'Lyoness/Lyconet' racket identified by UKIP MEP, but not the wider 'MLM' phenomenon.

Over the years, I have published several evidence-based articles warning that the organisation known as 'Lyoness' (a.k.a. 'Lyconet') which was instigated in Austria by Hubert Freidl and his criminal associates, has been the front for a blame-the-victim 'Income Opportunity/Prosperity Gospel' cultic racket, comprising a dissimulated rigged-market swindle and related advance fee frauds. It should go without saying that no one has produced any independent evidence to challenge the accuracy of this fully-deconstructed analysis. Furthermore, I have taken great pains to explain that the 'Lyoness' racket is neither original nor unique and that, consequently, it cannot be fully-understood in isolation.

 'The Miracle of Lyoness

I believe in the miracle

I believe in a world for you and me

I believe in a better place 

So let's make history

Hand in hand step by step 

Bit by bit and day by day

We are strong

 Together we can change the world

With all my heart I know my dreams come true

Yes I believe we can make this dream come true'

If readers click on the Orwellian propaganda videos linked above (particularly the stomach-churning hymn to 'The Miracle Lyoness'), they will discover that, in order to push them into a delusional state, 'Lyoness' core-adherents have been subjected to co-ordinated devious techniques of social, psychological and physical persuasion, designed to shut down their critical, and evaluative, faculties without their fully informed consent. In simple terms, 'Lyoness' core-adherents are adults who have been tricked into accepting fiction as fact. Classically, the construction, and maintenance, of this Austrian-based, abusive human edifice, has been entirely-financed by its deluded victims' own contributions. Indeed, pay-through-the-nose-to-enter 'Lyoness Sensation' orgies of deluded self-gratification (like the one featured in the videos) have already generated many thousands of ticket sales - netting many millions of Euros for Hubert Freidl and his criminal associates. 

Twice last year, I was contacted by 'J.T.' - a British Blog reader with urgent concerns about 'Lyoness' recruitment in the UK Independence Party. 

'J.T.' (who wishes to remain anonymous, but who is a member of UKIP) wrote:

'Warnings that Lyoness is some sort of pyramid scheme have been circulated by our National Executive Committee... these warnings have been wilfully ignored and Tomasz Slivnik has resigned from the NEC in protest... I have personally seen unwary people recruited into Lyoness at UKIP events and been insulted for speaking my mind ... frankly it's disgraceful!'


'J.T' sent me various explanatory links (see below).

With an irony close to exquisite, it turned out that the European bosses of the 'Lyoness' racket had been trying to infiltrate the UK Independence Party via one of its own British officials and his 'business partner.'

_______________________________________________________________________

https://ukip-vs-eukip.com/2016/10/13/ukip-nec-is-a-bit-short-of-long-term-competence-tomaz-slivnik-quits/

'At my first NEC meeting, the NEC was pitched the Lyoness shopping card by a UKIP member and a business partner of our Deputy Treasurer Peter Jewell. We were told this would be a great money maker for UKIP. I understand that this was not the first time this shopping card was pitched to the NEC, nor the first time the NEC rejected the pitch. The way the card works is the Party signs up our members, they get issued the card, they use the card at shops to buy groceries, and the Party gets a commission on any of their spend. And the man who introduced the card to us also gets a commission – but he didn’t tell us this until we asked him. I don’t know whether Peter Jewell also benefits from this financially, or not.

The scheme is a pyramid scheme. The NEC did some research on this card and decided joining the scheme carried far too much reputational risk and that it was not something we wanted to recommend to our members. We also flagged up that we were effectively being asked to market financial services to our members, which was potentially an FCA regulated activity. So even if we had decided to approve the scheme, we would first need to get legal advice as to whether we required an FCA licence and then possibly to obtain such a licence. What would be the expected revenue from such a card, and how does it compare to the cost of getting such legal advice and possibly obtaining such a licence?

Despite the NEC’s rejection of the scheme, we got wind of the fact that Peter Jewell was planning to nevertheless market the scheme at the chairmen’s conference on 30 July, because someone had forwarded the agenda for the latter event to some NEC members. The NEC passed a motion saying that the scheme shall not be promoted at UKIP events, and shall not be promoted by UKIP officers to UKIP members, and that a violation of this ban shall automatically be considered to have brought the Party into disrepute. The Party Treasurer was instructed to communicate this to the Deputy Treasurer, which he advised us he did (and the Party Chairman advised us he did the same) but not before frantically proposing a motion, which he heavily lobbied for, that we should reverse our earlier decision and adopt the scheme – a motion which the NEC also rejected.

Regardless, I received complaints from members saying that Peter Jewell did promote the scheme at the conference despite the NEC ban. I received a photograph of the Lyoness stand taken at that conference, and witness statements from members confirming that the scheme was being marketed at the conference, that Steve Crowther was on the podium when Peter Jewell talked about the scheme and said and did nothing (despite being aware of the NEC ban).

I challenged the officers on this, and was forward a reply purportedly from Steve Crowther saying he had received no complaints about the marketing of the scheme, only questions from members at the conference as to why the NEC would be so daft as not to approve it.

Now consider the possibility that such marketing of financial services is an FCA regulated activity – a question I tried to answer by reading the FCA handbook myself, but which without legal advice, I have not yet been able to answer – then the Party might have engaged in a licensed activity without a licence. I know someone on Sark who is currently serving an 8 year sentence in jail for doing exactly this. Who do you think is responsible for ensuring compliance and carries the legal risk and liability? If you answered “the board of directors”, you answered correctly.

One of the 20-25 questions I asked to be addressed at the September 2016 meeting by the Party Chairman was also what was being done about this marketing in defiance of the NEC ban. I received no answer, except verbally on the phone from the Party Chairman saying that Peter Jewell did not promote the scheme at the conference. Er, what about the photographic evidence and the witness statements from members saying the contrary? Why would attendees of the conference pull this idea out of thin air that some scheme called “Lyoness” was being promoted at the conference if in fact nobody had mentioned the scheme and its name there?

To add insult to injury, because this promotion was being done without the approval of the NEC, I can only assume that the Party would not be receiving any commission arising from it, but the promoters likely still would.

The Lyoness example is a perfect example of the relationship between the Party Officers and the NEC and the impotence of the latter.

What action could we take against the Deputy Treasurer? Remove him from office? This is the prerogative of the Party Treasurer. Take disciplinary action? There are two routes to this – emergency action under Article 11.9 of the Constitution, which is the sole prerogative of the Party Chairman. And the regular Disciplinary Panel route under Article 11.3 of the Constitution – which is entirely under the control of the General Secretary.

I know of one party member (more on this below) who has been waiting for an Emergency Disciplinary Panel appeal for 8 months, and a disciplinary complaint which has been waiting for 6 months to be heard by a Disciplinary Panel.

Under the Party Constitution, the NEC has no power to take disciplinary action other than by individual NEC members making a disciplinary complaint, like any other member in good standing, to the General Secretary.'

_________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.ukipdaily.com/theres-always-another-one/

There’s always another one …

Posted by Vivian Evans | Jul 31, 2016

It would seem astonishing that at a time when information is freely available, there are still people who set up Ponzi schemes, and that there are still people who fall for it. But then again, who wouldn’t like to earn a ‘quick buck’ without too much effort …

There is however something more insidious. It is called ‘Pyramid scheme’, and where a Ponzi scheme is, crudely described, about getting more and more people to invest their money in some sort of product so that returns can be paid to earlier investors, a Pyramid scheme explicitly relies on people recruiting more people, else they won’t be getting their pay-out.

Running Pyramid schemes is illegal in our country.

Now for the nitty-gritty.

There’s one recent entity called ‘Lyoness’, which was set up in Austria and has spread. Do read the whole wikipedia entry! It is controversial, and authorities in various countries are investigating. So in general, one would counsel one’s friends to be extremely careful and to think twice about joining such set-up.

What does that have to do with UKIP? Let me quote Dr Tomasz Slivnik, a member of the NEC, who earlier today sent me this urgent communication:

“Some time ago, a party official introduced the Lyoness scheme (specifically see this) to the NEC with a proposal that the Party join the scheme and officially promote it to our members. The Party was told we would earn a commission. Upon interviewing the introducer, the NEC discovered that he was also going to earn a commission, which prior to our questioning, he had failed to disclose to us. We also performed our own due diligence on the scheme and decided to reject it. The Wikipedia page and the reference links on that page will give you a good indication as to why we reached such a decision.

“We became aware that the party official in question intended to promote the scheme to Party members at official UKIP events despite the NEC’s rejection of the scheme. The NEC resolved that “Lyoness shopping card shall not be promoted at UKIP events or by UKIP officers to UKIP members, and that such promotion in breach of this motion shall be deemed to be bringing the Party into disrepute“, and the Party Treasurer was directed to inform the official in question of this resolution of the NEC.

“I understand that at the UKIP chairmans’ conference yesterday, the official in question apparently willfully defied the resolution of the NEC and promoted the scheme to branch (and other level) chairmen regardless, apparently with the intent that the chairmen promote the scheme to their members.

“I believe that it is important that all the branch chairmen are made aware of the NEC resolution (branch chairmen would come under the ambit of “UKIP officers” of the NEC resolution) and I believe that our members should be warned of the issues surrounding this scheme and be informed that UKIP not only does not endorse this scheme but that the NEC have resolved to distance ourselves from it.”

Let me emphasise these points:

A member of UKIP is promoting a scheme to UKIP and UKIP branches which is as close to a Pyramid scheme as possible, and which is under investigation in various countries.

The statement by the NEC (see above) is self-explanatory, but let’s repeat the conclusion: ‘promoting this scheme against the NEC motion is deemed to bring the Party into disrepute.’

That is clear enough, isn’t it!

At this time, when we are entering the hustings for a new UKIP Leader, and when so many of us are working hard on proposals and ideas on the way forward for UKIP, we cannot afford even the hint of a financial scandal.

Furthermore, it is unconscionable to expose ordinary members to possible financial liabilities when so many branches cannot even afford to field candidates in upcoming local and by elections for want of funding.

If there’s one lesson we all have learned over the last few years it is that UKIP must be whiter than white, because the hyenas in the MSM and establishment parties will use everything to stop us. What would be better than a financial scandal. It’s not just that members could become personally liable, it’s that all who get taken in would knowingly bring the Party into disrepute.

Information is the only way to prevent this, so please convey the warning and the motion of the NEC to our branch chairmen and our members by using this article: link to it, print it, hand it around as a matter of urgency!

_________________________________________________________________________

The official who (hopefully in total ignorance of reality) tried, but failed, to persuade the members of UKIP's NEC to help him drag the Austrian-built  'Lyoness' Trojan Horse inside their party, was Peter Jewell, the (then) Deputy Treasurer. However, in December 2016, again with an irony close to exquisite, Mr. Jewell was appointed as UKIP's Justice Spokesman. That said, since the spring of 2018, Mr. Jewell has been removed from that position, but he remains a party member.

                 Peter Jewell                              Neal Radford                     

The man described by Dr. Tomasz Slivnik as Peter Jewell's '(Lyoness) business partner,' is Neal Radford ( b. 1957, a former professional cricketeer who played for England). Mr. Radford is a UKIP member who has been involved with the 'Lyoness' racket since 2014. 

https://contactout.com/Neal-Radford-2102985

Apparently, Mr. Radford is still an active 'Lyoness' recruiter.

http://www.stuartagnewmep.co.uk/images_server/stuart_agnew/documents/49_Report%20on%20Lyoness%20Cash%20Back%20scheme%20Rev%201%20-%20October%202016.pdf

The appointment of Mr. Jewell as UKIP Justice Spokesman was even more surprising in view of the fact that in October 2016, another 'Lyoness' warning (in the form of a report), had appeared on the Internet bearing the name of Stuart Agnew (a UKIP Member of the European Parliament and the party's agriculture spokesman). Much of this report was taken from a factual Wikipedia article which was compiled by an associate of mine. Blog readers should note that any attempt to post accurate analyses of 'Income Opportunity/Prosperity Gospel' cults on Wikipedia have been systematically blocked by the cults' own propagandists under the Wikipedia's own blanket rules. These rules take no account of the concept of a duty of care, and prohibit 'personal opinions.' In truth, in respect of cultic rackets, wit and common sense have been banned from Wikipedia allowing the pernicious 'MLM' fairy story to be recited there without qualification or irony.

The reason why I have waited until now to post an article about the infiltration of UKIP by the 'Lyoness' racket, is that for the last several months, I have been corresponding (off and on) with Stuart Agnew MEP. Although he has privately accepted my analysis of 'Lyoness' as being broadly in agreement with his own opinion of the organisation, so far Stuart Agnew has refused to accept my wider-analysis of the 'MLM' phenomenon (see below). That said, I'm not sure that this MEP has actually examined the evidence I have sent him, let alone my analysis of it. Instead Stuart Agnew has had the 'MLM' fairy story recited to him by a handful of persons who have previously been transient adherents of the 'Amway' racket in the UK (including a former 'Amway' shill). To be fair to Stuart Agnew, he has tried, but failed, to locate core 'Amway' victims in the UK. Unfortunately, even if he had managed to make contact with such persons, he would not have known what questions to ask them. Indeed, in his most recent e-mail to me, Stuart Agnew has implied that persons who have lost money in 'MLM income opportunities' must be victims of their own 'greed and vanity.' Regular Blog readers will recognise this as a chapter of the blame-the-victim 'MLM' controlling narrative.

As far as I'm aware, to date, no responsible official of the UKIP party has made any attempt to protect the UK public by contacting the mainstream media about 'Lyoness' or by filing a complaint against 'Lyoness' with any agency of law enforcement either in Europe or the UK. If I'm wrong about this, I invite UKIP officials to write to me (at axiombooks@wanadoo.fr ) to set the record straight.

David Brear (copyright 2018)

________________________________________________________________________

'Multi-Level Marketing' Warning

The following deconstructed analysis has been formulated to sharpen the critical and evaluative faculties of all unwary persons approaching 'Multi-Level Marketing' from the dangerous (subjective) point of view that it must be a business, rather than from the safe (purely-objective) point of view that they don't really know what it is.

_________________________________________________________________________

More than half a century of quantifiable evidence, proves beyond all reasonable doubt that:

• the widely-misunderstood phenomenon that has become popularly-known as 'Multi-Level Marketing' (a.k.a. 'Network Marketing') is nothing more than an absurd, non-rational,  cultic, economic pseudo-science maliciously-designed to lure unwary persons into de facto servitude, dissociate them from external reality and not only steal their money, but also deceive them into unconsciously acting the role of bait to lure other unwary persons (particularly their friends and family members) into the same trap. 

• the impressive-sounding made-up jargon term, 'MLM,' is therefore, the misleading title for an enticing structured-scenario of control which has been developed, and constantly acted out as  reality, by the instigators, and associates, of various copy-cat, major and minor, ongoing organised crime groups (hiding behind labyrinths of legally-registered corporate structures) to shut-down the critical, and evaluative, faculties of victims, and of casual observers, in order to perpetrate, and dissimulate, a series of blame-the-victim 'Long Cons*'  - comprising self-perpetuating rigged-market swindles**, a.k.a. pyramid scams (dressed up as 'legitimate direct selling income opportunites') and related advance-fee frauds (dressed up as 'legitimate: training and motivation, self-betterment, programs, recruitment leads, lead generation systems,' etc.).

• Apart from an insignificant minority of shills (whose leading-role in the 'Long Con' has been to pretend that anyone can achieve financial freedom simply by following their unquestioning example and exactly-duplicating a step-by-step-plan of recruitment and self-consumption), the hidden overall net-loss/churn rate for participation in so-called 'MLM income opportunities,' has always been effectively 100%.

________________________________________________________________________

*A 'Long Con' is a form of fraud maliciously designed to exploit victims' existing beliefs and instinctual desires and make them falsely-believe that they are exercising a completely free-choice. 'Long Cons' comprise an enticing structured-scenario of control acted out as reality over an extended period. Like theatrical plays, 'Long Cons' are written, directed and produced. They involve leading players and supporting players as well as props, sets, extras, costumes, script, etc. The hidden objective of 'Long Cons' is to convince unwary persons that fiction is fact and fact is fiction, progressively cutting them off from external reality. In this way, victims begin unconsciously to play along with the controlling-scenario and (in the false-expectation of future reward) large sums of money or valuables can be stolen from them. Classically, the victims of 'Long Cons' can become deluded to such an extent that they will abandon their education, jobs, careers, etc., empty their bank accounts, and/or beg, steal, borrow from friends, family members, etc.

_________________________________________________________________________

** The enticing structured-scenario of control fundamental to all 'rigged-market swindles' is that people can earn income by first contributing their own money to participate in a profitable commercial opportunity, but which is secretly an economically-unviable fake due to the fact that the (alleged) opportunity has been rigged so that it generates no significant, or sustainable, revenue other than that deriving from its own ill-informed participants. For more than 50 years, 'Multi-Level Marketing' racketeers have been allowed to dissimulate rigged-market swindles by offering endless-chains of victims various banal, but over-priced, products, and/or services, in exchange for unlawful losing-investment payments, on the pretext that 'MLM' products/services can then be regularly re-sold for a profit in significant quantities via expanding networks of distributors. However, since 'MLM' products/services cannot be regularly re-sold to the general public for a profit in significant quantities (based on value and demand), 'MLM' participants have, in fact, been peddled infinite shares of their own finite money (in the false expectation of future reward). 

Thus, in 'MLM' rackets, the innocent looking products/sevices' function has been to hide what is really occurring - i.e The operation of an unlawful, intrinsically fraudulent, rigged-market where effectively no non-salaried (transient) participant can generate an overall net-profit, because, unknown to the non-salaried (transient) participants, the market is in a permanent state of collapse and requires its non-salaried (transient) participants to keep finding further (temporary) de facto slaves to sustain the enticing illusion of stability and viability.

Meanwhile an insignificant (permanent) minority direct the 'Long Con' - raking in vast profits by selling into the rigged-market and by controlling/withholding all key-information concerning the rigged-market's actual catastrophic, ever-shifting results from its never-ending chain of (temporary) de facto slaves.

Although cure-all pills potions and vitamin/dietary supplements, household and beauty, products have been most-prevalent, it is possible to use any product, and/or service, to dissimulate a rigged-market swindle. There are even some 'MLM' rackets that have been hidden behind well-known traditional brands (albeit offered at fixed high prices). Some 'MLM' rackets have included 'cash-back/discount shopping cards, travel products, insurance, energy/communications services' and 'crypto-currencies' in their controlling scenarios.

No matter what bedazzling product/service has been dangled as bait, in 'MLM' rackets, there has been no significant or sustainable source of revenue other than never-ending chains of contractees of the 'MLM' front companies. These front-companies always pretend that their products/services are high quality and reasonably-priced and that for anyone prepared to put in some effort, the products/services can be sold on for a profit via expanding networks of distributors based on value and demand. In reality, the underlying reason why it has mainly only been (transient) 'MLM' contractees who have bought the various products /services (and not the general public) is because they have been tricked into unconsciously playing along with the controlling scenario which constantly says that via regular self-consumption and the recruitment of others to do the same, etc. ad infinitum, anyone can receive a future (unlimited) reward.

I've been examining the 'MLM' phenomenon for around 20 years. During this time, I've yet to find one so-called 'MLM' company that has voluntarily made key-information available to the public concerning the quantifiable results of its so-called 'income opportunity'.

Part of the key-information that all 'MLM' bosses seek to hide concerns the overall number of persons who have signed contracts since the front companies were instigated and the retention rates of these contractees. 

When rigorously investigated, the overall hidden net-loss churn rates for so-called 'MLM income opportunites' has turned out to have been effectively 100%. Thus, anyone claiming (or implying) that it is possible for anyone to make a penny of net-profit, let alone a living, in an 'MLM,' cannot be telling the truth and will not provide quantifiable evidence to back up his/her anecdotal claims.

Although a significant number of 'MLM' front-companies (like 'Vemma', 'Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing', 'Wake Up Now') have been shut-down by commercial regulators, some of the biggest 'MLM' rackets (like 'Amway' ,'Herbalife', Forever Living Products' ) have continued to hide in plain sight whilst secretly churning tens of millions of losing participants over decades.

The quantifiable results of the self-perpetuating global 'Long Con' known as 'Multi Level Marketing,' have been fiendishly hidden by convincing victims that they are 'Independent Business Owners' and that any losses they incurred, must have been entirely their own fault. 

Blog readers should observe how (in the above linked-videos) chronic victims of 'MLM' cults are incapable of describing what they were subjected to in accurate terms. Even though they are no longer physically playing along with the 'Long Con's' controlling-scenario, they unconsciously continue to think, and speak, using the jargon-laced 'MLM' script - illogically describing themselves as 'Distributors.' 

Chronic victims of blame-the-victim cultic rackets who have managed to escape and confront the ego-destroying reality that they’ve been systematically deceived and exploited, are invariably destitute and dissociated from all their previous social contacts. For years afterwards, recovering cult victims can suffer from psychological problems (which are also generally indicative of the victims of abuse):

depression; overwhelming feelings (guilt, grief, shame, fear, anger, embarrassment, etc.); dependency/ inability to make decisions; retarded psychological/ intellectual development; suicidal thoughts; panic/ anxiety attacks; extreme identity confusion; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; insomnia/ nightmares; eating disorders; psychosomatic illness, fear of forming intimate relationships; inability to trust; etc.  

David Brear (copyright 2018)

_______________________________________________________________________

(Short) Questionnaire for Past, and Present,

'Multi-Level Marketing Income Opportunity' 

Adherents. 

(Respondents are advised first to read all the questions before making any answer).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Was the person who first approached you to participate in 'MLM,' a friend or relative (i.e. a person with whom you enjoyed a relationship based on love and trust)?

2. Did the 'MLM' recruiter present a bleak picture of the world of traditional employment, in which most people are forced to go out to work for 45 years with only retirement and a limited pension to look forward to?

3. Did the recruiter present the 'MLM Income Opportunity' as a viable alternative to the world of traditional employment, in which it is possible for anyone to retire and enjoy total financial freedom, after a just a few years of concentrated effort?

4. At the time you were recruited, would you say that you were entirely satisfied with life; particularly, your achievements, education, career/employment status/prospects, home, relationships, social standing, salary, etc.?

5. How would you describe your level of satisfaction with your life at the time you were recruited?

6. When, and how, were you first approached to participate in 'MLM' and when was the name of the sponsoring company first mentioned?'

• Was 'MLM' first presented to you individually or as part of a group?
• Did the presentation comprise drawing circles containing numbers and percentages on a board or sheet of paper? 
• Did you fully-understand the presentation?
• Was the presentation given by a man with a woman nodding in agreement next to him?
• Were you given to believe that anyone could understand 'MLM?'
• Did the recruiters seem generally happy and excited as though they had wonderful news to share?

7. What prior knowledge did you have of 'MLM?'

8. What was your initial reaction when you were approached?

9. At the time you signed up, what did you believe to be the success-rate of persons participating in'MLM' schemes (i.e. about what percentage of participants did you think made an overall net-income out of 'MLM')?

10. Were you ever shown any independent quantifiable evidence (e.g. income tax payment receipts) proving that anyone has ever made an overall net-income out of participating in 'MLM?'

11. Did you ever ask to see such evidence? 

12. Could you give a brief explanation of what you understand by the term pyramid scheme or scam?

13. What would you say was the essential identifying characteristic of pyramid scams, Ponzi schemes, money circulation games, chain letter scams, etc.?

 14. Were you given to believe that 'MLM' schemes are not pyramid scams, because they involve the sale of products, and/or services, to customers and end users, and offer money-back guarantees?

15. Were you given to believe that 'MLM' schemes cannot be frauds, because  they have existed for decades and have been investigated and approved by governments around the world?

16. Were you given to believe that 'MLM' schemes cannot be frauds, because celebrities (including senior politicians) have endorsed 'MLM' schemes?

17. Were you given to believe that 'MLM' schemes cannot be frauds, because their sponsors have given money to charity?

18. Were you given to believe that 'MLM' schemes cannot be frauds, because they have sponsored professional sports stars and teams?

19. What was your main motivation for joining an 'MLM' scheme :

•  to earn income?

•  to buy products and/or services at a discount price

20. Before you signed up, were your encouraged by the recruiter to seek independent legal/financial advice?

21. Did you ever seek independent legal/financial advice?

22.  What initially convinced you that 'MLM' was an authentic opportunity to earn income?

23. At the time you signed up, did you have any knowledge of pernicious groups that employ co-ordinated devious techniques of social, psychological and physical persuasion - designed to shut down the critical and evaluative faculties of ill-informed individuals in order to exploit them and prevent them from complaining?

24. Could you give a brief explanation of what you understand by the terms:

• Neuro-Linguistic Programming?

• brainwashing?

• coercive behaviour modification?

• group pressure?

• covert hypnosis?

• ego-destruction?

• thought reform?

• mental manipulation?

• love bombing?

25. Were you given to believe that it is possible for anyone to replace their income by participating in 'MLM?'

26. Were you given to believe that after achieving a certain level of income in MLM you could cease all activity and receive the same residual income for the rest of your life?

27. Were you given to believe that this residual income could be passed on to your descendants after your death?

28. During you time in an 'MLM' group, were you taught that the 'exact duplication of a proven step-by-step plan' would bring you 'total financial freedom?'

29. As part of this 'proven plan,' were you taught:

• to alter you habitual way of speaking (if yes, give a brief explanation)?
• to alter your habitual way of dressing (if yes, give a brief explanation)?
• to alter you habitual way of eating (if yes, give a brief explanation)?
• to alter your habitual sleep pattern (if yes, give a brief explanation)?
• to alter you habitual social contacts (if yes, give a brief explanation)?
• that everyone above you in your 'MLM Network' was your 'Upline' and everyone beneath you was your 'Downline?'
• that your 'Upline' was to be 'admired and respected?'
• that your 'Upline's success in MLM depended on helping his/her Downline to succeed,'
• to divide everyone, and everything, in your life into 'negative' vs 'positive?'
• that 'MLM' products were to be deemed 'positive' and non-'MLM' products deemed 'negative?'
• that you should buy a regular quota (by value) of 'positive' products?
• that you should draw up a list of prospective 'MLM' recruits comprising everyone you had ever encountered in your life?
• that you should progressively contact all these persons and attempt to recruit them using a precisely-worded 'positive' script?
• that you should never say anything 'negative' about 'MLM?'
• that you should never listen to, or look at, anything 'negative' about 'MLM?'
• that all persons who refused to join you (particularly, those who said 'MLM' is a scam) were to be deemed 'negative' and a threat to your own success?
• that all 'negative' persons were also to be deemed losers, whiners, etc., and should be excluded from your life?
• that all persons with regular jobs were to be labelled 'Just Over Broke' losers?
• that you should only have contact with 'positive winners?'
• that you should regularly buy, and listen to, recordings of 'positive winners?'
• that you should regularly buy tickets to, and attend, meetings conducted by 'positive winners'at which you took part in rhythmic chanting and moving?
• that you should regularly buy, and read, publications, written by 'positive winners?'
• that you should exactly duplicate the 100% positive mental attitude and behaviour of the 'positive winners' in your 'Upline?'
• that you should regularly visualize your 'dreams an goals' in life (luxury cars, expensive houses, exotic holiday destinations, etc.)
• that you should fix images of your 'dreams and goals' in strategic places in your home? 
• that 'all persons who develop a 100% positive mental attitude and never quit, ultimately achieve their dreams and goals in MLM?'
• that 'all persons who fail to achieve their dreams and goals in MLM, are negative losers, whiners, quitters etc., who always try to blame others, when they only have themselves to blame?'

30. As a result of duplicating the 'proven plan,' did you lose contact with anyone with whom you had previously been close (give brief details)?

David Brear (copyright 2018)