Looking back at the time when Mr. Zaitsu was GD, I have to say that was the time I enjoyed the most, as far as being able to open the WT and see members' opinions, whether good or "not so good" being shared as one example. He was a low-key kind of guy who seemed pretty down-to earth. It figures that he more than likely got the boot, leading the way for Danny Nagashima.

I will say it yet again: How, how the SGI Public Relations thought that trying to instill a Japanese mind-set onto the Western Hemisphere, particularly North America, would catch gangbuster fire. It does appear in South America, that hasn't been as much a roadblock. What was Ikeda thinking?

I also remember back in the day, that local leaders were treated like Hollywood royalty. Depending on their personality, some truly adored the worship and others just went about the business at hand, with no visible pretensions. It was down to their make-up as people. Some were humble and just wanted to serve the SGI.

Quote

I will say it yet again: How, how the SGI Public Relations thought that trying to instill a Japanese mind-set onto the Western Hemisphere, particularly North America, would catch gangbuster fire. It does appear in South America, that hasn't been as much a roadblock. What was Ikeda thinking?

The key is poverty. ANY religion finds greater acceptance where people are ignorant and poor. Especially religions, such as Pentecostalism and the SGI, that promise that, if you do as they say, you'll gain financial rewards! In South America, you have more poverty and ignorance - voila!

The most important factor in protecting people from exploitation by these con artists is to make sure everyone is getting a decent education. Better education -> more employability -> less stress and desperation -> immune to pie-in-the-sky fantasies/promises.

Here is another bit of insight from Marc Lewis' "Memoirs of an Addicted Brain":

[books.google.com]

Rats who were set up with companionship with with other rats drank much less of an opioid spiked water solution than rats kept lonely and isolated.

Social contact (starting with mother infant/nursling) bonding) releases endogenous opiates. So one needs less dope from an outside source if one has plenty of fulfilling social contacts.

A Story

And once, when I was under horrible stress, with my pulse rate elevated for hours refusing to return to baseline, I attended a meeting of a support group.

My pulse rate cooled down and returned to baseline. Social contact.

This ties right in with what Taiten has pointed out.

Though, some social engineered highs may be sufficiently intense as to make a subject's brain and nervous system brittle and hungry for more of the same.

We are designed to respond to our own endogenously produced neurotransmitters.

What might throw us off are drugs or social experiences that blast us with heavier doses of neuroactive chemicals (our own or pharmaceutically modified ones) that are more intense than what our bodies are designed to deal with.

Another Story

I met one guy who, decades ago, tried cocaine,. Just to see what it was like.

He did it just once. And he didnt dare do it a second time.

"It was fantastic" he said. "It felt like a missing link for me. In that instant I was energized and relaxed and felt in balance.

"And...I immediately wanted more.

"But..I caught hold and realized I liked it too much. That if I took that second hit I would get tripped, go down the chute and never come back."

He paused. "One or two friends of mine did cocaine and got trapped in it. One of them was a lawyer."

What may have saved my acquaintance was that he was educated, had had a life long interest in philosophy. What may have also helped him refuse cocaine craving was that he had done psychoanalysis and through that process had learned to observe his own thoughts and emotions. He had begun analysis due to depression and perhaps the long process of contact with an empathic analyst and an ultimately successful marriage gave this man enough social contact and self repair that he could put the cocaine high into a much larger perspective and refuse the craving for a second snort of it.

This man had social contact. He had friends, he had developed a trusting alliance with his psychoanalyst, had a wife he respected, three children, and he knew he was responsible for a business and the welfare of many employees. So perhaps all of that put his feeling high and his craving into a much larger perspective.

Marc Lewis tells us that there is a small part of the brain, relatively new comparied to the older layers of the brain that govern craving. This area where self control and ego strength rule is an area that is easily fatigued. Saying no to a craving is exhausting work, especially when one is lonely.

What makes the difference between hanging on and refusing a craving vs giving in is having something in the form of social support, and internalized values that cover one's back when weary.

SG can seem to offer that valuable social support, especially in the beginning of one's affiliation, just as that first snort of cocaine can seem to solve all one's troubles.

But, as our correspondants here have amply testified, in return for that early feeling of belonging, SG eventually takes more than it gives.

Marc Lewis also points out that when we are unable to please others, this leads to a drop in our endogenous opiates.

Quote

But when you feel inadequate, when nothing you do seems to please those you care about,opioids plummet.

[books.google.com]

Now, again with the caveat that Professor Lewis is discussing drugs addiction, and does not at any time attempt to extend his discussion to bad relationships or high demand groups--I will dare exercise my American citizen's First Amendment rights.

I will dare to entertain a hunch.

Is it possible that when we are first invited/recruited/love bombed into a cult, that we get a huge dose of social contact that in turn bathes our bodies and brains in a blast of endogenous opiates?

As Lewis notes above, it has been found that social contact causes mammals to release large quantities of endogenous (self produced) opiates.

Then, as we become involved with a group, its crusade mentality massages another part of our brains--the part that secretes dopamine--the part that gives thrust, momentum.

Then, we get scolded and shamed and go through long dry spells where nothing we do seems to satisfy our leaders.

Our supply of endogenous opiate plummets. By this time, we rely on the group for affirmation, so we feel desperate, like addicts whose dealer is refusing to answer phone calls.

So we try to do more and more and more---generating more effort that in turn supports the very group whose managers are witholding approval from us. But we are so tired by now (sleep deprived, early morning tasks, late evening phone calls, demanding religous ceremonies..

Then..whammmmmmmm!

The smiles are turned back on, we are reassured, flattered, and after that long dry spell of scolding, getting affirmation is an even bigger bliss hit than ever before.

So perhaps after being lovebombed, then put in disgrace, one feels even greater bliss when thrown one compliment than a person just in off the street would feel.

It might be interesting for people who have been in SG to try and chart whether periods of being complimented, being 'in favor' alternated with periods of being in disgrace, and if there was a definate patttern or not?

Were you just on the point of quitting when the smiles and affirmations were turned back on?

Quote

What may have saved my acquaintance was that he was educated, had had a life long interest in philosophy. What may have also helped him refuse cocaine craving was that he had done psychoanalysis and through that process had learned to observe his own thoughts and emotions. He had begun analysis due to depression and perhaps the long process of contact with an empathic analyst and an ultimately successful marriage gave this man enough social contact and self repair that he could put the cocaine high into a much larger perspective and refuse the craving for a second snort of it.

This man had social contact. He had friends, he had developed a trusting alliance with his psychoanalyst, had a wife he respected, three children, and he knew he was responsible for a business and the welfare of many employees. So perhaps all of that put his feeling high and his craving into a much larger perspective.

Thank you for these fascinating excerpts and stories, corboy. Truly appreciated. I took a class from the psychotherapist who had coined the term "codependency" from her observations working with alcoholic men and their families, and she insists that as little as two weeks of what she terms "catastrophic stress" are enough to establish this self-destructive behavior pattern ("codependency"). And, of course, what amounts to "catastrophic stress" will vary from person to person and be a matter of that person's own individual emotional/intellectual makeup.

Dr. Gabor Maté, in his book on addiction, "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts," points out that there is nothing about drugs that makes them addictive in and of themselves:

Quote

Heroin is considered to be a highly addictive drug—and it is, but only for a small minority of people, as the following example illustrates. It's well known that many American soldiers serving in the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s were regular users. Along with heroin, most of these soldier addicts also used barbiturates or amphetamines or both. According to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 1975, 20 per cent of the returning enlisted men met the criteria for the diagnosis of addiction while they were in Southeast Asia, whereas before they were shipped overseas fewer than 1 per cent had been opiate addicts. The researchers were astonished to find that “after Vietnam, use of particular drugs and combinations of drugs decreased to near or even below preservice levels.”

Heroin is considered to be a highly addictive drug—and it is, but only for a small minority of people, as the following example illustrates. It’s well known that many American soldiers serving in the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s were regular users. Along with heroin, most of these soldier addicts also used barbiturates or amphetamines or both. According to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 1975, 20 per cent of the returning enlisted men met the criteria for the diagnosis of addiction while they were in Southeast Asia, whereas before they were shipped overseas fewer than 1 per cent had been opiate addicts. The researchers were astonished to find that “after Vietnam, use of particular drugs and combinations of drugs decreased to near or even below preservice levels.” The remission rate was 95 per cent, “unheard of among narcotics addicts treated in the U.S.”

“The high rates of narcotic use and addiction there were truly unlike anything prior in the American experience,” the researchers concluded. “Equally dramatic was the surprisingly high remission rate after return to the United States.”

These results suggested that the addiction did not arise from the heroin itself but from the needs of the men who used the drug. Otherwise, most of them would have remained addicts. [zgm.se]

That's a significant shift in the thinking on illicit drugs, isn't it? Dr. Maté goes farther:

Quote

To accept nothing less than complete abstinence is both unrealistic and irrational. There are many great people who achieved great advances who were addicted. Until we can remove the stigma of addiction and accept that some people, through no fault of their own, will need continuing doses of medication - yes, medication - to function optimally, we will continue to simply perpetuate and increase suffering, dysfunction, and destruction.

The Vietnam veterans study pointed to a similar conclusion: under certain conditions of stress many people can be made susceptible to addiction, but if circumstances change for the better, the addictive drive will abate. About half of all the american soldiers in Vietnam who began to use heroin developed addiction to the drug. Once the stress of military service in a brutal and dangerous war ended, so, in the vast majority of cases, did the addiction. The ones who persisted in heroin addiction back home were, for the most part, those with histories of unstable childhoods and previous drug use problems.

In earlier military conflicts relatively few US military personnel succumbed to addiction. What distinguished the Vietnam experience from these wars? The ready availability of pure heroin and of other drugs is only part of the answer. This war, unlike previous ones, quickly lost meaning for those ordered to fight and die in the faraway jungles and fields of Southeast Asia. There was too wide a gap between what they'd been told and the reality they witnessed and experienced. Lack of meaning, not simply the dangers and privations of war, was the major source of the stress that triggered their flight to oblivion.

Drugs, in short, do not make anyone into an addict, any more than food makes a person into a compulsive eater. There has to be a preexisting vulnerability. There also has to be significant stress, as on these Vietnam soldiers -- but, like drugs, external stressors by themselves, no matter how severe, are not enough. Although many Americans became addicted to heroin while in Vietnam, most did not.

Thus, we might say that three factors need to coincide for substance addiction to occur: a susceptible organism; a drug with addictive potential; and stress. Given the availability of drugs, individual susceptibility will determine who becomes and addict and who will not -- for example, which two from among a random sample of ten US GIs in Vietnam will fall prey to addiction. [tinyurl.com]

To say that the drugs, in and of themselves, are addictive and can seize *anyone* who tries them has the pernicious undercurrent of resulting in blaming addicts for being stupid enough to *try* those drugs in the first place. It further stigmatizes these most vulnerable and abused of our citizens. I tried cocaine a couple of times when I was in college the first time; it did *nothing* for me. I was happier snorting speed :}

But by the time I was 22, I was completely *done* with recreational drug use. Who needs it? Addicts do not respond that way; they cannot say "Who needs it?". THEY need it. However, there are other substances that can substitute for the illicit drugs - like Ritalin for cocaine addicts. It provides the same positive effects they gain from their use of cocaine, without the danger, cost, and social censure of the illicit substance. How sad is it to think that so many people are addicted (and end up homeless) simply because they can't get decent medical diagnosis and treatment??

Quote

For 12 years I was staff physician at the Portland Hotel, a nonprofit, harm-reduction facility in the Downtown Eastside, an area with an addict population of 3,000 to 5,000. Most of the Portland’s clients are addicted to cocaine, crystal meth, alcohol, opiates like heroin, or tranquilizers—or to any combination of these things.

“The first time I did heroin,” one of my patients, a 27-year-old sex-trade worker, once told me, “it felt like a warm, soft hug.” In a phrase, she summed up the deep psychological and chemical cravings that make some people vulnerable to substance dependence.

Contrary to popular myth, no drug is inherently addictive. Only a small percentage of people who try alcohol or cocaine or even crystal meth go on to addictive use. What makes those people vulnerable? According to current brain research and developmental psychology, chemical and emotional vulnerability are the products not of genetic programming but of life experience. Most of the human brain’s growth occurs after birth, and so physical and emotional interactions determine much of our neurological development—which brain areas will develop and how well, which patterns will be encoded, and so on. As such, each brain’s circuitry and chemistry reflect individual life experiences as much as inherited tendencies.

Drugs affect the brain by binding to receptors on nerve cells. Opiates work on our built-in receptors for endorphins—the body’s own, natural opiate-like substances that participate in many functions, including regulation of pain and mood. Similarly, tranquilizers of the benzodiazepine class, such as Valium, exert their effect at the brain’s natural benzodiazepine receptors. Other brain chemicals, including dopamine and serotonin, affect such diverse functions as mood, incentive- and reward-seeking behavior, and self-regulation. These, too, bind to specific, specialized receptors on neurons.

But the number of receptors and level of brain chemicals are not set at birth. Infant rats who get less grooming from their mothers end up with fewer natural “benzo” receptors in the part of the brain that controls anxiety. Brains of infant monkeys separated from their mothers for only a few days are measurably deficient in dopamine.

It is the same with human beings. Endorphins are released in the infant’s brain when there are warm, non-stressed, calm interactions with the parenting figures. Endorphins, in turn, promote the growth of receptors and nerve cells, and the discharge of other important brain chemicals. The fewer endorphin-enhancing experiences in infancy and early childhood, the greater the need for external sources. Hence, a greater vulnerability to addictions.

What sets skid row addicts apart is the extreme degree of stress they had to endure early in life. Almost all women now inhabiting “Canada’s addiction capital”—as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver has been called—suffered sexual assaults in childhood, as did many of the males. Childhood memories of serial abandonment or severe physical and psychological abuse are common. My patients’ histories are chronicles of pain upon pain.

The U.S.-based Adverse Childhood Experiences studies have demonstrated beyond doubt that childhood stresses, including factors such as abuse, addiction in the family, a rancorous divorce, and so on, provide the template for addictions later in life. It doesn’t follow, of course, that all addicts were abused or that all abused children become addicts, but the correlations are inescapable.

If we look closely, we’ll see that addictive patterns characterize the behaviors of many members of society, including high-functioning and respectable citizens. As a workaholic doctor, I’ve had my own non-substance addictions to feverish professional activity and also to shopping. In my case, I can trace that back to emotional losses I suffered as a ¬Jewish infant in Nazi-occupied Hungary during the last years of World War II. My children, in turn, were subjected to the stresses of a family headed by a workaholic father who was physically present but emotionally absent.

Feeling alone, the sense that there has never been anyone with whom to share their deepest emotions, is universal among drug addicts. No matter how much love a parent has, the child does not experience being wanted unless he or she is made absolutely safe to express exactly how unhappy, or angry, or hate-filled he or she may at times feel.The sense of unconditional love, of being fully accepted even when most ornery, is what no addict ever experienced in childhood—not because the parents did not have it to give, but simply because they were too stressed, or overworked, or beset by their own demons, or simply did not know how to transmit it to the child.

Addicts rarely make the connection between troubled childhood experiences and self-harming habits. They blame themselves—and that is the greatest wound of all, being cut off from their natural self-compassion. “I was hit a lot,” 40-year-old Wayne told me, “but I asked for it. Then I made some stupid decisions.” And would he hit a child, no matter how much that child “asked for it,” or blame that child for “stupid decisions”? “I don’t want to talk about that crap,” said this tough man, who has worked on oil rigs and construction sites and served 15 years in jail for robbery. He looked away and wiped a tear from his eyes.

Some of the above is from a Yes Magazine article on Dr. Gabor Maté and his work: [ []]

The article is titled "Why Punish Pain?"

Quote

Were you just on the point of quitting when the smiles and affirmations were turned back on?

Funny you should ask. At the last discussion meeting I ever attended, we were sitting around afterward - it was in January of 2008, so we were all focusing on the year to come. I was suggesting that we ask the members what sorts of topics they would like to discuss and what sorts of activities they would enjoy - a book-club-type of activity, or maybe watching a movie together, or something. No one said "That would be out of rhythm - we have to use the topics that are dictated from on high", even though in looking back, I can see that was the process. And then, when I mentioned to my MD District leader that I wasn't getting any of my needs met in the discussion meetings, he told me, "You are being really selfish. Instead of thinking about yourself, you should be thinking about how to use all your training and knowledge to help others." I was the only one who really studied, you see. How's THAT for "smiles and affirmations"???

Quote
corboy
Were you just on the point of quitting when the smiles and affirmations were turned back on?

I always instinctively knew that the smiles and so-called "friendliness" were all fake, so it didn't really have any influence in my case.

When I started stepping back and away from the practice, long absences from "activities", no more taking "leader" phone calls and no more tolerance for the crap and manipulation, I started to get letters and postcards in the mail, small notes passed on to me thru intermediaries from people (top "leaders") who never gave me the time of day, seemed to care much, or even notice me before.

Suddenly, they were trying to be my long lost friend. I got immense pleasure from what I viewed as their desperation and fake show / efforts to try and get me back. (Yeah, I know that's kind of sick, but at the time, I was sick of them, too.)

I remember I just laughed out loud and tossed the letters in the garbage. When the mood struck me and I was feeling particularly more confident (which was more and more so the longer I stayed away from it all) I even engaged them in telephone debates and arguments in person (when they "home-visited" me).

I remember some of those first home-v's very well, simply because it started to become very apparent to me just how ignorant the "leaders" were in reality. Some of them even struck me as (please forgive my bluntness) just plain stupid. Critical thinking was slicing thru all their BS like a hot knife thru butter and all they had to retort were their typical programmed (empty) stock answers. In a way, after it was all done and they left, I kind of felt sorry for them (their wallowing in ignorance), but it eventually passed and I, and they, eventually just moved on.

Once I started to see the salaried "leaders" as charlatans, and caught on to their game, there was no turning back.


- Hitch

When my leaders first started to get concerned was when I asked a big-cheese local Japanese WD leader (I think she was Jt Terr or something) to read the text on one of the "heretical" gohonzons I was planning on buying. To refresh your memory, I ended up buying these two: [i129.photobucket.com] and [i129.photobucket.com] They're original calligraphy and they're from the Nichiren Shu sect. Our former priesthood was Nichiren SHOshu, you'll recall.

She didn't get back to me quickly enough on the one I originally asked her about, and that auction ended before I had a chance to decide. And then she was all evasive - I don't think she ever told me what the kanji were, and I decided it was silly to worry about :} A gohonzon's a gohonzon, right? I had started looking into Nichiren Shu, and I found that they have a very different version of the whole Mt. Minobu schism after Nichiren's death. Their version is that Nichiren's most prized possession was a statue of Shakyamuni Buddha, and Nikko, who fancied himself the favorite, was totally honked off when Nichiren left it to a different high priest! Nikko then stormed off in a huff. There *was* no Dai-Gohonzon - Nikko and his acolytes made it later once they'd settled down at Taiseki-Ji. Really - do you think li'l ol' Nikko could have made off with the most important relic in all of Nichiren Buddhism, while the other 5 senior priests just stood there helplessly?? What a silly story!

So I bought these two (got them for a really good price) but I hadn't hung them up yet when my Chapter WD leader decided to pay me a home visit. "Your home has such a lovely warm feel about it," she said. "It would be a shame for it to get a dark or even sinister atmosphere." What she was referring to was the hocus-pocus supernatural woo that, if I had these "heretical objects" on the premises, there would be a gloomy feeling of foreboding about my living space. You know, from the eeeEEEeevil of the "wrong" gohonzons! What the silly cow didn't realize was that the "heretical objects" were already there! So much for her supernatural radar *eye roll*

BTW, the big cheese Japanese WD came by for another home visit, this time with the newly installed (American) HQ WD leader. I had hung up my new gohonzons (FYI, they're each about 5 feet tall - enormous!) in my stairwell with the vaulted ceiling (tall wall). Japanese leader arrived first. She looked at them, commented that they might "confuse" the members who came to my house for discussion meetings. I pointed out that they couldn't be seen from the room where we met - someone would have had to leave that room and look *up* the stairs to see them. She said it wasn't right for me to have them. I asked why. She couldn't answer. Then the HQ leader arrived and had a look. She said she didn't see any problem with them. Then she had to leave early. The Japanese big cheese leader quietly told me I should chant until I agreed with her. 2 weeks later, she dropped dead.

That should be the end, an unfortunate circumstance, and, of course, it’s very sad that she died so suddenly and so relatively young. What bothers me is that, if it had instead been *me* who died, she and the other leaders would have been wagging their heads and tongues, offering me up as needed as a cautionary tale about the dire calamities that await anyone who disobeys SGI-USA leaders’ orders. I’d certainly seen this happen often enough with SGI-USA leaders while I was a leader. But because she was a high-ranking leader, it apparently never occurred to anyone to suggest that perhaps she met her untimely end by presenting her own opinion as official Buddhist doctrine. Would that be a despicable thing to say? Perhaps SGI-USA leaders should think twice about exploiting others’ misfortunes to try and claim points for their own opinions and for the purpose of manipulating and controlling the members *ahem*

BTW, there was quite a bit of lively discussion locally regarding my objets d'art. Several people, lower level leaders included, commented that they thought it was a tempest in a teapot, a silly thing to make a scene over, and quite foolish to make an issue for drawing lines in the sand. One of them asked one of the higher-ups, "What if she had a museum of Buddhist artifacts?" The response? "She doesn't HAVE a museum, does she??"

Quote
Hitch
Yikes! I'm always acutely aware that no matter how bad I think I had things, I know that there are others out there (like you) who have been thru much, much worse.

Case in point, this lady's family [www.youtube.com]. (Btw, she later reconsidered and accepted the money ;-) ).

Holy rage rant, Batman! That familiar dark-sided performance was close to home, having been a Buddhist living in the heart of the bible belt. My current wife is Pagan, gives psychic readings, and is a bonafide witch. Our relationship is superior to any other I have ever had. We have both had a lifetime of this kind of insanity from crazed religio-nuts like the raging woman shown in this video.

My highly indoctrinated maternal grandmother (bless her mistaken heart - she meant well) reacted with just about the very same hysterics upon discovering that I had become a Buddhist.

Quote
Spartacus
There are so many puckered tight assholes in the SGcult, they should have no problem finding members that won't go potty #2 during dear leader's visit.

[/quote Hitch]HAHA! I've never seen so many "anal" people gathered in one place as I did in the gakkai cult org.. They are everywhere, absolute control freaks, if you let them.

I've mentioned before that the key to understanding the gakkai cult is to understand the Japanese mindset --> rigid control, supreme anal-ness, conformity and obsession with following the prescribed recipe cookbook without deviation, are all an absolute way of life. (Apologies if that is too harsh for some people to read, but it *is* true.)

I actually once told a "leader" that they might want to consider seeing a proctologist about their condition (they never did understand what I was getting at). Hitch

"See a proctologist about their condition." What a gem! I wish I would have delivered that phrase to one of my annal leaders. Hats off to you, Hitch.

Spartacus

My official resignation letter to the SGI-USA demanding that they remove my name and personal information (and that of my children - they'd BETTER not have anything on my husband!) from their records is in its envelope - it goes into the mail today.

Anyone want to read it? PM me and I'll send you a copy!!

Edit: I meant "tomorrow." Because of my son's change of schedule, I couldn't make it to the post office as planned today, to mail it with delivery confirmation. So I have proof they received it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2013 12:02PM by TaitenAndProud.

You know, the stats on religions are hopelessly corrupt. Mormons keep *everyone* baptized into Mormonism on their membership rolls until that person reaches age 110 (some sources say 120), you know, "just in case s/he decides to come back." Ha ha ha - talk about optimistic! That means that, even when someone is known to have joined a different group, s/he is still counted as a Mormon.

And that new organization is counting the person as well! Given that it is typical for people to change religious affiliations every few years, imagine that someone in question was born into a Mormon family, left to join the Baptists, then joined the Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and is now a Jain! It *could* happen - I just ran across a sign today advertising a Jain fellowship!! Can you believe it??

Back to the stats. That means that our Jain is also counted as 5 - count them, FIVE - Christians - a Mormon, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, AND a Presbyterian! Given that there are absolutely *no* rules governing counting someone as a member, unless that former member officially DEMANDS that the organization remove his/her personal information from their files, s/he can count on being, well, counted! Over and over and over!

Granted, even if the former member demands that the organization remove his/her personal information from their files, there's no way to verify that this has been done. However, once the letter has been sent (and the letter confirming that what the former member has demanded has been done - as they are required by law to do), if they refer to the former member in any way after that, that throws the doors open to a fat lawsuit.