|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 33
To No 47: When I disentangled myself from the spiritual practice of
dissociation I began to allow myself once again to become sensitive to my own undesired feelings as well as to the
perversities and horrors of the human condition. In short I allowed myself to feel the full range of my emotions in
order to examine them and trace them back to ‘me’, the affective identity inside this flesh-and-blood body. When a
reaction to a certain situation kept creeping up again and again, avoiding giving it ‘credence’ was not enough. I
had to feel the feeling, label it, sort it out, understand it in the context of my social identity and figure out which
part of ‘me’ was responsible for my emotional reaction in order to become free from it. Then I could go back to
feeling excellent again and, as a result of this rooting around, was less prone to be disturbed by a similar situation. Thanks for the very lucid and succinct description of the actualism method; I would like to just add my observations to what you said (I have divided your description into three parts):
I think a) is extremely important. If not done diligently, it leads to denial of the feeling and also distortion of steps b) and c). If I don’t fully feel and acknowledge the feeling/ emotional reaction, it means that I have not fully come to terms with the whole of the feeling; I still have some vested interests in continuing to feel that way and I would trick myself to lie in the surface if I don’t take a good look at the whole of the feeling. It seems to be so difficult to stay with the feeling. It’s usually difficult to acknowledge and feel a feeling when the particular feeling is either socially unacceptable or personally undesired, i.e. when to feel this way does not concur with one’s morals and ethics and/or one’s image of oneself. You described it well in your recent letter to No 4 when you said –
That’s why the questioning of one’s spiritual beliefs and one’s moral and ethical values is crucial for successfully investigating one’s feelings – I had to dare to go past the ‘guardians at the gate’ and take apart my social identity.
One thing that I found useful in this process of dismantling my social identity was when I became aware of a feeling that interrupted my feeling good and I had given it a name, I then identified this feeling with a specific aspect of my social identity. In my case when I felt annoyed with something that Peter said or didn’t say or did or didn’t do I would acknowledge that I was annoyed and then recognize that it was ‘Vineeto the woman’ and ‘Vineeto the lover’ who was annoyed and this made it clear that if I wanted to stop reacting in that way then ‘Vineeto the woman’ and ‘Vineeto the lover’ would have to go. In fact some of the spiritual practices seem to point to this step (observe the feeling, don’t run away, escape as is done normally) – but I think either deliberately or inadvertently end up inducing dissociation. And since it is painful to stay with some feelings, dissociation seems to come naturally. All spiritual practices I have come across and have been taught suggest to ‘observe the feeling’, or rather ‘observe the thought’ that supposedly is the cause of one’s feelings and then disengage, distance and dissociate oneself from the thoughts in order to retreat back inside and get back to feeling ‘who you really are’. As for ‘deliberately or inadvertently’, as a generalization, ‘normal’ people inadvertently dissociate from being here, spiritualists do it deliberately as part of the teachings. After all, people embark on the spiritual path in order to disengage or dissociate from the world because they are discontent with or appalled by the world as it is and people as they are. And the watching/observing of the feelings can go on endlessly as it is not coupled with b) and c) – in fact the practices actively discourage b) and funnily even c) – as the aim does not seem to be ‘happy and harmless’ but only ‘observing/ watching/ attention’ etc. – so the continued suffering is not questioned and considered okay as long as one ‘watches/ observes/ attends to’ and is seen to be the best one can do! Yes, in spiritual practice the ‘watching/observing of the feelings can go on endlessly’ until one succeeds to completely detach oneself from one’s imperfect ‘self’ such that the illusion of a new identity is created, an aggrandized impersonal ‘Self’, a disembodied watcher or observer. The purpose of all spiritual methods is to distance oneself from one’s bad feelings, believed to arise from conditioned thoughts, whereas good feelings such as love and compassion are greatly encouraged. ‘The continued suffering is not questioned’ because suffering is regarded as the very mud from which the lotus of Enlightenment will arise – without suffering there would be no need for dissociation. The feeling of suffering is aggrandized into a feeling of universal sorrow or divine compassion. When b) is done without a) (not exactly, but somewhat in ‘cognitive therapy’ and some psychoanalytic methods dealing with the cognitive distortions – or as in watching the ‘thought’ as opposed to the feeling) I think the root cause is not seen and a lot of effort is spent in trying to sort out and it gets very complicated and does not produce a fundamental solution (results in better coping-up). Also not having acknowledged the feeling, the feeling is at work when doing b) – so there are lots of distortions and confusions that can arise. Moreover, the situation can get complex because of further triggers in feelings and the crucial information is lost because of not doing the a). Since the issue with this step is complexity, trying to keep it simple (or trying to find that which ‘ticks’ is very useful. The very reason why psychoanalysis and other self-investigative methods of dealing with one’s feelings do not work is because the necessity that human beings remain ‘feeling beings’ is never ever questioned. That’s why ‘you can’t change human nature’ can be seen as the mother of all beliefs – this fundamental belief prevents any sincere exploration and keeps any method of self-investigation superficial at best and delusionary at worst. To change human nature is a risky business – you actually need to change. c) brings back the focus on enjoying the moment and the purpose of the investigation is to find and remove the obstacle that took away from feeling good/ excellent/ perfect. The real test for correctness of the above steps is simply that it becomes once again possible to get back to feeling good/ excellent/perfect. At least the current problem has been understood and eradicated. Yes and when the problem reoccurs I examine it again, I shine the bright light of awareness onto it, maybe explore it on a deeper level and come to understand how ‘I’ tick more deeply and comprehensively. In every investigation a crunch point eventually comes when ‘I’ realize that the only way I am going to raise the bar of actually becoming more harmless and consequently feeling more happy is to let go of, or drop, a significant part of my social identity – in my case I was no longer a German, no longer a spiritualist, no longer a socialist, no longer a member of the sisterhood, and so on. Change does mean change and change does have consequences. For an actualist the over-arching intent to become more happy and more harmless outweighs any consequences that the stripping away of one’s social identity may have. I also see that the progress is directly proportional to the intent to become happy and harmless as soon as possible. It seems to be very important to remember why one is doing this while one is doing this. And the progress was nil as long as I wasn’t able to see the way all this work is totally opposite to the methods I had come across. Ah, you put your finger onto the nub of the issue and exposed the very reason why a clip-on of actualism to any of the spiritual methods will always fail to bring results. It’s like using a motor vehicle but keep heading into the wrong direction – one will invariably arrive at the wrong destination. In other words, the 180 degree turnaround is essential – from one’s head in the clouds to being fully here on earth, from practicing dissociation to paying exclusive attention to how I experience this moment of being alive, from wanting to become ‘who’ I really am, an immortal soul, to wanting to become what I am – this flesh-and-blood mortal body. On a different note, I was wondering why people see the contents of the website to be similar to existing material like Zen/ Buddhism/ Eastern stuff... because I was doing the same for quite some time. Firstly, that everybody has got it wrong is something very big – and such an extreme position is unusual and considered insane. So the emotional response to that is – who does he (Richard) think himself as [as Richard himself has suggested this as the possibility of objection]; but after reading the material and seeing a lot of sense in it – the feeling becomes this is all great, but he is wrong in thinking that this is different. All the differences in the web-site are seen to be linguistic differences. As it is a common belief in the eastern spirituality that all paths/religions are the same stuff in different guise. So actualism/actualfreedom is also the same just bottled differently. An excellent observation, if I might say so. I remember when Peter first got hold of a loose-leaf copy of Richard’s Journal and I noticed that he didn’t just skim through it but sometimes he would spend hours trying to work out exactly what Richard was saying in one particular group of 3 or 4 sentences. It’s a good way of reading and trying to understand something new – it is useful to really concentrate on getting to the bottom of it and fully understanding one particular issue that is a key for you and then the whole of what is on offer can start to make sense. [At some point I told myself that I was going to take the risk of being called a fool in admitting that everybody got it wrong – that helped to be rid of the fear (is this fear of stepping out of ‘humanity’?) and proceed with the investigation.] Yes, I can relate to that from my own experience – my pride and my loyalty to the spiritual group I belonged to were tough obstacles to overcome. Pride stands in the road of admitting that one is wrong because the last thing a proud person wants to feel is to feel foolish. When I understood that it was not me who had got it wrong but that everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong, it became clear to me that it would be foolish to keep looking in the wrong direction just because I didn’t want to feel a fool in having done exactly what everyone else was doing. Loyalty was a similar issue – when I realized that what was keeping me being a spiritualist was a feeling of loyalty to my dead master and my then spiritual friends I was confronted by feeling to be a traitor whenever I thought about leaving. This continued on for months until I finally found that I had decided that being happy and harmless and living with a man in utter peace and harmony was more important to me than being a loyal spiritualist and the feelings of being a traitor disappeared as if by magic. Now, that my former friends consider me to be both a fool and a traitor, I can delight in the freedom of having no spiritual beliefs and of not belonging to any group whatsoever. I think you are more talking about the fear of stepping out of society and it certainly requires bold determination to dare to step out of one’s social bondages and leave the various groups that form and maintain one’s social identity behind in order to become an anonymous and carefree human being. The process is incremental, the changes are palpable and the rewards of becoming more harmless is a continual raising the bar of feeling more happy. The final stepping out of humanity happens with the ending of ‘me’. And since one is used to the vagueness and ambiguity and the indescribables and the unknowables – never defining unambiguously – no wonder actualism looks the same as anything else – but this apparent similarity does not stand the scrutiny. Yes, and this vagueness and ambiguity comes as no surprise given that spiritual freedom is only a feeling of freedom and not an actuality. Actuality can be described with precise words because it is tangible, apparent, lucid and obvious and as such two people can describe something with very definitive words and know that they are both talking about the same actuality. By contrast one can only be vague and ambiguous when describing an imagined and illusionary feeling state because no two people feel exactly the same about something intangible, spirit-like, ephemeral, ethereal and otherworldly. Once you begin to examine the descriptions of spiritual experiences, you discover that each guru and each disciple lives in their own private affective dream world, their own universe. I found Peter’s foresight very accurate: ../actualism/path2.htm:
This is all great fun! Yes, it’s great fun to be a pioneer in such a wonderful human endeavour. Although it’s early days for actualism I notice that apart from objectors and ‘clip-on-ers’ more and more adventurers dare to abandon their pride and their loyal connection with their peers and embark on an exploration how to become happy and harmless.
Richard/Peter/Vineeto: The identity is comprised of (not necessarily distinct) these parts: ego aka thinker, feeler aka soul, social identity, instinctual self, correct? When I began to write on mailing lists about my experience with actualism, I first used the terms mainly used in spiritual circles to describe the identity – ego and soul, or thinker and feeler. However, as I explored more and more of my psyche and became more familiar about the nitty gritty of ‘me’ in operation, I found that the terms ‘social identity’ and ‘instinctual identity’ describe more accurately the two layers of my identity, the social identity being the layer of conditioning acquired after birth in order to curb the instinctual identity and its genetically encoded instinctual passions. This is just a preference that I have as I personally find the terms to be more descriptive and concise in conveying what I mean to others – contrary to what some believe there are no rules governing terminology around here. Also the attributes or even the material by which the identity is made of is – feelings and emotions, instinctual passions, and thoughts (seldom free of emotions when an attribute of identity). Is this correct? To the list of what the identity consists of I would add beliefs (feeling-fed thoughts about who rules the ethereal world and ‘my’ place in the hierarchy of the spiritual world), concepts (feeling-fed thoughts about ‘my’ place in the hierarchy of the materialistic world), moral and ethical values (feeling-fed thoughts about what is good and bad, right and wrong), vibes, myths and psittacisms. There is no material by which the identity is made of, in that there is no ego in the head, or a little man pulling the levers and controlling the body, nor is there a soul located in the heart or a real me deep down inside as an actuality. However both aspects of one’s identity, whilst not being actual and having no material existence, are experienced as being very real – feelings are very real to the person having them. Beliefs are very real to the person who holds them dear, morals and ethics can dominate a person’s thoughts, actions and feelings, instinctual passions are very often overwhelming in their strength, and so on. In fact, the identity and his or her associated attributes are so real, so dominating and so overwhelming that they cause human beings to be nearly always in wary mode, defence mode, or attack mode – exactly as other animals are. Is there a hierarchical structure to these various parts of the identity? Is it that one is operational at a given time not others – or – they all orchestrate with each other one feeding on the other like the legs of the millipede? I found that because my social identity was mainly a training to curb my instinctual passions, particularly the so-called bad passions, I first had to whittle away at this layer of my identity in order to allow the deeper and stronger passions to emerge such that I could take a good look at how and why they operated. But this is not necessarily a smooth operation – sometimes just a crack in the outer layer reveals a bit of what is underneath, sometimes a big crack opens up and one gets a quite often shocking glimpse at what can be described as ‘the raw animal inside’ and sometimes one breaks right through the lot and a pure consciousness experience results when all of a sudden the whole centre and the protective circumference of my identity disappears … as if by magic. The baby is born with these raw instinctual passions, basic software to protect itself from some of the dangers and situations – also with things like ‘theory of mind’ (which is later programmed or tuned more) – this is the instinctual self. As I understand it the ‘theory of mind’ develops at about age 2-3, therefore I would say all humans are born pre-primed to think and feel themselves to be a separate ‘self’. And with time – are these same instinctual passions fine-tuned to give rise to various feelings and beliefs and emotional behaviour patterns by societal conditioning? The instinctual passions are never fine-tuned – in my experience they were only overlaid with social conditioning. I was only able to conduct a clear-eyed investigation of the instinctual passions in their full force once I was ready, able and willing to incrementally lift the lid of my beliefs, morals, ethics, values, ideals and principles that are the very constituents of my social identity. When do I know I have come face to face with a raw instinctual passion – not just a conditioning of social identity – is this when the ‘social identity’ is deleted to a great extent – so as to see the underlying ‘instinctual passion’ devoid of the thinking distortions that usually accompanies it? This is how Peter described it in the ‘The Actualist’s Guide’ –
Or is it (I think I read it in Peter’s journal) when I get to this point where I don’t see any reason for the fear or the strong emotion – it is just there – then I know it is an instinctual passion? If this is the case, I have come across situations where I have a strong emotion and I see that there is no reason for it to be there, at least I don’t believe that it is apt at that time. The way I determined that I had come across an underlying instinctual passion was by the sheer intensity of the passion that welled up like a giant octopus, sometimes for no apparent reason. In such instance it was not that I had become upset about a belief that was attacked or that an aspect of my social identity that had been exposed – I knew I was experiencing something deeper and far more substantial than feelings – it was naked fear, pure rage, bottomless dread, sheer lust to kill, or the mindless intoxication of nurture. Also I thought about another ‘Spiritual Freedom’ vs ‘Actual Freedom’ item when I was reading one of the pages (if this is not already tabled): In the former, one is a saviour of humankind (at least (s)he feels/thinks so) and in the latter ‘one is an expert in human condition’ (unless in the future, the babies are born free – in which case they will be without such expertise except vicariously). Yepp, I have felt, and in that moment experientially understood, the overwhelming feeling of ‘knowing it all’ and the urging need to spread this wisdom revealed to ‘Me’ in a full-blown ASC that lasted several hours. As for ‘one is an expert in human condition’, I can only talk from the perspective of Virtual Freedom but I would say I am only partially an expert in the human condition in as far as I have explored my own psyche, which to a certain extent is the human psyche, and I am certainly an expert in how I became virtually free from the human condition. However, there are many, many aspects of the human condition, cultural nuances, tribal rites, personal obsessions, weird passions, senseless beliefs and elaborate philosophies that I don’t know and neither have I the slightest interest in gaining such expertise. In any case, everyone has to do the job to take himself or herself apart if they choose to become free from the particular bent of their own social identity in order to firstly become virtually free of malice and sorrow. For this, one doesn’t need to be an expert in the human condition – ‘you’ only need to be an expert in what it is that is stopping you from being happy and harmless, no more and no less. As an example of this, Richard had little intellectual knowledge about the instinctual passions before he became free of them – it was only Peter’s curiosity that prodded him to find out more and to write about them in more detail. Actualism is after all an experiential business, not an intellectual one. The idea that in some distant future babies will be born free from the instinctual programming … can only be speculation at this stage. Thanks a million. My pleasure,
Whilst it can be argued that name calling and mindless accusation can bring out the worst in oneself for investigation, I find that the majority of mails seem to be of no use to me these days. To keep it open for discussion gives a chance for seeing a variety of personalities and viewpoints, but isn’t there a common denominator so that there is a useful discussion? After all this mailing list is setup to enable discussions for people who find the contents of the actualfreedom worthwhile to go deeper into... should we consider some kind of moderation of this list? Just to pass on a practical hint that I found worked well for me – when the list became so convoluted recently with so many posts that are either irrelevant to the topic or downright abusive I used the ‘organize’ function in my Outlook email program to have those posts directly filed away into either a ‘silly’ folder or directly to ‘Deleted Items’. The outcome is that most of the posts that come in lately remain unread and my Inbox remains uncluttered. In other words, I moderate the list myself.
I have a question to you/ Peter/ Richard/ Alan regarding the physical processes that accompany the ‘cutting the cord’ – realizing and terminating the feelings. I have seen Alan mention such things more than once (jangling of nerves?)... can you describe any such processes if any? In the post you responded to I posted a quote that was descriptive of the physical sensations that can sometimes accompany radical change –
However it is good to keep in mind that the impression of something physical happening is most likely due to psychosomatic processes, i.e. bodily responses to feelings and imagination. When I resolve an emotional conflict in the nature of total riddance or near to that, I experience a physical sensation – as if a possessed spirit departs from the body; there are some sensations in teeth and heart and most of the upper body; and sometimes in the forehead; it is like I am freeing from the stranglehold of some invisible ghost... physically. I am not sure all this is some unnecessary imagination of mine... some feedback would help... Given that ‘I’ am a passionate imaginary ‘being’ it follows that ending aspects of ‘me’ is often accompanied by passions and imaginations and sometimes physical reactions occur due to those passions and imaginations. However, given that both feelings and imagination are notoriously unreliable when it comes to determine fact, in the long run I did not give much weight to the strange things that happened in my psyche with occasional physical side-effects – what I was ultimately interested in was if the change that I had felt and imagined to have happened had really happened. This I ascertained by checking if my behaviour had changed, if I stayed calm and happy in situations that had ruffled my feathers before, if certain feelings resurfaced after I imagined to have ‘cut the cord’ or whether my normal habitual emotional reaction was indeed non-existent in similar situations from that moment onwards. Incidentally, the more imagination disappeared out of my life, the less I was prone to feel weird happenings in my brain, my spine, my belly or my heart.
What does one do when one feels bad? How much of study is required? Just the right amount to get back into feeling happy and harmless once again? If one has 100% intent can one just look at the feeling and get back to being happy and harmless instantaneously? Is the amount of work that is needed inversely proportional to the amount of pure intent to be happy and harmless? And is it inversely proportionally to one's grip on the method? When I look into the feeling - there is the cause of the feeling and there is the effect of the feeling and there is no clear boundary in between. At least in the beginning. The effect (the expression and evolution) of the feeling dominates the cause. One may feel irritated because his boss said something about him and might discharge that irritation on his child's undone homework thinking that it is the cause. I guess more attentiveness reveals the actual cause. But is there always a cause? How about when one deals with instincts? Is there a cause or trigger? I would like to ask Peter and Vineeto to write about some difficulties they found in this part when they practised this method initially. I see that No 37 has answered most of your questions. As for writing ‘about some difficulties they found in this part when they practised this method initially’ I can highly recommend Peter’s Journal because it is to date the most comprehensive and down-to-earth account by a practicing actualist about utilizing the actualism method so as to become virtually free of malice and sorrow. I can also recommend Peter’s conversations both with Alan and Gary where Peter passes on information about the various stages that can happen on the path. Here Peter describes one of the more hilarious of such episodes –
Peter: I went through exactly the same thing with Richard. I remember at one stage saying – ‘Okay, I’m hooked. You can let me in on the secret now’. I figured that if he was a super intelligent being seeded from outer space and seeking recruits, I was ready for the spacecraft to land. It’s all a hoot when I look back but given the human condition and our predilection to blindly follow or senselessly rebel, it is all par for the course, grist for the mill or fuel for the imagination – or the spacecraft in this case. It is an extraordinary thing
to take the words of actualism at face value. I found I had to abandon all my cynicism, crank up my naiveté yet be wary
of being gullible as I had been in the past. This is only something that you can do for no one can take you by the hand
and lead you down the path. It’s your own journey to being free and autonomous, but then again, that’s obvious isn’t
it.
There seems to be a tremendous sorrow in me... it keeps coming back... it is not ‘Universal Sorrow’ or ‘compassion’ or something... it seems to not have reason (resentment to be here maybe?)... I am trying my best... it seems to be going away... but it keeps coming back... any suggestions? any experiences? Re: any suggestions welcome, 20.5.2005 AEST (…) In this context I am reminded of a conversation
Richard had with someone about what to do with ‘feeling bad’ Rhe respondent was me... though i did think about what Richard said for a while, I didn’t give it enough attention... Ha, No 33/ No 75/ No 71(R), looks like we have two less subscribers to the list. I could have saved some time if I had paid more attention. I can see the sense in it now but am not sure that the whole condition will not be reversed due to some feeling later on... Well there is a great deal of difference between reading what someone else says, thinking about whether it makes sense or not, realizing that it makes sense and having the sense of what is said confirmed by one’s own experience. Once you know something works and works repeatedly, one then has the confidence borne of efficacy and reliability. When I started actualism I was well aware, due to Irene’s experience, that even if one is a good way into virtual freedom one can still make a turnabout ‘due to some feeling later on’. For several years I was concerned that I couldn’t be absolutely sure that I wouldn’t do the same as Irene, I wasn’t sure of the validity and duration of my successes with the actualism method and I was aware that I couldn’t rely on myself with 100% certainty … that is until I had experientially explored the great temptation of altered states of consciousness for myself by myself as well as make an exploration of my darkest instinctual corners and my greatest fears. I had an intermediate goal on the wide and wondrous path to ‘self’-immolation – to reach the point of no-return where I was 100% certain that I would never ever turn back to being ‘normal’ or of becoming self-aggrandized. I would often check around in my mind, so to speak, to see if the road to returning to be normal or spiritual was still there, until one day I realized that there was no place to return to – I realized that I had irrevocably burnt the bridges. Now I feel like, metaphorically speaking, that I am walking towards the edge of a jumping board into nothing. Very thrilling indeed.
Hi Richard/ Peter/ Vineeto, how does emotion backed thinking operate? If it’s emotion backed, you should be able to feel it.
I underwent a ‘process’ during my psychosis as well as now... a wild imagination of some ‘psychic web’. The root drive is some kind of angst and the mind wants to get rid of the angst. I imagine(d?) all kinds of things... all that I have read... Christian theory of suffering... Buddhist... everyday man’s gripes... psychotic’s paranoia... existentialist’s absurdity/ ennui/ angst... rituals... ocd’s... mental illnesses… all kinds of hatreds... mindless malice... war... violence... rapes... all these flash in my mind (is this what Richard has been saying all along? The root cause of all the ills)... all these flash in my mind as a justification/ reasoning/ solution for this feeling. I feel that all the human solutions were to eradicate this ‘angst’ are ‘tried and true’ but ‘tried and failed’... I am wondering did Richard really do what he claims to have done? Is there a solution to this root cause of suffering and malice? Has he truly found the answer? Has he lived it? Is it really doable by me? And hence by everybody, and hence has he truly discovered the path to freedom, the most wanted solution that has evaded the human kind for millennia? Then, is it true that the paradise on earth is in the horizon as a possibility at least? Isn’t that a stupendous thing if true? Did he pick up similar psychic footprints? What about Peter and Vineeto? Is this psychic web all in my mind and I am only traversing the potential and imagining/ theorizing the history? What is the validity of the passionate imagination I am having? It is all interesting. I thought it might be informative at this point to repost a conversation I had on this list about 5 years ago as it was right on the topic of the psychic web that connects feeling beings –
My friend made a statement that if people knew what they wanted, the malls would not be so crowded. Then I asked myself what I wanted; when I went to have conversations with my friends; when I generally write to this list; etc. It appeared that I, the ‘me’, wants emotional activity. All the stated purposes are only a cover to keep the emotional self flex its muscles. If that is the true purpose, I am fooling myself that my goal is freedom; all will be pretence. All the conversations will be farce, another attention seeking game. Not that this observation has changed me fundamentally... I can still see that ‘I’ am quite active through this mail. It will be interesting to see what happens. What happened with me, as I became more and more attentive to my feelings and beliefs with the intent to become free of their influence, was that more and more often intelligence got a word in edgeways and I could soon differentiate between talking for the mere sake of getting attention and sharing my findings and successes with my fellow human beings. To become less ‘self’-centred does not necessarily mean shutting up and retreating into a cave. Web Correspondence, No 12Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. |