Actual Freedom – A Diatribe from Gardol Yack

How I Achieved Actual Freedom
by Gardol Yack
Part Four; Section Four (Addendum)

May 05, 2008

GARDOL: I wrote most of this before I posted ‘How I achieved Actual Freedom’. At this point in my email 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. I also intended it as a tease and a trick. I used paradoxical phrasing, so people ‘in the know’ would not take it too seriously. I doubt that someone who became actually free would say it that way, as in: ‘How I achieved success in Real Estate in two weeks’ or ‘How I achieved financial independence’. The ‘I’ of course does not achieve actual freedom, but disappears, leaving the talking meat robot. Oh, I mean the flesh and blood body.

RICHARD: It is transparently obvious that if Gardol had really meant ‘the flesh and blood body’ (instead of ‘the talking meat robot’) he would have, as a matter of course, just back-spaced it out and then typed that instead.

GARDOL: I felt a little guilty about my tease, so I included my letter to Vineeto to give this email a little more weight and meaning. We get teased and hooked so often by media, and then disappointed.

RICHARD: And what a bizarre justification that is (for doing the very same thing himself).

GARDOL: I felt motivated by fellowship regard, which I also call sympathy or compassion ...

RICHARD: As that term is given a particular connotation in the actualism writings then all Gardol is doing here is conveniently blurring distinctions which, whilst giving an illusion of being on the same page, only serves to muddy the waters.

GARDOL: ... to give something more than the quick conclusion and ‘ha ha, I tricked you, bye now’.

RICHARD: Here is an example of what he is really saying:

• [example only]: ‘I felt motivated by sympathy to give something more than the quick conclusion and ‘ha ha, I tricked you, bye now’. [end example].


• [example only]: ‘I felt motivated by compassion to give something more than the quick conclusion and ‘ha ha, I tricked you, bye now’. [end example].

‘Tis fascinating to see how feeling guilty (about the cheap-trick tease) then transmogrifies (through a bizarre justification) into a feeling of sympathy/ compassion (for those he teased) which translates (via some evidently-felt need to compensate) into making public a private email (thus putting a few flaws on display) so as to give this ... um ... this ‘stunning conclusion’ email a little more weight and meaning.

O what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.

GARDOL: It gets a little knotty for me here because I can no longer no longer conclude, as I intended to, by completely repudiating the whole AF website and enterprise. By a strange twist of fate I find my path now, post enlightenment, and, ‘as far as I can ascertain’, parallels Richards’ path ...

RICHARD: Going by the few snippets of information available (such as the deliberate ‘talking meat robot’ jibe and the ‘sympathy or compassion’ muddying of the waters, for instance) it may very well be the case that the parallel path is still proceeding in the opposite direction from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

GARDOL: ... more than any other teacher or purveyor of ‘facts’ I’ve found.

RICHARD: Given that Gardol probably would not recognise a fact even if it suddenly sat up in front of him with a flashing neon sign gaudily displaying the words ‘This Is A Fact’ it is just as well he has put that word in scare-quotes. Vis.:

• ‘scare-quotes: quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Editorial Note: Oddly enough, on the 11th of January, 2009, a disaffected correspondent on a public discussion list rashly presented the above response, as one example they could think of, in reaction to a rebuffed request for evidence of Richard’s [quote] ‘malicious, combative correspondence’ [endquote] which a notorious corespondent on the same discussion list had automorphically ascribed to his words (and, hence, had rebuffed the follow-up request to supply examples).


GARDOL: Instead of a ‘tree’ of self, I now have a stump. At the base of that stump, I tend a small fire. The fire hallows out the stump from the inside.

RICHARD: Humph ... so much for the parallel path, eh?

GARDOL: My own wordless inquiry, while different from Richards question ...

RICHARD: Again ... so much for the parallel path.

GARDOL: ... brings me into the present moment, and into my body. Time slows down for me. It only works, or I can only do it, when I muster ‘pure intent’. So that phrase has new meaning for me.

RICHARD: To loosely use a common expression: gob knows what new meaning the term ‘pure intent’ now has.

GARDOL: The markers Richard proposes: ‘Good ... Happy ... Perfect’ and the whole bootstrapping method have no relevance to me.

RICHARD: And again ... so much for the parallel path.

GARDOL: At any moment I practice, I could answer ‘yes’ to all three. So I don’t need to mentally backtrack into previous states and bootstrap myself back up to the most recent marker.

RICHARD: And yet again ... so much for the parallel path.

GARDOL: Nor does Unity, Bliss, or Oneness have relevance. I feel neither in Unity nor out of it. I do feel plugged into my purpose in life. And I have no more need than the meaning of this moment, as I practice.

RICHARD: Uh-huh ... add a bit of meaningless new-age gobbledygook, stir well, and then slowly bake in a moderate oven (until the cows come home).

GARDOL: So if you have to slog through those tar pits of the AF website ...

RICHARD: Once again this is a good place to draw attention to the following:

• [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive (...)’. List AF Respondent 56, 14 Jan 05

In other words, what is essentially a very simple matter has had multitudinous layers of (unnecessary) complexification added, again and again, by many and various peoples of the same, or similar, ilk as Gardol.

GARDOL: ... you will find inconsistencies and contradictions galore.

RICHARD: Going by what has been clearly demonstrated all throughout this diatribe it is, of course, beyond doubt that nothing of the sort is to be found.

GARDOL: However, you might also find some gold there.

RICHARD: The only gold Gardol has found is some type of chalcopyrite or yellow pyrite (popularly known as fool’s gold).

GARDOL: Excuse me for not replying to all your emails well worth replying to.

RICHARD: And again the admonisher brings communication (be it either the one way or two way kind) to an end.

GARDOL: In a way, posting here and thinking about my posts distracts me from pure intent ...

RICHARD: Well then, one thing is for sure: it ain’t the pure intent, described in detail, on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

GARDOL: ... and from my practice. I may reply more in the future, if I can balance the two.

RICHARD: And thus does the denouement (aka ‘stunning conclusion’) of Gardol’s argument fade vacuously back into the nothingness it never quite made its way up out of anyway. Vis.:

• ‘denouement: the unravelling of the complications of a plot, or of a confused situation or mystery; the final resolution of a play, novel, or other narrative’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess.


Feb 25 2009

Update (eleven months later): What follows is the essential message of Gardol’s Jan ‘09 self-justifying comeback, re-presented in its online layout, with the 568 words which distract from that paranoiac-like essence (most of which have already been addressed, anyway, in the places they are contextually relevant) snipped out to simplify comprehension:

Message: #4196
From: zeck13 <zeck13@...>
Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:59 pm
Subject: By their fruits ye shall know them
And Charlie Manson never killed anyone. Charlie talked a lot about peace on earth. Charlie had some crazy zealot followers though.
I’ve read Richard’s response to my harangue, and toyed with the idea of responding in kind.
I think I could probably wind him up and get another response, but I have seen people who espouse peace and love, then turn on you with murderous rage if you push their buttons too much. 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’.
Richard, I know you will read this. You still like me, don’t you?
‘I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. The optimum.’
‘I like my fellow human beings ... no matter what mischief they get up to.’
Keep that in mind, Richard. Peace and love, dude. I’ll shut up and we’ll stay friends.
Please get help.
Gardol Yack

First, the most obvious point: if Gardol had really meant it, where he says [quote] ‘I’ll shut up and we’ll stay friends’ [endquote], he would never had written the 500+ depreciative words, which preceded it, in the first place.

Second, if a person truly fears for their life, via a crazed zealot from some creepy cult in a murderous rage, they would never goad their cult-leader – [quote] ‘I could probably wind him up’ [endquote] – with 500+ depreciative words.

Lastly, as far worse depreciative words have been sent over many years – as evidenced in the archived correspondence – with no heinous mass-murder ever occurring, as a consequence of such sustained vilification, it is a fantastical scenario.

Thus the entire paranoiac-like essence of Gardol’s Jan ‘09 commentitious comeback is another craftily contrived hatchet work  – and another incongruous grandstanding to boot – which drew forth a by-now-expectable reaction, from a notorious correspondent, just like a great steaming pile of faecal matter attracts blowflies intent on spawning maggots by the bucketful. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘... [I don’t feel totally safe when Vineeto has my actual name and address]. If only I hadn’t ordered those stupid ‘Journals’.
• [Respondent]: ‘... The contradiction between Richard’s talk and his sneering walk is also the reason I never felt safe enough to offer my personal address for their journals either’.

All in all an amateurish state of affairs.

Next, the most obvious issue: to write 500+ depreciative words, to somebody they deem in need of professional help, and then ask them [quote] ‘You still like me, don’t you?’ [endquote] bespeaks an insensitivity characteristic to ... um ... someone caught up in some ego and self importance.

Second, the well-documented fact that Richard has never, ever espoused love – which can flip into its opposite, hate (hence murderous rage), in an instant – renders any such nefarious comparison null and void.

Third, as Richard has no [quote] ‘buttons’ [endquote] whatsoever to push it is therefore impossible to ever [quote] ‘wind him up’ [endquote] no matter how much Gardol unwittingly lets slip he would like to.

Fourth, as Gardol has [quote] ‘been in a cult and around cults’ [endquote], whereas Richard never has and never will, then getting [quote] ‘the cult vibe’ [endquote] from the website and a mailing list can only be yet another case of automorphism on his part.

Fifth, his pompous parting line [quote] ‘Please get help’ [endquote] not only conveniently ignores the fact, re-presented for his convenience in this commentary/ confutation from the many places it appears on the website, that Richard has been closely examined, face-to-face over a three-year period, by both two accredited psychiatrists and a psychologist, but also self-importantly presupposes he can know better than those duly qualified professionals, with their extensive and first-hand scrutiny, merely via the written word.

All in all a dilettantish state of affairs.

Lastly, the selective nature of two quotes provided, abstracted from Richard’s archived correspondence, thus leave out vital information regarding friendship as it pertains to an actual freedom from the human condition. For instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘HEY! Richard!! I like you! (...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘I like everybody irregardless of what mischief they get up to (...)’.
• [Respondent]: ‘(...) friendship is important on this planet!
• [Richard]: ‘It has nothing to do with friendship as I like people anyway.
• [Respondent]: ‘I’d like you to be my friend.(...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘As I like everybody anyway I never have to sell out for the sake of a friendship. Besides, I never need the other to fulfil me ... or whatever it is that makes people bargain and compromise for the sake of such a fickle thing as a relationship’.
List AF, Respondent12,30 Jul 00.

This next quote spells out the absence of any need for friends, nor the capacity for friendship, in more detail:

• [Gary]: One of the most striking things to happen to me since I started practising Actualism is the diminishment of emotional connections to other human beings. I cannot say that there are absolutely no connections to others, as it is obvious to me in my relationship with my partner that a sense of connectedness comes up from time to time in various ways. And no doubt this happens with other people as well. However, I have noticed for a long period that when people want to be ‘friends’ with me, for instance, and make certain friendly overtures, these are generally not at all reciprocated on my part. In other words, the offer to ‘make a friend’ or ‘be a friend’ or such similar things as happen in the social world usually fall completely flat on my part. I have sometimes gotten the impression, gleaned from body language and other cues, that this irritates people. Overtures of this type just do not seem to ‘take’ with me. It is difficult to describe but I am sure that the other practiced Actualists on this list know what I am talking about.
• [Richard]: ‘Given that the primary basis of a meaningful friendship is an affectionate attachment, a tie or a bond based upon one identity making an affective connection with another identity, it speaks volumes about the underlying nature of relationship that a proposition of that ilk deemed to be spurned incurs chagrin. (...) The need for a friend, and to be a friend, is an urge for an affectuous coupling based upon separation ... an identity is alone and/or lonely and longs for the union that is evidenced in a relationship. When both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct there is no need – and no capacity – for such unity: the expression ‘life is a movement in relationship’ applies only to a psychological and/or psychic entity who wants the feeling of oneness – a synthetic intimacy per favour the bridge of affection/love – which manifests the deception that separation has ended. And if human relationship does not produce the desired result, then one will project a god or a goddess – a ‘super-friend’ not dissimilar to the imaginary playmates of childhood – to love and be loved by.
The ridiculous part in all this is that we are fellow human beings anyway (like species recognise like species) and to seek to impose friendship over the top of fellowship is, as someone once said in another context, like painting red ink on a red rose ... a garish redundancy’. List AF, Gary, 24 Jun 03.

This quote utilises a dictionary definition (less there be quibbling as to what relationship is comprised of):

• [Respondent]: ‘A comparison between a relationship with love and a relationship with ‘actual freedom’, would be appreciated.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... first and foremost I am assuming you mean the word in a way more or less similar to this:

• ‘relationship: a connection, an association, spec. an emotional (esp. sexual) association between two people’ (Oxford Dictionary).

As a relationship is *specifically* described as being an emotional association between two people – as in an affective connection, union, bond (as in ‘the bonds of friendship’) or tie (as in ‘family ties’) – it confuses the issue somewhat to call being together monogamously with another, when actually free from the human condition, ‘a relationship’ (...). Having said all that there actually is no comparison between a relationship (either with or without love) and an association where there is an actual freedom from the human condition because the former, being within the human condition, is essentially an association with another identity whereas the latter is an association with another flesh and blood body ...’. List AF, Respondent 88, 27 Apr 05.

Here it all is at its most simplest:

• [Richard]: ‘It is impossible to not like somebody, whatever the mischief is they get up to, as an actual intimacy does not switch on and off and operates unilaterally in regards every man, woman and child without exception ... nobody is special because everybody is special simply by being alive as a flesh and blood body’. List B, Respondent 19l, # sane

And, again, at its most simplified:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) it is impossible to not like someone whatever the mischief is they get up to ... an actual intimacy is impossible to switch off. (...) it is impossible to have ‘friends’ as an actual intimacy operates unilaterally in regards every man, woman and child without exception ... no body is special because every body is special’. List AF, Respondent 12, 30 Nov 00.

Thus Gardol’s [quote] ‘Keep that in mind, Richard’ [endquote] admonition – meaning for Richard to remember he likes his fellow human beings no matter what mischief they get up to – demonstrates how Gardol presumes that an actual intimacy (no separation whatsoever) is a principle, such as tolerance, for instance, or a philosophy, such as pacifism, for example, which like any such virtuous behaviour needs to be kept in mind (and the beast within kept in check) less all hell break loose.

Yet this is what he wrote on Friday, the 29th of February, 2008:

• [Gardol]: ‘Several months ago I found the Actual Freedom website and I began to *read it incessantly* (...) 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’. emphasises added]. (

The old saying/ ancient proverb ‘there are none so blind as those who will not see’ seems particularly apt here.


| Contents |  Afterword|



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