|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
(...) RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. RICHARD: You have omitted the central query ... RESPONDENT: You are avoiding the questions. You are being evasive. RICHARD: Golly ... I have come clean (to use your phrasing) from the very first moment of going public on-line in 1997 – it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history – and even only a few days ago reiterated same right up-front and out in the open. Viz.:
As I have never said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person – let alone insisted upon it as an identity – your selective questions about that egocentric phraseology of yours, which you have repeatedly used on this mailing list, are not only redundant but are besides the point as well. RESPONDENT: You have omitted the link to your own words: www.actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/commonobjections/CRO01a.htm#1. RICHARD: Nowhere at that link do I say I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insist upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: I will repeat the questions: Are you or are you not the 1st person ever to be free of the human condition? Are there others? RICHARD: You could repeat your selective questions until the cows come home – and accuse me of avoidance/ evasion/ omittance until you turn blue in the face – yet it will not alter the fact one iota that I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: And please do not continue with your smoke screen below ... RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say:
Pointing out that you omitted asking the central question of that [quote] ‘1st, last & only’ [endquote] phraseology of yours, and that the word identity refers to the ego-self and the soul-self/spirit-self anyway, is in no way something that is designed to conceal or mislead/a deliberate distraction or diversion. * RESPONDENT: [These should be enough examples of ...] your insincerity to own up to what you have written multiple times, for now. RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of insincerity as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. For example:
RESPONDENT: At that time I had been reading your words and had tried out your trick/device/method aka haietmoba ... that experience was couched in your words & your lingo and was exactly what you had written regarding what you labelled a PCE ... RICHARD: Are you saying that when you wrote [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] it was because you had read those two quotes you provided, where I say that only an identity can have a PCE, and couched it accordingly (albeit in the past tense)? RESPONDENT: No ... RICHARD: In which case, then, your usage of the past tense of the word have – as in your [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] phrasing – must surely be nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used, eh? RESPONDENT: ... I was using your terminology, your lingo. RICHARD: The word had – the past tense of the word have – is not my terminology, my lingo, at all ... it the way the English language is commonly used. RESPONDENT: The word ‘PCE’ is your lingo. RICHARD: The fact that the acronym for the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience’ is my lingo does nothing to detract from the fact that your own usage of the past tense of the word ‘have’ demonstrates that this entire argument of yours, about double talk, lack of clarity of communication, and insincerity in owning up to what was written (twice), was a beat-up from the get-go. And even only three and a half hours ago you demonstrated that same thing (the way the English language is commonly used) in your e-mail to another. Viz.:
Now, I know what you are wanting to convey – and presumably your co-respondent does too – because surely, having just enquired as to what had the PCE if the identity was not present, you are not referring to the identity snapping out of the PCE. Incidentally, as the answer to that query of yours is, of course, that the flesh and blood body (in which identity is abeyant) is what had the PCE then what the identity snaps out of is abeyance – ‘a state of suspension or temporary disuse; dormant condition liable to revival’ (Oxford Dictionary) – upon which re-emergence its problems recommence. Only upon extinction will its problems cease forever.
RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. RICHARD: You have omitted the central query [Are you not the last?] ... RESPONDENT: You are avoiding the questions. You are being evasive. RICHARD: Golly ... I have come clean (to use your phrasing) from the very first moment of going public on-line in 1997 – it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history – and even only a few days ago reiterated same right up-front and out in the open. Viz.:
As I have never said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person – let alone insisted upon it as an identity – your selective questions about that egocentric phraseology of yours, which you have repeatedly used on this mailing list, are not only redundant but are besides the point as well. RESPONDENT: Of course; you are so clever with your word games & word play. RICHARD: The only word games/ word play to be found in the above exchange come from your keyboard ... to wit: your maladroit play on the word identity and your selective questions game. * RESPONDENT: [These should be enough examples of ...] your insincerity to own up to what you have written multiple times, for now. RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of insincerity as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. For example: [Respondent]: ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ... the sucker lasted many many hours ... basically from 4pm one day till waking the next morning’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: At that time I had been reading your words and had tried out your trick/ device/ method aka haietmoba ... that experience was couched in your words & your lingo and was exactly what you had written regarding what you labelled a PCE ... RICHARD: Are you saying that when you wrote [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] it was because you had read those two quotes you provided, where I say that only an identity can have a PCE, and couched it accordingly (albeit in the past tense)? RESPONDENT: No ... RICHARD: In which case, then, your usage of the past tense of the word have – as in your [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] phrasing – must surely be nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used, eh? RESPONDENT: ... I was using your terminology, your lingo. RICHARD: The word had – the past tense of the word have – is not my terminology, my lingo, at all ... it the way the English language is commonly used. RESPONDENT: The word ‘PCE’ is your lingo. RICHARD: The fact that the acronym for the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience’ is my lingo does nothing to detract from the fact that your own usage of the past tense of the word have demonstrates that this entire argument of yours, about double talk, lack of clarity in communication, and insincerity in owning up to what was written (twice), was a beat-up from the get-go. And even only three and a half hours ago you demonstrated that same thing (the way the English language is commonly used) in your e-mail to another. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘If the identity was not present, then what had the PCE? Anyways, PCE’s will not solve your problems. When you snap out of it ...’. [endquote]. Now, I know what you are wanting to convey – and presumably your co-respondent does too – because surely, having just enquired as to what had the PCE if the identity was not present, you are not referring to the identity snapping out of the PCE. Incidentally, as the answer to that query of yours is, of course, that the flesh and blood body (in which identity is abeyant) is what had the PCE then what the identity snaps out of is abeyance – ‘a state of suspension or temporary disuse; dormant condition liable to revival’ (Oxford Dictionary) – upon which re-emergence its problems recommence. Only upon extinction will its problems cease forever. RESPONDENT: Just as an aside to your PCE thing. You have said that the PCE is one’s guiding light ... RICHARD: This is the way I usually put it:
RESPONDENT: I’ll agree ... what I learned from those few hours that fit your description of a PCE is; that what is on offer here are your 2nd hand experiences ... if that is what one is after, then they’ve come to the right place ... personally, one such experience was enough ... all religions are born with the petty experiences of certain people. RICHARD: As what you experienced for those few hours was not a PCE
(...) RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. RICHARD: You have omitted the central query [Are you not the last?] ... RESPONDENT: I have omitted nada ... RICHARD: As your above assertion does include the word [quote] ‘last’ [endquote] you have indeed omitted the central query. RESPONDENT: If you are the 1st and there are no others, it is obvious that you are the last as well. RICHARD: ‘Tis verging on the miraculous how something which was (supposedly) implied only two days
ago * RESPONDENT: You are avoiding the questions. You are being evasive. RICHARD: Golly ... I have come clean (to use your phrasing) from the very first moment of going public on-line in 1997 – it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history – and even only a few days ago reiterated same right up-front and out in the open. Viz.:
As I have never said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person – let alone insisted upon it as an identity – your selective questions about that egocentric phraseology of yours, which you have repeatedly used on this mailing list, are not only redundant but are besides the point as well. RESPONDENT: Of course; you are so clever with your word games & word play. RICHARD: The only word games/ word play to be found in the above exchange come from your keyboard ... to wit: your maladroit play on the word identity and your selective questions game. RESPONDENT: Well I see you still can not put forth a simple and direct answer to 2 simple & direct questions needing nothing other than a yes or a no response. RICHARD: I have no intention of ever playing your selective questions game ... the moment you ask three simple and direct questions (such as those I provided as an example in my first response) is the moment you will get three simple and direct answers. It is your call. * (... snip ...) RESPONDENT: ... you have most certainly said it in one way or another, that you are indeed the 1st, last & only person, ever to be free of the human condition. RICHARD: I snipped the quotes you provided from the ‘Commonly Raised Objections’ page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site as none of them contain any reference whatsoever to me saying I am the last person ever to be free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: Since you have denied & lied that you have ever said such a thing ... RICHARD: I have denied saying that I am indeed the [quote] ‘1st, last & only’ [endquote] person ever to be free of the human condition for a very prosaic reason ... to wit: I never have said such a thing. RESPONDENT: ... despite the above proof that indeed you have ... RICHARD: As you have resorted to accusing me of having lied – and so as to lift your responses into having at least some semblance of rationality – I would suggest accessing the following link: www.answers.com/topic/proof Be warned, though, that it contains some big words and more than a few concepts ... you may have to ask an adult what they mean. * RESPONDENT: ... what I learned from those few hours that fit your description of a PCE is; that what is on offer here are your 2nd hand experiences ... if that is what one is after, then they’ve come to the right place ... personally, one such experience was enough ... all religions are born with the petty experiences of certain people. RICHARD: As what you experienced for those few hours was not a PCE then anything learned therein, or any conclusion drawn therefrom, has nothing to do with what is on offer here. RESPONDENT: Of course it is nearly 2 1/2 years after the fact that you have formally announced to your list members that that was not a PCE after all. RICHARD: No, it is a scant 18 hours after you initiated discussing it with me, on this public forum, that I entered into an exchange with you about it. (...) RESPONDENT: And one must give up all ones beliefs except the belief that you are the One, the Only and the Only One ... else they not get the time of day from you even though you purport to like your fellow human no matter what they be up to. RICHARD: My records show that I have addressed more e-mails to you (counting this one there are 129 all told) than anyone else ever subscribed to this mailing list ... the only person to come anywhere near that total (with 83 e-mails addressed to their concerns), and who could arguably be described as being as cynical as yourself, is listed in the archives on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site as ‘Respondent No. 12’. So as to give an idea of the scale involved here are some more figures:
(...) RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. RICHARD: You have omitted the central query [Are you not the last?] ... RESPONDENT: I have omitted nada ... RICHARD: As your above assertion does include the word [quote] ‘last’ [endquote] you have indeed omitted the central query. RESPONDENT: Big deal you pathetic pathetic nit picker! RICHARD: Here is what you originally wrote:
Thus in order for your claim (about my words meaning nothing/ about me being a weaver of a tangled web) to be true your assertion (about me insisting on having the identity of the first, last and only actually free person) must first be established as being a fact ... and even if (note ‘if’) that were to be demonstrated as being factual then your claim would further require that my report of having no identity (of having no ‘self’ of any description) necessarily includes not having a set of collective characteristics by which a person can be known (as in the phrase ‘public identity’ for instance) and/or not having a set of behavioural characteristics by which a person can be definitely recognisable. Therefore, characterising my response to your (faux) declaration, of not having omitted the central query, as being unimportant/ unimpressive, miserably inadequate/ feeble, and petty/ pedantic fault-finding does nothing to advance your case. RESPONDENT: The meaning is clear ... RICHARD: The only meaning which is clear at this stage is what your pronounced reluctance to ask three simple and direct questions (such as those previously provided as an example) means ... to wit: you would get three simple and direct answers by return mail. * RESPONDENT: You are avoiding the questions. You are being evasive. RICHARD: Golly ... I have come clean (to use your phrasing) from the very first moment of going public on-line in 1997 – it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history – and even only a few days ago reiterated same right up-front and out in the open. Viz.:
As I have never said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person – let alone insisted upon it as an identity – your selective questions about that egocentric phraseology of yours, which you have repeatedly used on this mailing list, are not only redundant but are besides the point as well. RESPONDENT: Of course; you are so clever with your word games & word play. RICHARD: The only word games/ word play to be found in the above exchange come from your keyboard ... to wit: your maladroit play on the word identity and your selective questions game. RESPONDENT: Well I see you still can not put forth a simple and direct answer to 2 simple & direct questions needing nothing other than a yes or a no response. RICHARD: I have no intention of ever playing your selective questions game ... the moment you ask three simple and direct questions (such as those I provided as an example in my first response) is the moment you will get three simple and direct answers. It is your call. RESPONDENT: You are incapable of simple & direct answers ... RICHARD: I am entirely capable of giving three simple and direct answers ... provided I get asked three simple and direct questions (such as those I provided as an example in my first response). RESPONDENT: ... your can save your empty call offers. RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.
RESPONDENT: ... Richard, who insists he has no feelings or emotions, behaves as anyone else with emotions & feelings ... else he would not act & react as he does ... he cannot walk his own talk. RESPONDENT No. 110: I have seen the stupidity of getting offended by insults or other words for a long time, which gives me the intent to see how I react to what is said. I haven’t seen any reply that suggests emotions. I’ve seen stern and hard-hitting points and some sharp words helpful to get through to the respondent. How he writes is not going to show either way whether he has emotions. If he had them and was lying about them, it would be very easy to write without showing emotional reaction. I’m very interested to hear if you have any other ‘evidence’ that he cannot walk his own talk. If I’m learning about total crap, please show me. RESPONDENT: When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot ... RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432 RESPONDENT: ... [When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot], I had what for all intents & purposes was a PCE as described by actualism definitions & examples of a PCE. RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909048009 RESPONDENT: At that time, I was only given encouragement by Richard ... RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909085654
RESPONDENT: ... Richard, who insists he has no feelings or emotions, behaves as anyone else with emotions & feelings ... else he would not act & react as he does ... he cannot walk his own talk. CO-RESPONDENT: I have seen the stupidity of getting offended by insults or other words for a long time, which gives me the intent to see how I react to what is said. I haven’t seen any reply that suggests emotions. I’ve seen stern and hard-hitting points and some sharp words helpful to get through to the respondent. How he writes is not going to show either way whether he has emotions. If he had them and was lying about them, it would be very easy to write without showing emotional reaction. I’m very interested to hear if you have any other ‘evidence’ that he cannot walk his own talk. If I’m learning about total crap, please show me. RESPONDENT: When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot ... RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432 RESPONDENT: ... [When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot], I had what for all intents & purposes was a PCE as described by actualism definitions & examples of a PCE. RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909048009 RESPONDENT: ... that was not an example of my PCE ... RICHARD: This is what I was going by:
Then you went on to say, with words to the effect RESPONDENT: If you had a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity & a shred
of decency, you would have pointed No. 110 to this link, which is where I mentioned my ‘PCE’, which you currently &
conveniently revised to not a PCE, 2 1/2 years after the fact: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=908952727.
RICHARD: If you have a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity, and a shred of decency, you will now point your co-respondent to the link where I only gave you encouragement, because it was in my self-interest that someone new to actualism had some success with the actualism method and reports/ descriptions/ explanations, for what you describe as being, to all intents and purposes, a PCE as described by definitions and examples of same on The Actual Freedom Trust web site . After having done that perhaps you might explain to them just how it is in my self-interest (rather than yours) to give you that encouragement when I am on record as saying it matters not if nobody else is living the already always existing peace-on-earth. Viz.:
And whilst you are at it maybe you could also explain just how it is in my self-interest (rather than yours)
to point out, when you initiated discussion about that event two and a half years later
RESPONDENT: ... Richard, who insists he has no feelings or emotions, behaves as anyone else with emotions & feelings ... else he would not act & react as he does ... he cannot walk his own talk. CO-RESPONDENT: I have seen the stupidity of getting offended by insults or other words for a long time, which gives me the intent to see how I react to what is said. I haven’t seen any reply that suggests emotions. I’ve seen stern and hard-hitting points and some sharp words helpful to get through to the respondent. How he writes is not going to show either way whether he has emotions. If he had them and was lying about them, it would be very easy to write without showing emotional reaction. I’m very interested to hear if you have any other ‘evidence’ that he cannot walk his own talk. If I’m learning about total crap, please show me. RESPONDENT: When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot ... RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432 RESPONDENT: ... [When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot], I had what for all intents & purposes was a PCE as described by actualism definitions & examples of a PCE. RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909048009 RESPONDENT: ... that was not an example of my PCE ... RICHARD: This is what I was going by:
Then you went on to say, with words to the effect RESPONDENT: If you had a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity & a shred
of decency, you would have pointed No.110 to this link, which is where I mentioned my ‘PCE’, which you currently &
conveniently revised to not a PCE, 2 1/2 years after the fact:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=908952727. RICHARD: If you have a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity, and a shred of decency, you will now point your co-respondent to the link where I only gave you encouragement, because it was in my self-interest that someone new to actualism had some success with the actualism method and reports/ descriptions/ explanations, for what you describe as being, to all intents and purposes, a PCE as described by definitions and examples of same on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: No, if you had a shred of honesty, integrity or decency, you would not have removed with link intact, what I had written in the email you were replying to here. RICHARD: I will spell it out simply and sequentially:
RESPONDENT: ... Richard, who insists he has no feelings or emotions, behaves as anyone else with emotions & feelings ... else he would not act & react as he does ... he cannot walk his own talk. CO-RESPONDENT: I have seen the stupidity of getting offended by insults or other words for a long time, which gives me the intent to see how I react to what is said. I haven’t seen any reply that suggests emotions. I’ve seen stern and hard-hitting points and some sharp words helpful to get through to the respondent. How he writes is not going to show either way whether he has emotions. If he had them and was lying about them, it would be very easy to write without showing emotional reaction. I’m very interested to hear if you have any other ‘evidence’ that he cannot walk his own talk. If I’m learning about total crap, please show me. RESPONDENT: When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot ... RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432 RESPONDENT: ... [When for a moment there, I decided to give actualism a shot], I had what for all intents & purposes was a PCE as described by actualism definitions & examples of a PCE. RICHARD: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909048009 RESPONDENT: ... that was not an example of my PCE ... RICHARD: This is what I was going by:
Then you went on to say, with words to the effect RESPONDENT: If you had a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity & a shred
of decency, you would have pointed No. 110 to this link, which is where I mentioned my ‘PCE’, which you currently &
conveniently revised to not a PCE, 2 1/2 years after the fact:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=908952727. RICHARD: If you have a shred of honesty, a shred of integrity, and a shred of decency, you will now point your co-respondent to the link where I only gave you encouragement, because it was in my self-interest that someone new to actualism had some success with the actualism method and reports/ descriptions/ explanations, for what you describe as being, to all intents and purposes, a PCE as described by definitions and examples of same on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: No, if you had a shred of honesty, integrity or decency, you would not have removed with link intact, what I had written in the email you were replying to here. RICHARD: I will spell it out simply and sequentially: 1. The e-mail at that link RESPONDENT: And that is the link where you provided encouragement when I decided to give actualism and you a shot. RICHARD: Yet nowhere at that link do I only give you encouragement for the event you did not write about until four days later. * RICHARD: 2. The e-mail at the other link you provided further above (where you first wrote about the event in question) is dated November 02, 2003 05:44 PST. RESPONDENT: And so? RICHARD: And so there is no way you could have been [quote] ‘only given encouragement by Richard’ [endquote] for that event four days before you first wrote about it. RESPONDENT: I mistakenly linked my reply to your encouragement ... RICHARD: In which case you can now correct that mistake by pointing your co-respondent to the link where you say I only gave you encouragement for that event. RESPONDENT: ... so shoot me. RICHARD: I would rather see you now point your co-respondent to the link where you say I only gave you encouragement for that event. * RICHARD: 3. There is no way you could have been [quote] ‘only given encouragement by Richard’ [endquote] for that event four days before you first wrote about it. RESPONDENT: Your encouragement was in reply to this link which was sent Oct 29, 2003 04:33 PST [http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908926432]. RICHARD: Nowhere at that link do you write anything at all about the event in question. RESPONDENT: And you replied 5 hours later at Oct 29, 2003 11:31 PST. RICHARD: Nowhere in that reply * RICHARD: 4. You were asked by your co-respondent if you have any evidence that Richard cannot walk his own talk. RESPONDENT: Your interactions continue to be all the evidence that anyone needs ... RICHARD: This is the essence of what your co-respondent wrote to you (from further above):
Now, whilst I cannot speak for your co-respondent, there is nothing in that response of theirs which even remotely suggests my interactions are all the evidence they need ... on the contrary, they specifically ask if you have any ‘evidence’ other than my interactions (as in their ‘how he writes’ phrasing) and all you provided was an elaborate hall of mirrors. This is an apt place to again re-post the following:
That rare burst of honesty from you was over two years ago and not once since then has any of what you have had to say – none whatsoever – about an actual freedom from the human condition has been correct either. How you can even begin to think you can expose same
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Fourteen) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
