re-read of his above response, was to merely refer to the cherry-pick as a [quote] ‘oh-so-convenient omission’ [endquote] then here is a useful term:

• ‘Freudian slip: an unintentional (esp. spoken) error that seems to reveal subconscious feelings’. (Oxford Dictionary).


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: I had to break it up into parts after first trying to assemble it in Yahoo email. Yahoo could not handle that much text so I broke it into parts.

RICHARD: As there is just so much (unreferenced) text from the website this is as good a place as any to carefully list, for ease of referral and for ready reference, all of the ninety-odd fabrications, confections, confabulations, assertions, contentions, accusations, allegations, charges, claims, declarations, proclamations, avowals, averments, statements, and the such-like, which repetitiously feature all throughout Gardol’s diatribe ... every single one of which is demonstrably incorrect, when not just blatantly absurd, and are the pathetic product of deceitfulness, cherry-picking, fraudulence, sneakiness, slyness, misleadingness, misrepresentation, ignorance, intuitions (whatever seems to be true and/or strikes him as being the truth), fanciful speculations, fantastical wonderings, and so on, and so forth. Vis.:

Part One:
| 01. Richard’s extraordinary proof is troublesome. | 02. Richard takes a cunningly-derived insight as a fact. | 03. Richard admits basing a fact on a cunningly-derived psychic perception. | 04. Richard asserts over and over (that a cunningly-derived psychic perception establishes a fact). | 05. Richard needs no more proof than a cunningly-derived psychic perception. | 06. Richard is very contradictory and inconsistent. | 07. Richard attempts to prove a point. | 08. Richard denigrates his questioners. | 09. Richard attempts to disprove questioners’ points. | 10. Richard is dissembling (about being first not mattering). | 11. Richard is not only contradictory but is also inconsistent. | 12. Richard is unable to understand. | 13. Richard makes a claim based first on cunning evidence/ psychic evidence. | 14. Richard makes a claim based secondly on limited research. | 15. Richard makes grandiose claims. | 16. Richard has a bit of ego or self-importance. | 17. Richard has some trace of self secretly deriving gratification. | 18. Richard draws conclusions with very little evidence. | 19. Richard attempts to explain his view. | 20. Richard denigrates his questioners. | 21. Richard is contradictory. | 22. Richard’s denigrations keeps him feeling happy. | 23. Richard’s denigrations do not qualify as harmless.

Part Two:
| 24. Richard’s incredulity is odd. | 25. Richard cannot accept as true another needs more proof. | 26. Richard goes on again with a psychic insight as proof. | 27. Richard gets a little squirmy (evasive) when pinned down. | 28. Richard exhibits so much (egoic or selfist) defensiveness and denial. | 29. Richard always denies his (egoic or selfist) defensiveness. | 30. Richard covers up his (egoic or selfist) defensiveness and denial. | 31. Richard does not give logical responses to logical questions. | 32. Richard’s comfortable lifestyle prevents understanding. | 33. Richard presents a real squirmy and bizarre argument | 34. Richard moves a sensible question into a very abstract direction | 35. Richard does not answer a question directly. | 36. Richard spins two people’s brilliantly framed heart of the matter. | 37. Richard only appears to capitulate (on one small point). | 38. Richard agrees only in principle. | 39. Richard rates human potential to a fictional creature. | 40. Richard’s very complex answer (to a simple question) is a cover-up. | 41. Richard goes right back into asserting (that he knows). | 42. Richard does not set a very high standard of proof. | 43. Richard is the same as a religious zealot (no real proof needed). | 44. Richard accepts psychic insight/cunning insight as truth. | 45. Richard cannot understand peoples’ need for better proof.

Part Three:
| 46. Richard’s point not fair enough by a long shot. | 47. Richard’s argument is rebuttable even in high school debate class. | 48. Richard originated the hypothetical person. | 49. Richard uses straw-man arguments. | 50. Richard often accuses respondents (of straw-man arguments and red-herrings). | 51. Richard uses the straw-man arguments and red-herring tactics frequently. | 52. Richard imagines some hypothetical person. | 53. Richard accused a questioner (of inventing some hypothetical person). | 54. Richard is both illogical and contradictory. | 55. Richard often resorts to tactics. | 56. Richard tries to explain (why he did research). | 57. Richard’s research is incomplete. | 58. Richard’s metaphoric responses are all according to a psychic insight/cunning insight. | 59. Richard’s psychic eye is elsewhere not ringingly endorsed by him (in another context). | 60. Richard’s psychic eye is elsewhere described as inherently inaccurate (in another context). | 61. Richard is illogical, contradictory, inconsistent and (the reader knows the drill). | 62. Richard’s cunning entity is elsewhere described as rotten to the core. | 63. Richard’s acceptance of his rotten-to-the-core entity’s proof is questionable. | 64. Richard cannot doubt the perceptions of his spiritual identity. | 65. Richard’s spiritual identity is not reliable. | 66. Richard’s spiritual identity thinks in grandiose ways. | 67. Richard’s writings contain inconsistencies and contradictions aplenty. | 68. Richard holds contradictory beliefs. | 69. Richard’s inconsistencies and contradictions cause cognitive dissonance in followers.

Part Four:
| 70. Richard cannot prove that space and time pre-exist perception. | 71. Richard resorts to ontological arguments. | 72. Richard believes words describe actual properties of the universe. | 73. Richard has no proof but repeatedly states it as fact. | 74. Richard is less intelligent than his respondents. | 75. Richard often reacts to some word or phrase.| 76. Richard often either wilfully ignore respondents’ intent or simply does not see it. | 77. Richard jettisons many respondents’ perceptive questions and comments. | 78. Richard accuses his respondents (of using the same tactics he uses). | 79. Richard lives in denial (of using the same tactics he accuses his respondents of). | 80. Richard is just lost when communicating with his fellow humans. | 81. Richard is happily lost (when communicating with his fellow humans). | 82. Richard cannot start a revolution in human history. | 83. Richard is a dude (a stupid fool). | 84. Richard’s communication is a one way kind (his way). | 85. Richard is less intelligent and less able to communicate (because of entering the actual world). | 86. Richard is just teasing (with a seductive siren call). | 87. Richard is a poor goof (a pitiful, stupid blunderer). | 88. Richard has little ability to communicate effectively. | 89. Richard has lost some ability to discern another’s point of view. | 90. Richard has a brain tumour (blithely happy behind a wall of denial). | 91. Richard’s website is a tar pit (something to become bogged down in). | 92. Richard’s website has inconsistencies and contradictions galore ... and some gold. |

As all the above was primarily prompted by a (futile) academic epistemological argument – which Gardol unambiguously identifies as being the heart of the matter – here is a useful phrase:

• ‘much ado about nothing: a lot of trouble and excitement about something which is not important’. (Cambridge Dictionary).


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): In the consistently-miss-the-point section of his comeback, on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol utilised a diversionary tactic, in order to disguise the fact that the central point of his 18,679-word harangue and/or rant – the [quote] ‘heart of the matter’ [endquote] – was indeed much ado about nothing (that futile academic epistemological argument), by first saying he saw Richard consistently miss the point, but then substituting a side-issue (from an email to Vineeto he had not originally planned on including) in its place ... only to then vacuously go on and misrepresent Richard’s multi-pointed response, to that side-issue topic, via exclusively focussing on only one aspect of it. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘When I read Richards response I see him consistently miss the point. (...) he thinks observing a comatose person proves something about the existence of time and space’. (

Here is the textual evidence (from Part Four of his four-part harangue/ rant) that the time-and-space topic is a side-issue point:

• ‘[Gardol]: ‘I had *not planned to do this*, but for reasons I will attempt to explain later, I have decided to include here my email to Vineeto ...’. [emphasis added].

The full text of Richard’s multi-pointed response, to that side-issue topic, can be readily accessed via the above numbered links (specifically: | 70. | 71. | 72. | 73. ).

Incidentally, Gardol confirms what the main point of his entire harangue and/or rant is – to [quote] ‘completely repudiate the whole AF web site and enterprise’ [endquote] – by speaking of it as his ‘mission’ in the second paragraph of his ye-shall-know-them-by-their-fruits comeback. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I got caught up in some ego and self importance with my ‘mission’. (As if I needed to do something about the Actual Freedom website)’. (ibid.).


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Also, pardon me for first going over some material that has been well debated in the past, much to some people’s chagrin.

RICHARD: As a computer search of the entire website for that word showed no instances – none whatsoever – of anyone ever expressing chagrin (aka acute vexation or annoyance) about that material then Gardol can only be making that up ... presumably for dramatic effect.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘theatrical: having the style of dramatic performance; extravagantly or irrelevantly histrionic; showy, spectacular; simulated, artificial, assumed’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: I have to be thorough to provide an adequate signpost for future humans who come upon this path.

RICHARD: In order for a signpost to be adequate it would have to point in a particular direction and, although Gardol does not specify where exactly, one thing is for sure: it does not point towards an actual freedom from the human condition as the following is what he has to say near the end of his diatribe:

• [Gardol]: ‘I wanted to post a warning sign somewhere near the quagmire of the AF website. (...) I intended to finish with sledgehammer and blowtorch, and completely repudiate the whole AF web site and enterprise. I intended to use the title as a meme, and to post it in different places on the internet, so that it would come up as people researched AF. Then I would move on with my life’. (

As Gardol also refers to a person actually free from the human condition as a [quote] ‘talking meat robot’ [endquote], and speaks of personally feeling motivated by sympathy or compassion, it does not take a genius to suss out the general direction his signpost is pointing in ... namely, 180 degrees in the opposite direction to an actual freedom from the human condition.

Moreover, he makes it known on numerous occasions in his manifesto that he is enlightened ... for instance:

• [Gardol]: ‘... I have already reached the stage usually referred to as ‘enlightenment’.
• [Gardol]: ‘Perhaps you have not gotten many questions from us enlightened folk.
• [Gardol]: ‘... relishing the bliss of Essential Unity as I have done more and more in the short time since becoming enlightened ...’.
• [Gardol]: ‘From my own perspective as an enlightened person I can agree that ...’.
• [Gardol]: ‘Since becoming enlightened nearly two years ago myself ...’.
• [Gardol]: ‘The group that helped bring me to my own enlightenment ...’.
• [Gardol]: ‘... I pursued enlightenment. Now having at last attained my goal ...’.
• [Gardol]: ‘And, by the way, as I was learning on the road to my enlightenment ...’.

Thus what Gardol’s signpost is more than likely pointing to is a just-add-water-and-stir-thoroughly form of spiritual awakening (which by its very nature lends itself to being characterised as a dial-a-delusion entrepreneurism) that his manifesto quite obviously embraces. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘... as more and more people became awakened into Essential Oneness, we enjoyed more access to these teachers and their ‘Transmission’. By the 90’s, I noticed that, living outside of Portland Oregon, I could partake of this Transmission from several teachers who showed up every month or so. So instead of travelling all the way to India to receive Darshan or to bask in the Transmission of an Enlightened Teacher, I only had to drive 20 or so miles. These days I don’t even have to do that. The group that helped bring me to my own enlightenment had the goal of taking this trend of increasing accessibility and moving it forward into a true spiritual democracy. They have established over 20 teachers in the USA and did it in a period of little more than 10 years. Their 20 plus teachers, with more on the way, each have the ability of abiding deeply in essential unity such that the Transmission can occur, not only in person, but over the phone as well. (...) I can pick up a phone right now and call someone, and for a fee, I can experience his or her ‘Transmission of Divine Unity’. So we have come a long way in this progression, from travelling to India with all the associated expenses and travelling hardships to picking up a telephone and charging it to Pay Pal. (...) In this new paradigm, not only can you get spiritual transmission with a phone call, you can reach enlightenment in about 2 to 3 years’. (

Indeed, as Gardol goes on in his manifesto to baldly aver that [quote] ‘the masses will gravitate toward’ [endquote] what he describes as a [quote] ‘new and flourishing spiritual democracy’ [endquote], wherein just about anyone can become a teacher provided they have [quote] ‘the financial wherewithal to do all the trainings’ [endquote], it becomes quite obvious as to just where his signpost is pointing.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘devious: secretive and calculating; not straightforward, sincere, or honest about intentions or motives’. (Encarta Dictionary).


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): In the feeling-foolish-silly-and-embarrassed section of his comeback on the 18th of January 2009, and in direct reference to having made it known on those numerous occasions in his manifesto (as listed above) that he is enlightened, Gardol disclosed that, in retrospect, he would not trumpet it like he did there. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘In retrospect, I do feel somewhat foolish, silly, and a little embarrassed by some of the things I said. (...) I would not trumpet my own enlightenment like I did’. (

He further went on to divulge (after that trumpeting disclosure) how he has retrospectively changed his self-appraisal and now sees his experience as being [quote] ‘an extended run of unity consciousness’ [endquote]. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘In retrospect (...) I see my experience now as an extended run of unity consciousness ...’. (ibid.).

In view of the fact he admits to having got caught up in some ego and self importance, with his mission to [quote] ‘completely repudiate the whole AF web site and enterprise’ [endquote], it is just as well he has retrospectively changed his self-appraisal ... because ego-death is one of the defining features of spiritual enlightenment.


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Several months ago I found the Actual Freedom website and I began to read it incessantly and very quickly began to use the question: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? I also purchased both of the books for sale on the website. I had some difficulty with the question, and since the original email group for actual freedom no longer exists, I wrote to Vineeto to ask for some clarification. She replied to me that I could find all the information I needed on the Actual Freedom website.

RICHARD: She did more that just that ... much more. Here is how she really replied:

• [Vineeto]: ‘As one of the webmasters of the Actual Freedom website I can give you some pointers. On the map to the Actual Freedom website – – there is a rainbow-coloured blinking button pointing to the library page with the title ‘How to Become Free from the Human Condition’. This page contains articles and selected correspondences from Richard and other actualists on the explicit topic of applying the actualism method in order to become free from the human condition. All in all there are 39 (thirty-nine) links to pages which are specifically about the ‘how’ of the actualism method and about ‘using the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, while the underlined links directly in the text point to other related library pages. Particularly the links on the bottom left of the page under ‘Related Questions and Objections’ point to pages where Richard answered people who frequently and repeatedly expressed difficulties with applying the actualism method, so much so that I began to collect them under ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and ‘Commonly Raised Objections’ all of which you will find on the top of the site map. You might also be interested in the conversations between Gary and Peter as Gary was one of the early writers on the mailing list who sincerely applied the actualism and asked unambiguous questions about applying the actualism method and the topics that arose from doing so: Peter, List AF, Gary, 13/11/2007 4:40 PM.

Here is a useful word:

• ‘misrepresent: represent wrongly or imperfectly; give a false representation or account of’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: I had my doubts, but I kept reading and searching. When I could not find the answers I needed, I wrote to her again, a very long email with my various questions and ideas. She did not reply ...

RICHARD: As Gardol had explicitly stated, in that 4,992-word email of his, that he had the [quote] ‘ulterior motive’ [endquote] of seeing if the actualism method works for Vineeto – specifically by looking for some signs of greater intelligence at work in the way The Actual Freedom Trust functions via her responses to his bidding – then it is quite apropos to point out that relegating her to the role of an archive retriever (by requesting she show him where all of the questions he raised in his email had already been answered on The Actual Freedom Trust website) is to beg the question ... ‘assume the truth of a thing to be proved or a thing equivalent to it’ (Oxford Dictionary). Vis.:

• [Gardol to Vineeto]: ‘What I look for when I contact you and observe the way this foundation functions, are some signs of greater intelligence at work. (...) If you decide that my questions deserve a response, then I will learn more from that response then I will learn from hours and hours of reading the website. (...) I have an ulterior motive of seeing if it [the actualism method] works for you’. (Sat 15/12/2007 1:41 AM).

Apart from the absurdity of looking for [quote] ‘signs of greater intelligence at work’ [endquote] by setting a task that virtually any librarian would be capable of performing the following Q&A demonstrates how pointless Gardol’s entire exercise was anyway:

• [Respondent]: ‘Are you more intelligent in your present condition (...)?
• [Richard]: ‘A freed intelligence is free to be as intelligent as it is capable of ... on an Intelligence Quotient test, for instance, I rate about the same as before ...’. List AF, Respondent 25 19Jul03

Curiously enough Gardol snipped that very informative Q&A off when he quoted the remainder of that exchange at the beginning of the fourth part of this diatribe of his.


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): In the people-who-espouse-peace-and-love section of his comeback, on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol explains how he used all of these responses to make an assessment of Richard’s intelligence but then, after a side-track into sharing his recent thoughts about a horse blinder type of reality filters and tunnel vision he cavalierly ascribes to two activist politicians committed to the democratisation of autocracies (thus expanding political freedom and governmental peace globally) and various imagined flaws in Richard’s acumen, expressed a strong desire to show every example of similarly ascribed tunnel vision in this fully-referenced duly-annotated point-by-point commentary/ confutation of his four-part harangue/ rant ... but with no intention of ever doing so. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I have a strong desire to deconstruct his own rant [sic], and show every example of tunnel vision (...) but I have seen people who espouse peace and love then turn on you with murderous rage if you push their buttons too much’. (

Apart from the well-documented fact that Richard has never, ever espoused love, and whilst the plot now thickens most sinisterly, the reason why Gardol had begun his ye-shall-know-them-by-their-fruits email with three seemingly irrelevant sentences about an infamous cult leader (who notoriously indoctrinated susceptible female followers into committing heinous mass-murder) immediately becomes, transparently, an insinuative one. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I have been in a cult and around cults. So I get a little creeped out when I get the cult vibe, as I do from Actual Freedom and from one or two zealots on this list. And I don’t feel totally safe when Vineeto has my actual name and address. If only I hadn’t ordered those stupid ‘Journals’. (ibid.).

Of all the calumnious excuses possible, to avoid facing the fact Richard’s fully-referenced duly-annotated point-by-point commentary/ confutation (of Gardol’s four-part harangue/ rant) is thusly irrefutable, that paranoiac-like justification for not doing so really takes the cake.


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: ... then several weeks later I sent a couple follow up emails. She finally replied that she was ‘gob smacked’ by my first long email and quoted a portion of that email, where I refer to the idea of an ultimate Ground of Being. (Gob).

RICHARD: As a matter of fact, Gardol did more that merely refer to it ... and neither is it just an idea to him. Here is what he actually wrote:

• [Gardol]: ‘I believe in the Ground of Being. I believe in Gob. Not God. My Gob is an awesome Gob. My Gob is an Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being. It includes everything. Space and time come from Gob’. (Sat 15/12/2007 1:41 AM).

Here is a useful word:

• ‘duplicitous: characterised by or displaying duplicity [being deceitful in manner or conduct; the practice of being two-faced]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: I wrote back again asking for more clarification, and she only said again that she was ‘gob smacked’. I honestly did not know if I should take this in a positive or negative way.

RICHARD: Just for the record, then, what happened was that she readily discerned that Gardol’s email was a set-up – ‘to trick someone in order to make them do something, or in order to make them seem guilty of something that they have not done’ (Cambridge Dictionary) – and thus responded with perspicacious paronomasia.

GARDOL: My email covered a lot of ground, not just this one subject. But as my next email to her went unanswered ...

RICHARD: Here is that email of Gardol’s in its totality:

• [Gardol]: ‘Well, Vineeto, since you have been by definition rendered speechless with amazement by one section of my email, I’d like to ask you a favour. Would you please forward my email to Richard so I can find out if he will respond to it in a way that I might find more instructive? (Thu 31/01/2008 12:40 AM).

As Vineeto duly forwarded that email, as requested, the only response to such a blatant set-up as that, which could possibly be more instructive (as was explicitly required), was to not reply at all ... and given that Gardol explains, later on, that it was a bait intended to provoke a reply that silential response was demonstrably apposite. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I intended to provoke her into a response with my writing, so I threw out some ideas as ‘bait’. (
• [Gardol]: ‘I threw that comment [about ‘Transmission of Divine Unity’] out, as part of my ‘kitchen sink’ approach, to bait Vineeto into responding’. (
• [Gardol]: ‘I asked this question of Vineeto, partly to provoke a response, partly to see if she could think independently of Richard ...’. (
• [Gardol]: ‘I know I went on about spiritual democracy (partly to bait Vineeto) ...’. (

Here is a useful word:

• ‘manipulative: describing one who obtains own goals at the expense of other people by using them’. (

GARDOL: ... I figured I had no choice but to stick with reading the material on the Actual Freedom website, and keep practicing the question. So I did that, and I spent every bit of spare time I could manage searching through the website, reading voraciously, and looking up new words I discovered to add to my vocabulary.

RICHARD: It will have become increasingly apparent, by now, that some dictionary definitions of additional words, tailor-made to suit Gardol’s blatantly exhibited modus operandi/his patently revealed character, have been included at appropriate places all throughout this commentary.


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): In the insults-mostly-puzzle-me section of his comeback on the 18th of January 2009 Gardol shared his impression, of those dictionary definitions of words tailor-made to suit his blatantly exhibited modus operandi/his patently revealed character, as being either implied or direct insults. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I have the impression from all his implied and direct insults that ...’. (

What he conveniently ignores is, of course, that for a dictionary-defined word to be an insult it is axiomatic how it does have to be untruthful and, to take the very first instance (from the top of this page) by way of an illustration, there is no way the word deceit – ‘a device intended to deceive; a trick, a wile, a stratagem’ (Oxford Dictionary) – could possibly be construed as an insult by virtue of the very fact of its truthfulness. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘Greetings. Since I have recently achieved actual freedom, I want to share my experience with you. (... snip 17,000+ words ...). I became actually free of my addiction to the AF website. I achieved actual freedom from the seductive siren call of Richard’s tease. Yeah, *a cheap trick*, I know. But I had to do it. I wanted to post a warning sign somewhere near the quagmire of the AF website. I used the title ‘How I achieved actual freedom’ as both a tease and a meme’. [emphasis added.

Yet, despite the clearly perceptible appositeness of the dictionary-defined words (such as that instance illustrates), he unwittingly lets slip his inability to recognise such pertinacity, even though the the textual evidence bears due witness to its truthfulness, by expressing puzzlement. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘... I did not see them as particularly perceptive. The insults [sic] mostly puzzle me’. (ibid.).

Anyway, that axiomatic truth applies to all the other instances, throughout the fully-referenced duly-annotated point-by-point commentary/ confutation of his four-part harangue and/or rant, inasmuch the textual evidence at each instance consistently bears due witness to either his blatantly exhibited modus operandi or his patently revealed character (such as to occasion the apposite word plus dictionary definition).

Richard did not come down in the last shower.


May 05, 2008

GARDOL: Now Richard says: [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves’. [endquote].

RICHARD: As Gardol later on makes an (unsubstantiated) claim that Richard either wilfully ignores the intent of a respondent’s question, or simply does not see it, here is the full passage which he has part-quoted from (with the portion he snipped off highlighted for convenience):

• [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. *Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path*. List AF Respondent 12, 23 Nov 2000.

Despite the intent of any such critical examination, of those experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations, being made crystal-clear in that paragraph – in order to have reason to remember a PCE and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is reported/ described/ explained (so as to obviate living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual) – Gardol nevertheless presumes to justify this diatribe of his, which he has seen fit to type out and publish, as if that is what the intention of that above paragraph is. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘I call it a critical examination, which Richard highly recommends (see above)’. [endquote].
• [Gardol]: ‘So someone taking his recommendation to make a critical examination by asking [Richard] a perfectly sensible and intelligent question ...’. [endquote].

Here is a useful word:

• ‘fraudulence: the quality or fact of being fraudulent [guilty of or given to fraud; an act or instance of deception; a dishonest artifice or trick]; deceit’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: And he also says this: [Richard]: ‘If someone like myself publicly claims to have discovered the secret to life that will cure humanity of all the suffering that has endured through aeons ... then they automatically invite the closest scrutiny’. [endquote]. As my mind already works in this way, I had already started that project when I found that quote. I regard the Commonly Raised Objections (CRO’s) section as most beneficial in this undertaking. I must say that I find it charming and also a great display of integrity that they have made these disputed points so easy to access. In this next section of my email, I will take the first Commonly Raised Objections (CRO’s), and explain my own critical appraisal of it, as it has great bearing on my own attainment of actual freedom.

RICHARD: As Gardol’s [quote] ‘attainment of actual freedom’ [endquote] turns out to be nothing other than a cheap trick, so as to deviously provide a signpost to his dial-a-delusion entrepreneurism, it is not at all surprising to discover that his fraudulently justified diatribe is also deceitful ... right from the very beginning (immediately after the very next snippet he has included as a textual basis for his argument) in fact.

| Contents | Part One; Section Two |



The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity