Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Masked IBOFB exhibiting paranoia

I observe that the masked 'Amway' Lord Haw Haw, Mr. 'IBOFB' Steadson, has reappeared on your Blog. The dangerous clown is still trying to kid your readers that he acts independently of the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob. His latest, extended, sophistic squawk is proof in itself of the validity of Professor Robert Jay Lifton's Eight ‘Themes’ - which, if present in any group, indicate that its members are being subjected to a mixture of social, psychological and physical pressures, designed to produce radical changes in their individual beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. Indeed, Steadson's squawk, which he foolishly introduced by referring to certain (unnamed) 'mainstream sociologists and psychologists', has actually been lifted (almost word for word) from the very same (unnamed) co-opted academic apologists of'Scientology' and the 'Moonies' whose sophistic arguments he has plagiarized.
Steadson now steadfastly pretends that his 'Amway' bosses do not seek to maintain an absolute monopoly of information by undermining their adherents' trust in external sources of information. Unfortunately, he's been attempting to perform this cultic task himself on a regular basis.
The following extract is taken from Mr. Justice Norris’ UK High Court Judgement in the matter of the UK Minister for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform versus 'Amway UK Ltd.', (published May 14th 2008) sub-section 52:
‘It is true that Amway (UK) faces serious and sustained financial difficulties. From October 2000 to December 2005 it has consistently made losses ranging from £1.48 million per annum to £4.31 million for a slightly longer financial period (and averaging some £2.9 million). Amway UK is dependent on the financial support of Amway (Europe) Ltd. which in turn derives most of its income not from a commercially successful European operation, but from dividends payable on its shareholding in Amway Korea.’
The next extract is taken from my article, ‘Amway Woes in the United Kingdom,’ (posted on ‘Quixtar Cult Intervention’ January 6th 2009):
“For the previous 35 years, ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ has secretly been an insolvent corporate structure, losing over $50 millions in the period 1999-2007. As a privately-controlled, limited-liability, commercial-company, the officers of ‘Amway UK’ were not obliged to declare this key information publicly. In recent years, ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ has in fact, been kept afloat by cash declared to the High Court to have come from ‘Amway S. Korea.”
At the head of my article I posted a rather obvious question which, apparently, Judge Norris’ never thought to ask: Now why would any honest person(s) want to continue to waste millions of dollars of legal fees in preserving a perpetually insolvent, private company…?
During the recent UK government investigation of ‘Amway UK Ltd.,’ a team of accountants working for the ‘Companies Investigations Branch’ of the Ministry for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, recovered truck-loads of documentary evidence from ‘Amway UK’s’ Milton Keynes HQ. UK Treasury Solicitor, Jody Ramnarine, was responsible for handling this mountain of material. The most-senior CIB accountant, Peter Bott, described the affair as: 'by far the biggest case of his career.' The factual statement (above) made by Mr. Justice Norris regarding ‘Amway UK’s’ loss of approximately £15 millions ($30 millions) during the period Oct. 2000 to Dec. 2005 was based on his examination of ‘Amway UK’s’ actual, annual income declarations (to ‘Companies House’) and the company’s actual, annual, audited Corporation, and Value Added, tax returns (filed with the UK tax authorities); all of which were recovered by the CIB accountants. Prior to the UK government petition, I had already been reliably informed (by persons in a perfect position to know) that ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ has never declared an annual trading profit since it was first registered. Furthermore, on paper, ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ has never held any substantial capital assets in the UK. Apparently, it doesn’t even own the buildings it occupies. Therefore, since ‘Amway UK Ltd.’has never previously had to release any accurate verifiable information about the results of its activities into the public domain, it is an axiomatic statement to say that since its creation, 35 years ago, ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ has always secretly been an insolvent corporate structure. In reality, without massive, and continued, external financial assistance, the British chapter of the puerile fiction entitled, ‘Amway One of the World’s Largest Direct Selling Companies,’ could not even pay its own rent.
On November 27th 2007, when ‘The Times’ newspaper began to report the UK government’s half-hearted attempt to challenge the authenticity of the global ‘Amway’ myth, I posted an unambiguous comment (under my own name) on the ‘Timesonline’ Website in an attempt to try to set the record straight. Fearing that his bosses’ absolute monopoly of information was in danger, Steadson immediately posted a false, and defamatory, comment which (strangely for him) he signed, ‘David London’:
PS For those of you who don’t know David Brear is an anti-Amway obsessive who got upset when his brother, who was working with Amway, stopped speaking to him after his constant criticism of Amway.’
Obviously, Steadson couldn’t disclose how he happened to come by this highly personal information, or why (for that matter) he was so certain that it was true. Since this particular episode, Steadson seems to have remained welded to his computer 24 hrs a day. Each time any free-thinking individual (anywhere in the world and in any language) attempts to post any material on the Net. which might shine a piercing light into the ‘Amway’ labyrinth, Steadson is there (in one of his many guises) posing as the innocent victim under attack whilst systematically categorizing the truth, and truth tellers, as lies and liars. Steadson has even posted an article in which he indignantly recounts ‘The Internet war against Amway.’Tellingly, if you just change the name of the group, this paranoid fantasy could equally have been written by a‘Scientologist.’
On February 22nd 2009, one of the few lingering UK core-adherents of the global ‘Amway’ myth, going by the pseudonym, ‘The Way Forward’ (from Walsall in the W. Midlands), posted the following enquiry on the (apparentlyindependent)‘amwaytalk’ Website (one of several run by Steadson, in his most- heroic guise of ‘ibofightback’):
‘I have recently read this quote from the recent UK court case can anyone give me any info on the validity of this statement please?’
“For the previous 35 years, ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ has secretly been an insolvent corporate structure, losing over $50 millions in the period 1999-2007. As a privately-controlled, limited-liability, commercial-company, the officers of ‘Amway UK’ were not obliged to declare this key information publicly. In recent years, ‘Amway UK Ltd.’ Has in fact, been kept afloat by cash declared to the High Court to have come from ‘Amway S. Korea.”
The immediate response to ‘The Way Forward’s’ reasonable question was a textbook example of (attempted) cultic manipulation using coordinated, devious techniques of social and psychological persuasion (neuro-linguistic programming, group-pressure, ego destruction, etc.). Classically, Steadson first tried to drive his (questioning) correspondent back into the (unquestioning) ‘Amway’ fold by attempting to undermine his trust in external sources of information; telling him that:
'it wasn’t a quote from the court case. ‘It’s anti-amway nutjob David Brear, isn’t it?’
After this puerile neologism, Steadson then steadfastly pretended intellectual authority by giving ‘The Way Forward’ a fatherly lecture as to the exact meaning of the English word, ‘insolvent.’ According to Steadson, my ‘emotional’ use of the word (in respect of ‘Amway UK Ltd.’) was ‘primefacie wrong and contradictory’ (I presume Steadson meant prima facie), because “ ‘Insolvent means’ you can’t pay your bills.” Steadson then had a sudden attack of selective amnesia, but he still felt sufficiently confident to attempt to programme his (questioning) correspondent with the following lies and half-truths:
‘So no, it’s clearly not true that Amway UK was insolvent. Now what is true if I recall correctly is that Amway UK has been losing money for much of the past decade, I don’t recall the amount, but it had also turned around the last few years before the court case.’
Over the next 24 hrs, Steadson, ably assisted by his regular little flock of bleating ‘Amway’ apologists (who might, or might not, exist), pitched in to humiliate his (questioning) correspondent who bravely attempted to defend himself. Probably, not wanting to admit that he’d actually been searching for the truth about ‘Amway,’ on the Net, he claimed that my quote about ‘Amway UK’s’ secret multi-million-dollar losses had been sent to him by e-mail anonymously. ‘It is not possible to get any reply from you on a subject that does not include insults or childish abuse,’ he protested. Ironically, at one point ‘The Way Forward’ was being ridiculed for his spelling errors and poor grammar. On February 24th (apparently at 4 a.m.: When does the guy sleep?) Steadson was again exhibiting paranoia by openly accusing ‘The Way Forward’ of lying by ‘repeating unsubstantiated claims,’ in an attempt to ‘discredit Amway.’
David Brear (copyright 2010)

1 comment:

IBOFB said...

Brear, I knew about your brother because you'd previously blathered on about it on the internet.

As for the term "insolvent" I'll offer a mea culpa as it can be used both the way I was using it and the way you are using it. Why would Amway keep Amway UK running despite such "insolvency"? Well believe it nor not David, what happens in one market can affect other markets. Closing a country down is clearly not positive for ones reputation, on a global scale losing money can be making you money.

Regarding Lifton, unlike yourself I'm actually trained in sociology and psychology. I have no idea where you think I "lifted" it from, I just wrote it sitting here, all fairly obvious stuff. I'm more than happy to name the "mainstream sociologists and psychologists" though, or at least name as groups - The American Psychological Association and The American Sociological Association. Perhaps you've heard of them?

I've little doubt your response will be straight out of the classic CT mindset.