DARPA – The Central Planning Hub For Transhumanity


As I have been saying for years, the annual financial statements, CAFR, and budget reports of corporations and government agencies both private and public are the best source of deep information. In the case of an organization like the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), we can find otherwise un-discussed descriptions of its “projects” simply because an agency of government that is allotted government funding must “justify” its budget. In order to justify these “advanced research projects,” mostly (and ultimately all) for military purposes, a semi-detailed description is provided in DARPA’s budget report that otherwise would not necessarily be discussed on the nightly news, or even in congress.

This information, public and unclassified as it is, should be the front page story of every mainstream and alternative website and channel out there. But instead we see videos of fun robots and drones that will be our friends, deliver us Amazon shipments, and protect us from our illusion of human enemies. Meanwhile, the real enemy reports its plans to the government it serves to justify its budgeting needs without much notice at all by we it seeks to fundamentally alter and destroy. Why? Because financial reports are boring…

Think again!

I have listed below just a few of the many projects and their descriptions for budgeting purposes, which are from the fiscal year 2014 report entitled:

–=–

Department of Defense
Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 President’s Budget Submission
April 2013

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Justification Book Volume 1 of 1
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide
UNCLASSIFIED

–=–

A link to all past and present reports can be simply found at the DARPA website, here:

Link–> http://www.darpa.mil/about-us/budget

On page (Volume 1-v) toward the beginning of the report we can see that the executive budget for DARPA is for the 2014 fiscal year an appropriation by congress of $2.685 billion dollars.

So what dismal future are we municep proles personally paying for under national appropriation of the national debt?

Page (volume 1 – ix) indexes some projects under the headings of:

Defense Research Sciences, Biomedical Technology, Information and Communications Technology, Cognitive Computing Systems, Machine Intelligence, Biological Warfare Defense, Materials and Biological Technology, Advanced Aerospace Systems, Command, Control, and Communication Systems, Network-Centric Warfare Technology, Sensor Technology, and of course Classified DARPA Programs.

Once you read the following descriptions, you’ll probably wonder why all its programs aren’t “classified.”

Here are some examples…

–=–

(Volume 1, Page 1of 47)

Exhibit R-2 – RDT&E Budget Item Justification:
PB 2014 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DATE: April 2013
APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY
0400: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide
PE 0601101E: DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES
BA 1: Basic Research

A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification

The Defense Research Sciences Program Element is budgeted in the Basic Research Budget Activity because it provides the technical foundation for long-term National Security enhancement through the discovery of new phenomena and the exploration of the potential of such phenomena for Defense applications. It supports the scientific study and experimentation that is the basis for more advanced knowledge and understanding in information, electronic, mathematical, computer, biological and materials sciences.

The Bio/Info/Micro Sciences project will explore and develop potential technological breakthroughs that exist at the intersection of biology, information technology and micro/physical systems to exploit advances and leverage fundamental discoveries for the development of new technologies, techniques and systems of interest to the DoD. Programs in this project will draw upon information and physical sciences to discover properties of biological systems that cross multiple biological architectures and functions, from the molecular and genetic level through cellular, tissue, organ, and whole organism levels.

The Math and Computer Sciences project supports long term national security requirements through scientific research and experimentation in new computational models and mechanisms for reasoning and communication in complex, interconnected systems. The project is exploring novel means to exploit computer capabilities; enhance human-to-computer and computer-to-computer interaction technologies; advance innovative computer architectures; and discover new learning mechanisms and innovations in software composition. It is also fostering the computer science academic community to address the DoD’s need for innovative computer and information science technologies. Additionally, this project explores the science of mathematics for potential defense applications.

Continued… (Page 2 of 49)

The Cyber Sciences project supports long term national security requirements through scientific research and experimentation in cyber-security. Networked computing systems control virtually everything, from power plants and energy distribution, transportation systems, food and water distribution, financial systems, to defense systems. Protecting the infrastructure on which these systems rely is a national security issue. The Cyber Sciences project will ensure DoD cyber-capabilities survive adversary attempts to degrade, disrupt, or deny military computing, communications, and networking systems. Basic research in cyber security is required to provide a basis for continuing progress in this area. Promising research results will transition to both technology development and system-level projects.

The Electronic Sciences project explores and demonstrates electronic and optoelectronic devices, circuits and processing concepts that will provide: 1) new technical options for meeting the information gathering, transmission and processing required to maintain near-real time knowledge of the enemy and the ability to communicate decisions based on that knowledge to all forces in near-real time; and 2) provide new means for achieving substantial increases in performance and cost reduction of military systems providing these capabilities.

The Materials Sciences project is concerned with the development of: high power density/high energy density mobile and portable power sources; processing and design approaches for nanoscale and/or bimolecular materials, interfaces and microsystems; and materials and measurements for molecular-scale electronics.

The Transformative Sciences project supports scientific research and analysis that leverages converging technological forces and transformational trends in the areas of computing and the computing-reliant subareas of social sciences, life sciences, manufacturing, and commerce as a means of improving military adaptation to sudden changes in requirements, threats, and emerging converging trends.

–=–

DARPA, from these first project descriptions issued as justifications for their existence and funding (appropriation), appear to be on the cutting edge of officially sanctioned transhumanism and other forms of biological interface with computer systems. From nano-bots to nano-life, much of the weapons research that is mislabeled as “defense” research is apparently never to be seen with the naked eye – a biologically computerized epigenomic infection; defense from the inside out.

Don’t forget folks… that oath is supposedly all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So why is your congress supporting the enemy so ardently? The answer is that you are the alien enemy, and DARPA exists as a government agency for the purpose of defense against man, both foreign (alien) and domestic persons.

Let’s have a looksie, shall we?

And remember, DoD applications mean nothing more or less than applications in WAR, be it cold or hot, commercial or silent.

–=–

(Volume 1, Page 3 of 47)

Exhibit R-2A, RDT&E Project Justification:
PB 2014 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DATE: April 2013
0400: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide
BA 1: Basic Research
PE 0601101E: DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES
PROJECT BLS-01:BIO/INFO/MICRO SCIENCES

(See actual linked report for individual project budget costs and appropriations)

A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification

This project is investigating and developing the intersections of biology, information technology and micro/physical systems to exploit important technological advances and leverage fundamental discoveries for the development of new technologies, techniques, and systems of interest to the DoD. This research is critical to the development of rapid responses to engineered biological warfare agents, radically new biomolecular computers, and novel materials for the DoD. Programs in this project will draw upon the information and physical sciences to discover properties of biological systems that cross multiple scales of biological architecture and function, from the molecular and genetic level through cellular, tissue, organ, and whole organism levels. This project will develop the basic research tools in biology that are unique to the application of biological-based solutions to critical Defense problems.

B. Accomplishments/Planned Programs ($ in Millions)

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

Title: Bio Interfaces

Description: The Bio Interfaces program supports scientific study and experimentation, emphasizing the interfaces between biology and the physical and mathematical/computer sciences. This unique interaction will develop new mathematical and experimental tools for understanding biology in a way that will allow its application to a myriad of DoD problems. These tools will help exploit the advances in the complex modeling of physical and biological phenomena. It is also expected that understanding the fundamentals of biology will aid in developing tools to understand complex, non-linear networks and force structures. This program will also explore the fundamental nature of time in biology and medicine. This will include mapping basic clock circuitry in biological systems from the molecular level up through unique species level activities with a special emphasis on the applicability to human biology. Operational relevance of this research activity includes improving our understanding of sleep-wake cycles, increasing the scientific understanding of deployment cycle lengths, and enhancing our ability to model the dynamics of disease outbreaks.

FY 2012 Accomplishments:
Identified genomic and epigenomic signatures that dictate spatio-temporal regulation of temporal processes such as cell cycle progression, metabolic cycles, and lifespan using bioinformatic or data mining techniques as a stepping stone to understanding the nature of time in biology and medicine.
– Developed in vitro or in vivo cellular systems in which clock components can be altered by environmental pressures, molecular biological techniques or perturbation with various stressors.

B. Accomplishments/Planned Programs ($ in Millions)

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014
Synthesized the minimal set of genomic, proteomic, transcriptomic, or epigenomic input data required for the creation of a predictive algorithm.

FY 2013 Plans:
– Define spatio-temporal components and signatures by creating experimental test platforms and assays that will stress and perturb the system to confirm contributions of temporal regulators.
– Initiate the development of algorithms designed to predict pertinent time processes active in biological systems (e.g., sleep cycles, metabolic cycles, and disease outbreak cycles).
Refine temporal signature networks and libraries that dictate temporal process regulation for determination of minimal datasets necessary for validated models.
– Develop and validate algorithms of temporal processes associated with developmental processes in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems.

FY 2014 Plans:
– Experimentally validate canonical spatio-temporal episequences, and develop a minimal dataset for accurate predictions of temporal processes such as cell cycle progression, metabolic cycles, and lifespan.
Refine predictive algorithms of the progression of biological time.
– Develop and test the predictive model or algorithm against a blind panel to predict doubling time, cell cycle progression, metabolism and lifespan metrics.

Title: Biological Adaptation, Assembly and Manufacturing

Description: The Biological Adaptation, Assembly and Manufacturing program is examining the structure, function, and informational basis underlying biological system adaptation, and the factors employed by the organism to assemble and manufacture complex biological subsystems. The unique stability afforded biological systems in their ability to adapt to wide extremes of physical and endurance (e.g., heat, cold, and sleeplessness) parameters will be examined and exploited in order to engineer stability into biological systems required for the military (such as blood, bioengineered tissues or other therapeutics). A key new antibody technology will develop the ideal antibody master molecule for use in unattended sensors that maintains high temperature stability and controllable affinity for threat agents. Applications to Defense systems include the development of chemical and biological sensors; tools for strategic military decision-makers involved in information operations, and improved warfighter battlefield survivability.

FY 2012 Accomplishments:
Combined stability and affinity enhancements to producemaster antibodiesfor testing in an existing biosensor platform to demonstrate advanced capability in terms of robustness and potential for multiplexing.

B. Accomplishments/Planned Programs ($ in Millions)

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014
– Explored and refined foundational assumptions on the utility of the Freytag and other structures for narrative analysis, including determining relationships between decomposed narratives and neuropsychological mechanisms, and between narratives and behavior.
Developed decomposition frameworks and initial cluster of neurobiological mechanisms to better understand their relationship.
– Developed tools to link analytic frameworks, neural mechanisms, and environmental variables to particular narratives.

–=–

Let us pause here to understand the Freytag narrative analysis, literally the art of controlled tragedy being modernly applied to all of our lives through biological systems management. For It is much easier to brainwash a brain that is built by the brain-washer…

–=–

Title: Biological Adaptation, Assembly and Manufacturing, continued…

FY 2013 Plans:
Develop sensor suite technologies based on neurobiological mechanisms to measure narrative effect on individuals/groups in real-time.
– Study generalized findings in relation to distinct sub-groups to elucidate potential differences across varying cultures.
Incorporate findings about the neurobiology of culture-dependent and culture-independent variables into models and simulations of narrative influence.
– Refine sensor suite technologies.

Title: Quantitative Models of the Brain*

Description: *Formerly Mathematics of the Brain

The Quantitative Models of the Brain program will develop a new mathematical paradigm for understanding how to model reasoning processes for application to a variety of emerging DoD challenges. Critical to this endeavor will be determining how information is stored and recalled in the brain and developing predictive, quantitative models of learning and memory. Using this understanding, the program will develop powerful new symbolic computational capabilities for the DoD in a mathematical system that provides the ability to understand complex and evolving tasks without exponentially increasing software and hardware requirements. This includes a comprehensive mathematical theory to extract and leverage information in signals at multiple acquisition levels, which would fundamentally generalize compressive sensing for multi-dimensional sources beyond domains typically used. New insights related to signal priors, task priors, and adaptation will enable these advances. This program will establish a functional mathematical basis on which to build future advances in cognitive neuroscience, computing capability, and signal processing across the DoD. The quantitative models of learning and memory will also lead to improvements in the training of individuals and teams as well as advances in cognitive rehabilitation (e.g. PTSD).

FY 2012 Accomplishments:
Developed detailed mathematical prior-knowledge representations and associated models for imaging and radar applications.
– Exploited the new theoretical measurement framework together with novel forms of prior knowledge in order to minimize resource requirements and maximize information gathering, from sparse sampling.

B. Accomplishments/Planned Programs ($ in Millions)

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014
– Demonstrated the utility of new compressive measurement theory via improvements in imaging and radar applications.

FY 2013 Plans:
– Identify fundamental bounds on performance and cost associated with linear and nonlinear signal priors.
– Demonstrate novel reconstruction algorithms that incorporate both signal and task priors to enable improved reconstruction quality and/or reduced measurement resources.
– Demonstrate visible imaging using 10x fewer measurements than reconstructed pixels.
– Demonstrate RADAR imaging using 10x less bandwidth than a conventional non-compressive system.
– Exploit the benefit of adaptation in order to achieve additional reductions in performance and/or measurement resources.
Exploit the benefit of information-optimal measurements within a signals intelligence application.

FY 2014 Plans:
– Demonstrate hyperspectral imaging using 100x fewer measurements than reconstructed voxels.
– Explore application of compressive sensing concepts to alternate sensing modalities such as X-ray imaging.
– Investigate the potential gains available from compressive sensing within a video application.
Leverage advances in neuroscience and neurological measurements to develop predictive, quantitative models of memory, learning, and neuro-physiologic recovery.

Title: Physics in Biology

Description: Understanding the fundamental physical phenomena that underlie biological processes and functions will provide new insight and unique opportunities for understanding biological properties and exploiting such phenomena. Physics in biology will explore the role and impact of quantum effects in biological processes and systems. This includes exploiting manifestly quantum mechanical effects that exist in biological systems at room temperature to develop a revolutionary new class of robust, compact, high sensitivity and high selectivity sensors. Finally, the quantum phenomena uncovered will be exploited to control the attraction of insects to humans with the potential to completely eliminate insect bites and thus the transmission of parasitic, bacterial or viral pathogens.

FY 2012 Accomplishments:

– Developed theory and performed simulations for the transduction of the magnetoreception signal on the visual field.
– Developed concepts and initial designs for sensors inspired by biological quantum effects.
– Developed a general theory for photosynthetic transport, governed by a single parameter, that shows that it is an example of a quantumGoldilocks effect‘, i.e., the degree of quantum complexity and coherence is ‘just rightfor attaining maximum efficiency.
– Formulated a new concept ofexcitonic circuits” (that concentrate and direct excitons as in photosynthesis) and designed generic circuit elements.

B. Accomplishments/Planned Programs ($ in Millions)

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014
Verified that molecular vibrations, and thus quantum effects, are essential to describing olfaction.

FY 2013 Plans:

– Develop prototype synthetic sensors that utilize biologically inspired quantum effects and model their performance.
– Demonstrate the ability to control quantum effects in biological systems by reorienting magnetoreception through the radical pair mechanism using radio frequency fields.
– Demonstrate the biological and evolutionary advantage of quantum effects in photosynthetic systems.

FY 2014 Plans:

Demonstrate prototype quantum biological sensors against their equivalent state-of-the-art sensor and quantify the increase in sensitivity, selectivity and other performance metrics.

Explore quantum physics-based mechanisms of mosquito bio-sensing related to mosquito attraction to humans for novel, vector-born disease protection against diseases such as malaria or dengue fever.

–=–

Primer – short pieces of DNA that are made in a laboratory. Since they’re custom built, primers can have any sequence of nucleotides you’d like. [http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/labs/pcr/]

Primer  – A short oligonucleotide complementary to target DNA and acts as the leader for DNA extension. Also refers to short oligonucleotide used to primer reverse transcription of RNA to DNA in reverse transcription reactions. See PCR Glossary. [http://www.changbioscience.com/res/res/rPrimers.htm]

Primer A short nucleic acid sequence containing a free 3′ hydroxyl group that forms base pairs with a complementary template strand and functions as the starting point for addition of nucleotides to copy the template strand. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21607/def-item/A7744/?report=objectonly]

Primer – A nucleic acid strand (or related molecule) that serves as a starting point for DNA replication. [http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Primer/]

Primer   Small fragment of single stranded DNA used in PCR reactions or sequencing. It hybridize to a complementary sequence on the template DNA. [http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/notebook/words/primer.htm]

Primer – Refers to a small set of nucleotides of DNA, typically 18 to 24 base pairs in length. And a primer can be used for a multitude of other experimental processes. You can use primer in PCR to target a locus to allow for amplification for further analysis. [http://www.genome.gov/glossary/index.cfm?id=163&textonly=true]

–=–

Please download and share this insanity and distortion of nature with all you can. The report has another 300 pages!

This is war on the micro-scale, a scientific dictatorship on the cellular and epigenomic level.

And you are its as of yet un-transcripted, reprogrammable enemy.

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, August 29th, 2015

Spin Job: The Odd Case Of Richard Andrew Grove


A newly found and examined public court document places into question the motives and integrity of the founder of the web forum Tragedy & Hope, Richard Andrew Grove. The following essay and research document shows a direct contradiction between what Mr. Grove claims and what actually happened, both in reality and in court. Here we will merely pose the question: Is Richard Andrew Grove truly the official, and therefore a fully, legally protected “whistleblower” he claims to be in public and in his apparently well-funded media entertainment productions? This collection of facts was sent to me by one who wishes to remain anonymous, and has been so altered and verified by myself so as to ensure that the litigious nature of Mr. Grove should not be invoked. I have nothing, so I can only be sued for nothing, and all are welcome to a share of my nothingness. It is presented here purely for the purposes of exposure and honest inquiry, with the intent merely to allow Mr. Richard Andrew Grove an open invitation and chance to disprove the following facts by providing contrary evidence to this damning expose based upon official court records. At this point I can only attempt to remain as neutral as possible on this subject, despite the evidence at hand, and only ask the reader to consider, verify, and demand an accounting and explanation for the following glaring discrepancies between the official court documents and the well laid propaganda in movie/interview form as presented below. –Clint

–=–
Audacity & Hopium
–=–

“Recognize that corporations are mandated to return profit to shareholders; thus it becomes profitable to suppress information, keeping the public ignorant… leading into wars contrived for profit. The cycle continues until we break it by recognizing that ALL WARS ARE CREATED FOR OUR CONSUMPTION, so stop consuming war, stop funding war profiteers, and stop supporting politicians who support the war. Educate yourself by consuming independent media, and avoid the corporate/militainment-produced sound-byte culture which lead us into the Iraq War.”

–Richard Andrew Grove, President, Tragedy and Hope, Inc., from his documentary “A film to end all wars” 2008) [EMPHASIS ADDED]

–=–

“When you consider that almost everything everyone around you consumes, it was produced by corporations for the explicit purpose of profit. Right? A Corporation’s only law of governance, its only motivation, its only mandate, is to return profit to the shareholders. It’s not to keep you safe. It’s not to inform you. It’s not to help you feel, and realize your life dreams. They are there to profit. And the Roman maxim is “let he who would be deceived, be deceived“. Right?”

–Richard Andrew Grove, President, Tragedy and Hope, Inc. (A CORPORATION!), quoted from “American Apathy,” 1:54 ff. [emphasis added]

–=–

Over recent years the online community has provided an over-abundance of alternative media sources to help fill in the gaps where the mainstream, or “corporate media,” has failed at performing their stated purpose as news agencies. One popular online media group, Tragedy & Hope, Inc. (www.tragedyandhope.com), infers itself to be organized for the purpose of filling in these purposeful gaps and exposing misinformation.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After registering slightly higher trust last year, Americans’ confidence in the media’s ability to report “the news fully, accurately, and fairly” has returned to its previous all-time low of 40%. Americans’ trust in mass media has generally been edging downward from higher levels in the late 1990s and the early 2000s.

–Gallup poll, link–>http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-returns-time-low.aspx

–=–

So who do we trust?

How much of this alternative media is just mainstream lite, utilizing the same part-truth model mixed with glaring yet unquestionably accepted, purposeful untruths?

With documentary film productions like “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” the public is led to believe that this particular “alternative” online media group and forum is somehow better, more honest, and more accurate than its mainstream counterparts – such as ABC’s “20/20” or PBS’s “Frontline.” In fact, Tragedy and Hope’s ironically corporate reputation seems to have built its foundation upon this particularly proposed truth.

But is this the reality?

Can that supposed honesty and accuracy be shown throughout this conglomerate website forum and through its own musings and media productions? Or will we see variances to this supposed integrity, just as is exposed in the mainstream media by Tragedy and Hope in justification and contemplation of its own existence and purpose in countering such “corporate” news agencies?

A recently found court document from the U.S. Department of Labor website (which everyone should read for themselves) reveals that Richard Andrew Grove, president of Tragedy & Hope, Inc. and a self-styled “whistle-blower,” may not fit into that heroic persona he proclaims himself to be, and that he may have been more of a conniving, litigious employee than the “whistle-blower” he pretends.

The stated action of this document was as a “DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT,” with instructions at the end as to the appeals process:

Link to case document entitled GROVE_RICHARD_ANDREW_v_EMC_CORPORATION–>http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/ALJ/SOX/2006/GROVE_RICHARD_ANDREW_v_EMC_CORPORATION_2006SOX00099_%28JUL_02_2007%29_111537_CADEC_SD.PDF

–=–

The documentary film created to present the “facts” of this case is located here:

Link To Tragedy & Hope’s production of “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline (part 6 shows the most relevant parts): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hERzXq3xBxk

–=–

Please note that this is but one, stand-alone example, and that it is not the intention of this author to portray anything but the facts of this one example. Again, if the following information is disputable or incorrect in its official capacity as a public court document, then this information needs to be shown and a retraction of this article will be made upon such satisfaction. Other aspects of this Tragedy and Hope, Inc. corporation and its affiliates should be taken upon their own merit. In this expose, the reader should only expect an accurate analysis of the actual court case vs. what is stated about that court case: a comparison of the actual judge’s ruling in Grove’s case based upon and quoted from the official court records to the public claims made by the self-proclaimed “whistle-blower,” Richard Andrew Grove. In other words, the following is a comparative look at how, on behalf of the corporation (artificial person) called Tragedy & Hope, Inc., Mr. Grove re-presents the facts regarding his adventures in that court setting, as well as the facts leading up to that event.

In Hollywood, the depiction of court cases are portrayed as dramatic and intense, where “honest” and “empathetic” attorneys battle to defend and protect the innocent and punish the wicked. In reality, the administration of such things is a quite boring, officious ordeal. Is the “alternative media” documentary film-production portrayal of that court story lived by the founder of Tragedy & Hope, Inc. any less liberal and tragic in its representation of the official facts of that case?

It should be noted here that during the documentary, “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” (Part 1 – 3:59), the narrator Lisa Arbercheski states:

“After reading more than 1000 pages of court transcripts related to this case, Vancouver-based documentary film-maker Paul Verge flew to Connecticut to interview this whistle-blower, and shed some much needed light on these events.”

Link to film, part 1 –>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOujO-Qnlw

–=–

So if there is fault with this documentary, it is certainly shared by Mr. Verge and Tragedy & Hope, Inc. equally. And, aside from narrating the interview of Mr. Grove, Mr. Verge is also a co-producer.

Now let’s see how an alternative media corporation conducts itself with a documentary on a court case regarding its own president.

From the video “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” quoting Mr. Grove:

(Part 6 – 3:52) “…the other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… I had won in court by presenting the evidence and getting my story told… I was able to convince the judge…”

(Part 6 – 4:36) “Because the events I claimed did in fact take place.” “Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including… Project Constellation, (Respondent Exhibit #7)…”

(Part 6 – 5:02) “…what you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the statute of limitations… therefore, I have no power as the judge to do anything to this corporation.”

(Part 6 – 5:35) “…these events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

–=–

From the above quotes we are left with the impression that everything Mr. Grove brought forth in court was “proved to be true,” that the judge ignored the facts of the case, and that his whistle-blower status was not thus protected in consideration of his termination. But let’s examine what the presiding Judge Daniel F. Sutton stated on the official court record linked above:

“After careful review of the evidentiary record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, I conclude that Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation predating his termination on January 15, 2004. I further conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving that his termination was unlawfully motivated by any activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley or that EMC engaged in any unlawful post-termination retaliation. Accordingly, his complaint is dismissed.” (pages 2,3) [emphasis added]

“I find that the evidence is insufficient to establish that EMC / Legato engaged in a series of pre-termination actions that rose to the level of creating a hostile work environment.” (page 19) [emphasis added]

“I find that Grove has failed to establish that his alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough so as to alter conditions of employment and thus create an abusive working environment. (page 19) [emphasis added]

“He also failed to produce evidence that the alleged harassment would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person and that it did detrimentally affect him.” (page 19,20) [emphasis added]

“Therefore, I conclude that even assuming that Grove’s hostile work environment claim is timely, the evidence falls well short of establishing that he was subjected to harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter his conditions of employment and that such harassment would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person.” (page 20) [emphasis added]

“As there is no evidence that Grove raised any GAAP irregularities or concerns of other securities law violations in relation to the Bank of Tokyo deal with Legato officials, I find that his communications with Legato officials about this deal were not protected.” (pages 24, 25) [emphasis added]

“Grove also argues he engaged in protected activity when he reported anomalies and “side-letter deals” in Legato’s Northrop Grumman account… it is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws. Consequently, these communications, like those in relation to the Bank of Tokyo transaction, were not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley.” (page 25) [emphasis added]

e. Legato Product Functionality

“Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed… There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.” (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Footnote 29 declares that:

“It is noted that Grove did testify that he reported “the GAAP violations” to the SECconduct whichI have found to be protected by Sarbanes-Oxley. [emphasis added]

–=–

And so it should be noted that this judge separated Groves conduct while in employment and his conduct in reporting as a whistleblower GAAP violations, and concludes that his employment termination was based on his personal conduct and that this case was referential to his seeking of financial gain (compensation) while in employment, not his apparent whistle-blowing efforts. Personal gain is not a protected status. And the document is clear that Richard Andrew Grove blew no whistle in this regard.

f. The November 4, 2003 Email

4. Grove’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination.

“That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (page 26) [emphasis added]

“I find no support for Grove’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the language of the statute, its legislative history or legal precedent developed under the Act.” (page 27) [emphasis added]

“When Grove’s post-November 4, 2003 conduct is balanced against EMC’s legitimate interest in investigating his reports of serious corporate misconduct and fraud and in having its employees engage in productive work, the scale tips decisively in EMC’s favor.” (page 28) [emphasis added]

“I find that Grove’s conduct after November 4, 2003 is indefensible and, therefore, not entitled to protection under Sarbanes-Oxley. Indeed, his unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues that he raised is the antithesis of the type of employee conduct that the Congress sought to encourage and protect when it wrote section 806.” (page 29) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004. Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC.” (page 29) [emphasis added]

“Since Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation prior to his January 15, 2004 termination, and since he has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his allegation of unlawful termination and post-termination retaliation, his complaint under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is DISMISSED in its entirety.” (Page 30) [emphasis added]

 –=–

Reading from the above official case document in comparison to Grove’s interview story, the reasonable reader and fan of this supposed heroic whistle-blower might assume and possibly conclude that this particular case being read from must be different than the one described so vehemently about by Mr. Grove. It certainly seems that the statements made in the film are completely at odds with Judge Sutton’s opinion and ruling. To be clear and accurate, let us double-check the court case number of this publicly posted court document (2006-SOX-00099) as referential with the one quoted in the film. Sure enough, in the documentary film (part 1, 03:15), we see the front page of the court document used and referenced to, which lists the case number as (2006-SOX-00099).

Also to be clear, in order for there to be a whistle-blower under that legal status and the protections it provides, someone would necessarily be required to actually blow a whistle. The film is presented as a sort of “Hagiography” for Richard Andrew Grove, who purportedly blew such a whistle! But let’s examine closer what was actually “blown,” according to the case document.

Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency.” (Page 23, 24) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that, on or about October 24, 2003, after reading (a) story on the internet about an employee of Northrop Grumman subsidiary Logicon being “arrested” by the securities and exchange commission (“SEC”) in connection with Logicon’s dealings with the Legato sales group, he contacted Kevin Gross (“Gross”), an attorney with the San Francisco office of the SEC. He said that this contact was motivated by,” (Page 8) [emphasis added]

“My concern was mainly that it involved an account for which I was responsible, and account for which I had identified numerous events of anomalous activity… I was talking about the GAAP violations. I mentioned that there were numerous accounts, specifically Northrop Grumman, which did not have the end user data being provided for the sale […] I asked about the one-off side letters and side agreements […] and I wanted to know to what effect are those legal or illegal.” (Page 8)

“Grove also told Gross that he had “audio recordings of the people in question” which he was unwilling to disclose because he did not have legal counsel. Grove testified that Gross informed him that since he was not represented by counsel, his dealings with the SEC “needed to be a one-way relationship, which meant that I could voluntarily call him and give him updates.” Id. Grove told Gross that he would rather go to EMC with his information and “see how they react.”” (Page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove further testified that he told Giametta, “All I did was call them and ask some questionsbut from what the attorney said, it sounds like the questions and concerns could be problematic” with regard to the EMC acquisition.” (page 10) [emphasis added]

“… regarding LEGATO and how their actions are affecting EMC’s investment in purchasing Legato” and that his goal is to be able to have EMC address these issues in a confidential and tactful manner and “allow EMC to act on it’s own accord without any intervention by the SEC.” (Page 11) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he contacted attorney Kevin Gross of the SEC in October of 2003 and “identified numerous events of anomalous activity… GAAP violations.”. He also informed Gross “about one-off side letters and side agreements” and asked whether such arrangements were legal. HT at 166. Grove further informed Gross of his belief that “the illicit formulae, if you will, were being used at the highest level of Legato to make executive decisions.” According to Grove, Gross asked him to provide his audio recordings which purportedly corroborated his allegations against Legato officials, but he declined to provide the recordings because he did not have an attorney and because “I am not an expert in that area, I’m just an employee if I’m wrong, I don’t want a public investigation coming out.Id. Instead, Grove testified that he told Gross that he “would like to go to EMC … and brief them with my concerns and see how they react.” (page 23) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. TR 84-94. There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.” (Page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

It seems thus far that no whistle was actually blown, according to Richard Andrew Grove’s own testamentary statements on the official court decision. And yet this is not in tune with what the heroic and apparently victimized Grove tells the media camera.

Combing the facts of the case document further, let’s examine the Legato software functionality issue as to what was actually stated in court. Perhaps the reader may wish to count just how many times Mr. Grove mentions “The Legato software backdoor” in that video?

(Part 3 – 0:00 to 1:32; 2:30; 3:00; 3:40) backdoor in software “July 2003, I found out about the software”; 4:00 – software that allows “nefarious transactions to go on”… I went to my managers and I was told not to talk about it.” (Almost all of part 3 is related to the software issue.)

(Part 4 – 7:09, 7:59) – “…Legato software.”

(Part 5 – 0:35, 1:14, 2:54) – “…software.”

(Part 7 – 1:52) – “…software back door.”

(Part 8 – 7:57) – “…software back door.”

–=–

Many more instances of the email archive “backdoor” are mentioned throughout this misleading documentary. In the hundreds of radio interviews that Mr. Grove has done, this software email deletion function of the Legato software is generally the foundational, predominant subject in the apparent case of purported “whistleblowing.” Likewise, according to Mr. Grove, Project Constellation’s CD was apparently entered into evidence.

But how predominant was this software issue in the actual court case as compared to these hero-worship interviews conducted with Richard Andrew Grove:

Legato Product Functionality

Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. TR 84-94. There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue. (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

The only whistle blowing activity that the judge granted Grove protection under Sarbanes Oxley for was EMC’s share price inflation and its questioning accounting procedures. But this claimed email erasure or back doors in the software…? The software itself is only mentioned two times, on page 25, and only in the final judgment! How can this possibly be? Surely the case is revolved around these software facts represented in this interview by Mr. Grove, and not as the judge portrays merely upon Grove’s own conduct as an employee and the fact of his apparently purposeful failure to properly blow the whistle.

Paul Verge:  “So you proved in court that the General Counsel of EMC, Paul Dacier, to whom you blew the whistle, is the same person who ordered that you be immediately fired for doing so? Isn’t that against the Law? (4:00 part 6) [emphasis added]

–=–

This leading question by the interviewer, which the court document records Grove admitting to have read, proves inaccurate.

Rich Responds (Part 6: 6:31ff, 6:52ff):

“Not only is it against the law, Paul Dacier. When I told him I’m blowing the whistle etc. …His first move was to figure out how to terminate me for cause.” When I questioned them about “cause” they said for “reasons“. It came out in court that Paul Dacier was the one who terminated me, in direct violation of numerous whistleblower laws.” [emphasis added]

–=–

But let’s have a look at what Judge Sutton said about Grove’s termination in light of these determinative affirmations by Grove:

“Though the contributing factor standard places only a relatively low hurdle in the path of a Sarbanes-Oxley complainant, it is one that Grove cannot surmount on this record. That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (Page 26) [emphasis added]

“At this point, Grove had blown the whistle, and EMC was ready to listen. However, over the next several weeks, Grove swallowed the whistle and decided not to cooperate with EMC in investigating his concerns because he objected to meeting with EMC’s General Counsel. Apparently, it was Grove’s belief that having “entered protected activity,” he was eligible for “asylum” which, among other things, would effectively provide him with absolute insulation from any adverse employment consequences. Under this theory, he apparently believed that he was within his rights to unilaterally stop doing the job that he was hired to perform, dictate the ground rules that would govern the manner in which he cooperated in EMC’s investigation of the issues he raised in his November 4, 2003 email, and to refuse to cooperate if his terms were not met. I find no support for Grove’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the language of the statute, its legislative history or legal precedent developed under the Act. (Page 27) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004. Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC. (page 29) [emphasis added]

–=–

To be perfectly clear, Grove’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination, but his own actions certainly were.

Once again let’s read those direct quotes from Richard Andrew Grove:

“Not only is it against the law, Paul Dacier…When I told him I’m blowing the whistle etc. .. His first move was to figure out how to terminate me for cause.

“When I questioned them about “cause” they said for “reasons”. It came out in court that Paul Dacier was the one who terminated me, in direct violation of numerous whistleblower laws.”

–=–

And now from page 26 of the judge’s final ruling:

That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  (page 26 ) [emphasis added]

–=–
Employee Of The Month?
–=–

It has been my experience that “fans” will worship and thus defend their particular hero even when the evidence is so overwhelming that no justification can be made for that unreasonable behavior. And so we must examine the reasons for the termination of Richard Andrew Grove a bit closer and according to the official court decision so as to dispel such fallacious behavior.

Why would Judge Sutton claim that EMC had a perfectly legitimate reason to terminate Mr. Grove’s employment there? Let’s examine Mr. Grove’s employment record at Legato/EMC as listed, and try to ascertain why he might not have been an “Ideal Employee” and why his personal “conduct” could not be considered as protected activities by the law.

“For his part, Gheesling testified the expectation that Grove would move from New York City to a location within his assigned sales territory was a “key condition” of Grove’s hiring, “because it made no sense for me to hire somebody in New York City when I could have hired somebody in D.C.”  (Page 4) [emphasis added]

In fact, Grove never did relocate to a place within his assigned sales territory. He did however, leave his apartment in New York City to move in with another Legato sales representative in Princeton, New Jersey “because I was not making the money I expected, [so] I was going to leave my apartment two months early… [and] sublet my apartment … to raise the money to be able to move to Virginia.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“When Gheesling subsequently learned that Grove had moved to New Jersey instead of a locale within his sales territory, he “was pretty livid, because I felt like, you know, one thing that was very clear, even in my interview with Richard, was that the job was located in D.C.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that Gheesling had previously raised the subject of his relocation during the quarterly business review on August 14th, 2003. HT at 126.” (Footnote #8) (Page 8)

“Grove stated that he informed Gheesling of his plan to move to New Jersey where he would be working out of a home office and that Giametta never told him that this arrangement was not satisfactory. HT at 117-118.” (Footnote #9) (Page 8)

–=–

Moving further into the case, we find merely a new employee causing problems in his employment and admittedly not fulfilling his obligations under that title while adhering to false beliefs due to his rather grandiose identity crisis of being a “whisle-blower,” as if the actions of being a bad employee are somehow protected activities.

“On October 20, 2003, Grove received email notification of a Legato new employee training session scheduled for November 4-6, 2003 in California.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

Grove initially refused Giametta’s request for a meeting, stating “unless you tell me specifically who said what, you’re not going to see me tomorrow” and “if you want to see me tomorrow, you need to tell me who said what,” but he later relented and agreed to meet with Giametta in New York City. HT at 448-449, 451.11.” (Page 9) [emphasis added]

Gheesling also claimed that Grove’s attitude was negative. As a result of his conversations with Giametta, Gheesling said that he became aware as early as September of 2003 that Giametta “was fundamentally having harder and harder times dealing with [Grove] . . . It was like [Grove was] preaching and . . . on a soapbox about issues . . . it seemed that [Grove] had to persist and to argue in front of everybody, that [he] couldn’t take it offline.” HT at 616- 617. Gheesling testified that he “needed to step back in and make sure both parties [i.e., Grove and Giametta] were clear . . . about the expectations of… working positively.” HT at 713.” (Page 9) [emphasis added]

Grove was aware that the training session was mandatory. As discussed above, Grove was previously scheduled to depart on November 3, 2003 for the mandatory Legato training session in California. However, Grove decided instead “not to go away for a weekbut to stay here, engage my concerns, alert EMC, and continue to work on […] assignments […] pertaining to my 30-day goals.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

Grove did not inform anyone in Legato of his decision to not attend the training session. Gheesling testified that he decided to terminate Grove’s employment on November 6, 2003 after he had learned that Grove was not in attendance at the California training which he considered to be of the highest priority for any newly-hired employee, that nothing was physically wrong with Grove and that Grove had not communicated with him.  In Gheesling’s view, Grove’s actions amounted to unacceptable insubordination. At that point, Gheesling asked Legato’s head of Human Resources, Kimberly Schulze, as well as Sill to immediately initiate action to terminate Grove’s employment. (page 11) [emphasis added]

Grove testified that he was aware of the requirement that he meet with Dacier, and he understood that he had an obligation to follow lawful mandates of the CEO” and that Tucci had directed him to contact Dacier. HT at 499. He also acknowledged that ignoring orders from a superior is sufficient grounds for termination.” (Footnote #33) (page 29) [emphasis added]

Grove acknowledges in his brief that he was terminated for his “{f}ailure to meet with Dacier.” Grove Br. at 6.” (Footnote #34) (page 29) [emphasis added]

–=–
None Dare Call It Blackmail
–=–

On cross examination, Grove indicated that he believed he could unilaterally refuse to meet with his manager under terms of retaliation” and that he felt Giametta was retaliating against him at the time the call was made. (page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove allowed his tape recorder to continue running after the telephone conversation with Giametta ended, and he is heard discussing the call with his fiancée and Mr. Taylor, his coworker and housemate.. (page 9) [emphasis added]

“During this discussion, Grove discusses his potential next steps, including advising EMC that they were “bringing a cancer into [their] great company, you know, that could kill the whole merger.” (page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove and Giametta attended a meeting on October 31, 2003 with sales representatives from EMC. While at the meeting, Giametta pulled Grove aside and asked him what he had said to the SEC… Grove said that he refused to discuss the SEC conversations until after his “unresolved issues” (i.e., his complaints about the Bank of Tokyo commission, concerns that that others were working on his McGraw-Hill accounts and the Northrop Grumman “anomalies”) were addressed. (page 10) [emphasis added]

–=–
What Meetings?
What Customers?

–=–

It appears that the judges opinions and final judgement call were that Mr. Grove’s interpretation of the protections offered we an overstepping of logic and reason. He apparently concluded that he would continue to be paid without complying with the mandates of his job and managers, or for that matter showing any respect thereto.

“On November 10, 2003, Grove did not participate in the weekly Monday morning sales call held by Giametta. On or about November 11 – .  Grove did not attend the business review meeting. (page 13) [emphasis added]

“At the same time, he admitted that he did not participate in mandatory weekly sales conference calls with Giametta or the mandatory quarterly business review following his reinstatement in November and that he did not see any customers or try to make any sales after November of 2003. (page 13) [emphasis added]

However, after Grove failed to attend the quarterly business review, Gheesling explained that there were business opportunities in Grove’s accounts that needed to be pursued, and he assigned other representatives to pursue these opportunities:

“[I]f you got an opportunity, you got to close it, you got to get somebody on the deal to get it closed. I can’t wait to figure out if he [Grove] is going to show up to that customer, and I can’t wait to figure out what’s happening . . .  I had to make that judgment […] the bottom line is, to run a company, you got to continue to have somebody tend to it […] working the opportunity.” (page 14) [emphasis added]

“Grove asserts he engaged in six instances of activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley:

(1) Raising concerns to Giametta regarding the revised revenue forecasting formula;

(2) Questioning the accounting procedures used during the Bank of Tokyo deal;

(3) Raising concerns regarding the “illicit / illegal activity with respect to… Northrop Grumman;”

(4) Questioning the functionality of Legato’s product;

(5) Contacting the SEC; and,

(6) Sending the November 4, 2003 email letter to Dacier and Mollen.” (Page 22)

–=–

Here we see that the judge (marginally) agrees with Grove on only 2 of these 6 points of contention. But let’s compare these claims of what should be “protected activity” by that of Mr. Grove to the above court document:

From the documentary video “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” quoting Mr. Grove:

(Part 6 – 3:52) “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making.”

(Part 6 – 4:40) “The events I claimed did in fact take place.” “Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including “Project Constellation Exhibit #7…”

(Part 6 – 4:55) “What you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the ‘statute of limitations'”

(Part 6 – 5:35) “These events happened, they are true, they are factual

–=–

To be fair to Mr. Grove, the judge agrees with “Case A” and marginally with “Case B” – (“Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. One might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency.”) So although Judge Sutton agrees that protection is granted for certain, specifically defined and limited protected activities, it appears that Mr. Grove interpreted these protections to extend to ALL activities of and by himself .

In other words, it appears that Richard tried to pull a “Fight Club.”

While no whistle was truly blown, according to the case file, the threat of doing so apparently held for Mr. Grove a prima facie production value. But this is a far cry from the half-truth narration provided in this documentary, which states:

“These events happened, slightly outside of the ‘Statute of Limitations.'” (20/20 Part 5 05:35)

–=–

And speaking of narrators (of the film), inconceivably, Richard’s fiance’ Lisa Arbercheski then applied for a job at Legato about three months (in 2004) after this termination. For those that wish to do the search, Lisa’s court documents are also online, as is Richard Andrew Grove’s resume’, where we see his employment cycle to change about every 6-18 months. But due to their litigious nature, we will only stick to the public case at hand so that this information as presented should not be mistaken as either a personal attack or at all libelous.

The court case briefly addresses Mr. Groves claims as such:

“Each instance of Grove’s asserted protected activity is analyzed below…”

a. Revenue Forecasting Formula

“Since Grove believed, and a person with comparable expertise and knowledge would have reasonably believed, that the tenfold inflation of revenue forecasts constituted fraud against EMC’s shareholders, I find that Grove engaged in protected activity when he raised his concerns over the revenue forecasts initially to Giametta, and eventually to EMC management via the November 4, 2003 email. See Platone at 17 (“an employee’s disclosure that the company is materially misstating its financial condition to investors is entitled to protection under the Act”).” (Page 23) [emphasis added]

b. Grove’s Telephone Call to the SEC

“Grove testified that he contacted attorney Kevin Gross of the SEC in October of 2003 and “identified numerous events of anomalous activity […] GAAP violations.” He also informed Gross “about one-off side letters and side agreements” and asked whether such arrangements were legal. Grove further informed Gross of his belief that “the illicit formulae, if you will, were being used at the highest level of Legato to make executive decisions.” (Page 23) [emphasis added]

Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency. (Pages 23-24) [emphasis added]

Case C. The Bank of Tokyo Transaction

I find that his communications with Legato officials about this deal were not protected.” (Page 24-25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Again we can compare here the facts of the case with the spin of Richard Andrew Grove…

To be clear, and according to his online resume, Mr. Grove is a salesman, listing “spin selling” at the end of his resume’ as one of his specialized “sales training” skills.

Just what is spin selling? A brief description is here inserted for the readers consideration:

(Neil Rackham, SPIN Selling, McGraw Hill, 1996) – An absolute classic (originally published in 1987 as ‘Making Major Sales’ which shows through massive research how classic sales techniques fail miserably in big-business, and that you can get greater success by asking a sequence Situation, Problem, Implication and Need-Payoff questions. See also the review of this book…

Neil Rackham, in this classic book shows how classic sales techniques such as closing and objection-handling can actually reduce your chance of selling, especially in big business-to-business sales situations, where buyers are savvy to the classic tricks.

Overall, the method, like many other approaches, is a ‘hurt and rescue’ approach. You find their problem and ‘hurt’ them by exposing the terrible things that might happen (spot the use of tension). Then you rescue them with your product.

The four question types are described below. There’s much more detail in the original book, with even more practical detail in the SPIN Selling Fieldbook.

Situation questions

In big sales, minimize the small talk and focus on finding background detail that can be used to make sense of the buyer’s business situation. Context creates meaning. This is about understanding the wider context before you zoom into the details.

Problem questions

Ask questions to uncover problems which your product can address. If you are selling tractors, ask about maintenance costs, breakdowns and so on. If you are selling life insurance, ask about how many dependents the person has.

A trap here is to dive straight into presenting the benefits of what you are selling. You may know the problem, but they do not! Going straight to the sales pitch will just get you objections.

Implication questions

Instead of telling them the problem they have (which is also likely to raise objections), the goal is now to get them to see (and feel!) the problem. By asking questions which draw out the implications of the problem, they get to feel the pain that will drive them towards your productThis is the ‘hurt’ of Hurt and Rescue.

For example, the person selling tractors might ask about implications of unplowed fields whilst the life insurance salesperson could carefully ask what would happen to the children if the target person died or became very ill.

Need-Payoff questions

Having hurt the target person with your implications, you now give them a straw to grasp at by asking how their pain could be resolved. With careful questions, you can get them to the state where they are asking for your product even before you show it to them. This is a very neat ‘rescue‘ of Hurt and Rescue, where they either rescue themselves or ask you to rescue them.

For example, the tractor sales person can ask how much better the tractor was like when it was new, or whether any of the farmer’s neighbors have solved problems of old and problematic tractors. The insurance sales person could ask questions that build pictures of the target person’s children being safe and secure whatever curve-balls the world might throw at the family.

Overall, this is a superb salesperson’s book, particularly if you are engaged in Relationship Selling and a must-have for persuaders in all professions. If it’s not in your bookshelf, it’s probably because it’s in your hand!

Link–>http://changingminds.org/books/book_reviews/spin.htm

–=–

If we apply these sales techniques to what we have seen so far, we may understand better the disposition of Mr. Grove during this misadventure on all levels. And for that matter, we might even conjecture that Mr. Grove’s web forum Tragedy & Hope could be renamed as Hurt and Rescue.

Case D.  The Northrop Grumman Account.

“Grove argues that he engaged in protected activity when he reported anomalies and “side-letter deals” in Legato’s Northrop Grumman account.” – (Page 25)

It is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws. Consequently, these communications, like those in relation to the Bank of Tokyo transaction, were not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley. (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Let’s compare that to the statements by Richard Andrew Grove in this documentary again, where he sells this case with phrases like, “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… The events I claimed did in fact take place… Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including “Project Constellation Exhibit #7″… What you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the “statute of limitations”… These events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

You may know the problem, but they (your audience) do not!

e. Legato Product Functionality.

Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. (Page 25)

There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue. (Page 25) [emphasis added]

f. The November 4, 2003 Email.

“Though the contributing factor standard places only a relatively low hurdle in the path of a Sarbanes-Oxley complainant, it is one that Grove cannot surmount on this record. That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (Page 26) [emphasis added]

When Grove’s post-November 4, 2003 conduct is balanced against EMC’s legitimate interest in investigating his reports of serious corporate misconduct and fraud and in having its employees engage in productive work, the scale tips decisively in EMC’s favor.” (Page 28, 29) [emphasis added]

“It appears that Grove refused to cooperate with EMC’s attempt to investigate his disclosures because he wanted to deal, at least initially, with someone from the HR department instead of the corporation’s general counsel. In view of the fact that he specifically raised issues of fraud in connection with Legato’s revenue forecasting and recognition practices, I find that Grove’s refusal to meet with EMC’s general counsel despite being instructed to do so by both Sill, an HR representative and Tucci, EMC’s CEO, was patently unreasonable, especially where he has offered no evidence that he had a valid reason to be wary of Dacier based on any past dealingsAlso unreasonable was Grove’s belief that he could unilaterally declare that he had “entered protected activity” and then not perform his job without any repercussions. Considering the circumstances (i.e., that he had approached EMC directly with his disclosures, representing that he wished to discuss them internally so as to avoid outside intervention, but then engaged in a course of stalling and dissembling that he was not cooperating on the advice of legal counsel),  I find that Grove’s conduct after November 4, 2003 is indefensible and, therefore, not entitled to protection under Sarbanes-OxleyIndeed, his unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues that he raised is the antithesis of the type of employee conduct that the Congress sought to encourage and protect when it wrote section 806.33 (Page 28-29) [emphasis added]

The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC. (page 29) [emphasis added]

The Final Court Order:  (FCR)

“Since Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation prior to his January 15, 2004 termination, and since he has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his allegation of unlawful termination and post-termination retaliation, his complaint under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is DISMISSED in its entiretySO ORDERED.” (Page 30) [emphasis added]

–=–

But wait, Mr. Grove claims, “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making The events I claimed did in fact take place… Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court... These events happened, they are true, they are factual…

Spin selling…

–=–
An Appeal To No Appeal?
–=–

As one final exhibit, let us examine the reason (or lack thereof) that no appeal was filed.

In the film, Mr. Verge asks the leading question: “So there’s no “appeals” process?”

In answer, Mr. Grove responds accordingly:

“Well I can continue appealing but, after you’ve already seen what happens; you go in an put it all on the record and it’s all right there, they just do not want to… they’re not going to decide against a multi-billion dollar corporation, whose founder is the ambassador of Ireland to Ireland for president Bush at that time. Right? Or, I believe he might have stepped down at that time as an ambassador at that point, but he was still Bush buddies, and Bush was still in office, so… (raises hands in air in defeat).” (part 6 – 5:46 – 6:11)

–=–

So now George Bush is to blame? I see… Is that not a fallacious appeal to authority, a red herring, and a lame excuse? After all, Richard is the guy who gave up everything to be a whistle-blower, so why would he quit so easily after giving up so much? Doesn’t really make sense. If money and the funding of the appeal would have been the excuse invoked, at least it would have been believable and on par with his drive to “blow the whistle.” But he just  quits without appealing because of a loose connection to President Bush, which without irony and in the same sentence he also disassociates his own claim about that connection?

Let’s look and see, just so there’s no confusion of facts:

  • Richard J. Egan
    • Title: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
    • Appointment: August 29, 2001
    • Presentation of Credentials: September 10, 2001
    • Termination of Mission: January 31, 2003
      –Source: Wikipedia, entry for “United States Ambassador To Ireland”

–=–

Grove’s termination date: January 15th, 2004.

So we know that Bush has nothing to do with this. Just more fallacious spin. In fact, I should point out here that government makes quite a profit off of charging big corporations fines and penalties. It really par for the course, and part of the business model.

But was the question actually answered?

Well, the stated question, which was worded as more of a declaratory statement, perhaps even to fool the viewer with spin, was: “So there’s no “appeals” process?”

For the actual answer, let’s merely consult the instructions listed on the court document in question so as to clear up any misconceptions that our hero whistle-blower could appeal if he chose to.

“NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS”

“To appeal, you must file a Petition for Review (“Petition”) with the Administrative Review Board (“Board”) within ten (10) business days of the date of the administrative law judge’s decision. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a). The Board’s address is: Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Your Petition is considered filed on the date of its postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication; but if you file it in person, by hand-delivery or other means, it is filed when the Board receives it. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(c). Your Petition must specifically identify the findings, conclusions or orders to which you object. Generally, you waive any objections you do not raise specifically. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a).”

“At the time you file the Petition with the Board, you must serve it on all parties as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-North, Washington, DC 20001-8002. The Petition must also be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.”

“If no Petition is timely filed, the administrative law judge’s decision becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.109(c). Even if you do file a Petition, the administrative law judge’s decision becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor unless the Board issues an order within thirty (30) days after the Petition is filed notifying the parties that it has accepted the case for review. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1980.109(c) and 1980.110(a) and (b).” (page 30)

–=–

Let’s be candid for a moment…

This case was not a case of whistle-blowing, for no whistle was actually blown. This was a case of wrongful termination where damages were sought in monetary compensation. And so it would seem that all of this mountain of 1,000’s of pages of evidence amounting to corruption and theft by these corporations and the software in question were merely sideline items, not introduced to place the company in responsibility and punishment, but instead for the purposes of showing only wrongful termination in an attempt to obtain some unjust compensation from a former employer, presented under the pretense of the protections of the Sarbanes Oxley law, which obviously does not apply to “unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues…” for which the judge declared to be “the antithesis of the type of employee conduct” that would be protected by said congressional law. It would seem that this was not a whistle-blower case at all, in fact. And it would therefore seem that this documentary “evidence” presented in media form by the Tragedy & Hope corporation has no basis in the reality of what actually happened. It seems the evidence was never actually considered, in other words, in any fashion or actual case regarding the blowing of a whistle… at least not in this case.

That is to say that there would be no reason for Mr. Grove to file an appeal, for the evidence against him is so overwhelmingly damning. And it seems that he never actually filed a case pertinent to only the corruption, but instead only for his own disposition in the action. There was no appeal to his whistle-blower status or to this case because there was no action taken on Mr. Grove’s part qualified to be under whistle-blower status, at least according to the SEC and the judge in this administrative case.

And so it seems that this mountain of evidence implicating these companies was merely a tool for spin selling, for psychological warfare, and not an actual attempt at whistle-blowing.

And to that there is no appeal… except the fallacious appeals of victimization and heroism to the public and to fans.

Again I state here that if these presumptions and conclusions are incorrect, based on the official evidence provided, I will gladly alter and correct any mistakes in this document and apologize publicly for my incorrectness or mistaken speculation. I’ll only need the evidence of that being the case. But litigious threats, personal attacks, and more spin wont help in that cause.

–=–
In Conclusion
–=–

If there is one thing that needs to happen within this community of those who seek the reality of things, it must certainly be that all of our hero’s must be killed (figuratively speaking). Hero worship leads generally to acceptance of the hero’s claims not because of evidence, but because of that hero status – a personification of correctness based on the costume of legitimacy. But here we see that Captain Spin and his selling sidekicks are neither deserving of this hero (whistle-blower) status (not legally or in reality) nor of the trust that has been granted them because of this falsely presented persona. This whistle-swallower, as the judge refers to him, must not be placed upon any pedestal, be believed, or given some special credit or pass because of his claims, for no man’s pedestal should symbolically replace his burden of proof.

It appears that forums like Tragedy and Hope bring together similar hero’s of the alternative media in order to support one another in their individual claims, and to lend a sense of false security and projection of truthfulness – the Justice League of the truth movement. If anything, this evidence should be nothing more than a kick in the pants of the reader to prove everything and except nothing at face value, for the spin machine reaches into the depths of everything, even sometimes expressing itself from the most truthful among us. We live in a culture of spin, of false simulation, of a rejection of the painful reality of things. And even those seeking the truth often find the one that may best suit their own world view, creating our own truths without evincing them and while dismissing that which causes the most pain, which just happens to usually be the reality of things.

As to this particular case, we obviously have a direct contradiction between the reality and the spin. We have a documentary film called “20/20 Hindsight – Censorship on the Frontline,” which of course is created by and includes exclusively the supposed hero’s and victims of Mr. Grove’s corporate Tragedy & Hope gang. We can listen to Mr. Grove appearing on many radio shows warning us about the “economic nefarious activities” that stem from a piece of Sarbanes Oxley software that has a “backdoor,” which allows corrupt corporations to “hide decisions which imperil our democracy.” This video was presented as the incredible story of a heroic, self-sacrificing, and victimized whistle-blower. Yet the official court record shows that the whistle was picked up, seemingly used as a weapon of trickery in pursuance of “compensation,” but not actually “blown” in any official capacity according to the story told.

Perhaps most disturbing was the notion of an appeal to pity made by Grove to the audience that being a whistle-blower is dangerous and will make us a victim like himself. To the reader I say nonsense! Grove’s case, in fact and according to the record, was not even a true whistle-blower case!

It is also apparent, in consideration of the case itself and in listening to the rhetoric of Mr. Grove in this documentary film 7 years later, that much of the legal knowledge expressed by Mr. Grove was likely learned after-the-fact of the case in question, helping the spin process at least sound a bit more legitimate.

Mr. Grove is on record as personally testifying that he did not in any correct (legal) capacity bring up these issues with the SEC which would have extended any shield of whistle-blower protection; and the court record shows that he never raised the issue with his employer, EMC, except in a vague and questionably tactical rhetoric that would seem to be put forth only to induce a personal gain despite his questionable employment record. And the judge certainly admonishes publicly this notion in this public case.

So the question must be asked in support of this overwhelming evidence against this video presentation’s apparent spinning of the facts… why was this video made?

Let’s reconsider the facts:

Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency. (Page 23 – 24) [emphasis added]

There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. (Page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Any reasonable and therefore neutral observer of these facts, even and especially the most ardent “fan” of these filmmakers and mostly of Mr. Grove, must ask the same painful question: why is this video about “whistle-blowing” when in fact and in the official evidence no whistle was ever really blown?

I can’t answer that question, and only put forth here the idea that it and the other inquiries posed here certainly should be asked, and the answers should be demanded before any more “media” is accepted from these apparent spin-masters. Quotes from Richard Andrew Grove claim vehemently that he risked everything, including a six-figure job and the sacrifice of never having a house or children. But the facts don’t support the claims.

If only he had just been a good employee…

Then again, if only he had actually blown the whistle…

One final note:

–=–

 “You are the central
nervous system of the planet –
spread this everywhere”

–Richard Andrew Grove, quoted from
“20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline”

–=–

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, July 18th, 2015

Anarchy: A Non Sequitur Non Compos Mentis


(AUTHOR’S NOTE: FINAL EDITING AND ADDITIONS COMPLETED ON FRIDAY, JUNE 19, AT 3:45PM PACIFIC TIME. –Clint)

–=–

Like many out there, I have come to realize that an institutionalized “truth” used as the basis for cultural groupings and internet forums exposes them as only a cult of personality when valid questions are not allowed to infiltrate its proposed foundational axioms. The notion of anarchy as a modern-day movement is no exception. It relies upon no historical example, needs no grammatical foundation or definition, and contemplates no specific goal.

When I first broached this subject on my radio show, I was surprised at how many folks out there were quite pleased that someone was actually speaking to the fallacy of what seems logical regarding this false proposition of anarchy. Apparently, like any religion, those who ask questions are chastised, verbally abused, and fallaciously character-assassinated. And I was no exception. But they messed with the wrong dude.

And so I have created this research article rather than text battle these authors of confusion in the distraction and disorder of internet forums.

Let me tell you now of my experiences in trying to crack the nut that has somehow become this popular, cultural meme, falsely branded as anarchy

–=–
Text Wars and Talk Radio
–=–

So what was it that sparked my interest in exposing this false enlightenment movement called anarchism?

As with so many others who have thanked me for my efforts and for demanding answers, all I did was ask questions to a few supposed, self-proclaimed anarchists. It was their fallacious responses and insults in avoiding these questions that sucked me in, and their fans and cult-like followers continue to espouse the wonder of anarchy without a single ounce of source material verifying their proclamations. It is truly the blind leading the blind, or as anarchy is defined below, the leading of the leaderless.

Unfortunately, no one likes being told they are in a cult via rational intervention, especially one that relies on false dialectic (logic without source). So in disclosure, stop reading now if you religiously believe that in absoluteness you know what anarchy is and don’t want to challenge your beliefs. Isn’t that what cult-folk do?

For those who seek knowledge… In exposition of just what anarchy is and who is promoting it as attached to natural law and the trivium method, here are my radio shows about anarchy in order of appearance. Be sure to read the comments and read the rhetoric with your fallacy-buster glasses on.

–=–

The first questions: https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/radio-show-number-366-may-08-2015/

The inquisition: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150523.html

The debate (must listen!): http://www.gnosticmedia.com/CRichardson_MStevens_Anarchy_a_Fallacy

My declaration of separation from these gurushttps://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/radio-show-number-382-june-11-2015/

Bonus – how to defeat bill collectors (anarcho-capitalists not acting according to law), by knowing how to apply the law to the lawless: https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/radio-show-number-285-june-16-2015/

BonusThe scriptural perspective. Is nature in chaos or in natural order? The Bible is a cipher, and the figurative language is the only decyphering tool: https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/radio-show-number-386-june-17-2015/

–=–

After this debate, moderated by Jan Irvin, and per our previous show, the Marc Stevens gang has been on full damage control. What is their version of damage control?

Attack the messenger. Attack the mediator. Attack the messenger. Repeat. It’s an anti-Clint fest, with hardly any addressing of the actual discussion. The comments are priceless, absolutely one-sided, and somehow all self-similar in style and form, just like one would expect from a cultural following that relies on celebrity and emotional response instead of primary sources for their information and rhetoric.

Notes on this debate, as well as a fallacious attack in the changing of the debates title and purpose, was of course placed upon MarcStevens.net by the name “Calvin,” using fallacy built on other fallacy. Amazing…

Here’s how it looks:

CoS (Call Of Shame) – Jun 9, 2015 – Statism is a Mental Disorder

“Return visitors here, and listeners to the show, get that facts and evidence are objective, reproducible, and tangible. No amount of redefining your way out of the terms used in a question can compensate for an absence of facts and evidence to support your claims, but lets listen to a statist try anyway, here is a sample of some of the logical excrement:

  • Anarchy is the problem, not the solution.”
  • Government is in a state of anarchy.”
  • My questions weren’t being answered.” review the record and listen to who wasn’t answering who’s questions. Hint: its really obvious.
  • After Marc explains that “comply-or-die” is a phrase used to describe the force continuum, Clint and Jan dismiss this fact no less than 5 times throughout the recording!
  • Because a bear can kill a bear in the animal kingdom, that does not equate to humans cannot live without institutionalized coercive hierarchies, or in a state of anarchy if you will.
  • Because we are talking about criminal men and women who call themselves “government,” when we occasionally refer to them under their chosen nomenclature; that does not mean we accept the non-sequitur that “government exists.”
  • Clint claims Marc isn’t providing any facts right after he just laid the facts out.
  • The Federal Reserve is not federal; total BS.” not my area of expertise, but for some reason I think that’s wrong….
  • Just because you say there is no government [which we aren’t, we are asking what facts and evidence is there to prove government does exist: his argument], that does not mean there is no government.” demanding Marc to prove something that doesn’t exist.
  • Clint condescendingly talks down to Marc many times, such as when describing his language as a catchphrase.”

–=–

Marc and his followers mistakenly use the word statist as a petty name calling ad hominem and well-poisoning weapon whenever anyone questions their foundational precepts or just asks perfectly reasonable questions. But they apparently don’t quite know what it means! Many people have had this same experience, and it feels when talking to them like being in a support group for the character assassinated as more and more folks have contacted me with similar stories of no less verbose abuse.

My text response to “Calvin” as to the title re-assigned to our debate?

“If A.K.A. “Marc Stevens” says I’m a statist, I must be one. Therefore, since Marc Stevens says I’m a statist, I therefore must also have a “mental disorder”, since statism is also said by the actor “Marc Stevens” to be a mental disorder. So it must therefore all be true. One must equal the other. And, of course, if I have a mental disorder, perhaps people will not notice the words of the debate – because who would really want to listen to a mentally deranged statist? No evidence or admission of statism, but with logic and rhetoric, who needs grammer? Never have I heard such abuses of the Trivium with its clasical form, Calvin, as in this debate. So much logic before grammar, or in absence of any grammar. Folks should use this debate to learn how to spot and name logical falacies, including Calvin’s current appeals to emotion and ad hominem, and including the fact that no axiom of foundation could be reached in 3 hours to even start the debate.”

(Note: Actual texts, spelling not corrected.)

–=–

Of course, this was not a typical “call” to his show or a cold-call to an uninformed, unprepared-to-respond government employee as per his usual antics, but who needs accuracy in anarchism?

In fact, this use of the title of “statist” was used even before the show upon my name, among other attempts to poison my well. Why? Because I asked legitimate questions.

At the end of a string of questions that went totally unanswered, here was the final response:

Marc Stevens: “Anarchy is no rulers, not no rules… generally anarchists, such as me, adhere to the non-aggression principal and respect for personal autonomy”

Vin James: “so essentially Clint, your a statist, and that’s a position you can argue on the radio show next week”

Marc Stevens: “wow, I can’t even… looks like Clint favors having rulers, and advocates that a small group of people forcing strangers to give them money

Vin James: “trouble is with statists is they confuse the needs of goverment, with the needs of society, as they are not the same thing.”

–=–

Dismissing the evidence and questions based on an appeal to an non-factual appeal to an appeal to authority? How bizarre…

For the record, I never claimed statism nor used the word statist, never claimed that I am  pro-statist, nor did I espouse its use as a good thing in any way. Mostly because I actually know what it means.

STATIST –noun [from state.] A statesman; a politician; one skilled in government. Statists indeed, and lovers of their country. [Not now used.]

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

To be clear, anyone that listens to my show or has read my work (or saw my questions) knows I do not love my country, for loving an idol, a false god, a legal fiction, a totally unnatural thing is illogical and employs emotion where there should be none. I don’t practice any government art in title, permission, or license to do business, am not in any way skilled in government nor have I ever been elected or employed by government, and I am certainly no statesman. Yet I can be called a “statist” by those who know not or purposefully ignore its true definition because they can’t function under the pressure of rational discourse when the trivium is actually applied correctly.

When someone comes along with knowledge of language and is able to disprove the falsely recreated grammar of the peddlers of false enlightenment, what else can the gurus do but to attack the messenger?

For those who grasp the fact that by defining terms according to the realm and jurisdiction of the art it applies does not make one an employee or supporter of that “State” in statism, you should recognize this as merely a pathetic and uneducated name-calling attempt at attacking the messenger to make anyone who challenges their lies or beLIEfs appear as a supporter of the state instead of just one learned in its terms of art so as to fight its tactics. A clever but ultimately failing attempt at discrediting the messenger.

As one last note on the ridiculous assertions by these citizens pretending to be anarchists, the actor “Marc Stevens” states that he believes and adheres to the “non-aggression principle.” But is this a logical conclusion, considering that “Marc” is in citizenship to the United States under his legal name and other sigils, numbers, and signs? You might not believe in aggression, but aggression certainly believes in you!

Let’s read what your equal rights are as a United States citizen straight from U.S. Code:

42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions (extortions) of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

Source–>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981

–=–

With laws like this, who needs enemies?

Force, duress, coercion… it’s all spelled out right here for you. And it only applies to the fictional person. Yes, government allows you to have the right and obligation to be put in pain, punished, taxed, licensed and extorted/exacted at any time. Why? Because you are acting in surety of government’s person (property), and it makes the rules over its own creation. Government is god (magistrate) over its fictional persons. Yes you are in a contractual relationship called citizenship, and a voluntary one at that. As we can read, the laws of the United States trump any State law. Why? Because U.S. Citizen-ships (vessels) are not “the People” of the individual (several) States. We are registered agents of Washington D.C. using its property in interstate commerce. The word “district” is legally defined as distress, distraint, and seizure. The problem is not the State (People), the problem is that U.S. citizens are not protected by the State (People’s) government from the United States jurisdiction that seized them at birth in its district. A U.S. citizen has no protection under state laws if the U.S. law exists despite and in dominion to it (over its own “native” persons). Again, because we do not understand the legal words we commonly use, we are entrapped and conquered (purchased) by them.

NATIVA – In old English law. A niefe or female villein. So called because for the most part bond by nativity. Co. Litt. 1226.

NATIVI DE STIPITEVilleins or bondmen by birth or stock. Cowel.

NATIVI CONVENTIONARIIVilleins or bondmen by contract or agreement.

NATIVEA natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts.

NATIVITAS – In old English law. Villenage; that state in which men were born slaves. 2 Mon. Angl. 643.

NATIVUSA servant born. Spelman.

–Black’s Law 1st edition

NATIVITYnoun  1. Birth; the coming into life or the world. The feast of Christmas is observed in memory of Christs nativity. 2. Time, place and manner of birth; as, to calculate ones nativity. 3. State or place of being produced. These, in their dark nativity the deep Shall yield us pregnant with infernal flame.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

As was attempted to be stated to the seemingly unteachable false-persona “Marc Stevens,” this birth process is as old as recorded history, an ancient system of pledging. The modern financial instrument called the “birth certificate” only aids in the legal process of the formation, bond, bail, securitization and surety process (insurance of the state “last” surname attached to the given “christian” first name). The word last in legal terms means superior to and in dominion over. To use the fallacy that the act of nativity did not happen before this modern certification instrument is ridiculous, for this 1st edition of Black’s Law was printed before the first U.S. birth certificate ever was. In fact, the family Bible has been used for ages as official vital statistics, and the family Bible entry is superior in authority to a legal birth certificate. Nature (the given first name) is superior to fiction (the surname) in all cases, but only if invoked.

For those who seek knowledge, they will better understand here what the “nativity scene” story of christ was really about, finding his spiritual life to defeat the legal, civil nativity of being born into the king’s (false god magistrate’s) subjection. But the Bible is just religion, right? And the Bible appearing in courtrooms is just a technicality, right? Think again…

So who’s definitions do you think you should choose to comprehend… that of the actors Marc Stevens and Mark Passio, or that of the government, which defines the terms that rule over our voluntary contractual relationship because we are acting in its commercial person? When in an art (artifice), learn its damn terms!!!

But Marc claims that government doesn’t apparently exist, so the Code must also not exist. Legal libraries must not exist. My birth certificate must be non-existent. The military must not exist. Etc. Ad infinity… which strangely enough must mean that threat, duress, and coercion must not exist either, since it would take government to apply them. The foundational fallacy is the killer of any debate, and the schism that government doesn’t exist is purely irrational and immature.

Whatever side you choose here, I suggest doing your due diligence (light) before blindly following a willfully blind man (darkness). I don’t wish to be your leader, only to inform you of why these leaders are very dangerous in their voluntary ignorance and free sharing of it, and to show you proof below that they are at least misleading and at worse lying to you.

Amusingly, if you want information on worldwide anarchy, you can go to one of many of the “federations” of anarchists.

In the UK, you have this group: (https://afed.org.uk/)

ANARCHIST FEDERATION: “As anarchist communists we fight for a world without leaders, where power is shared equally amongst communities, and people are free to reach their full potential. We do this by supporting working class resistance to exploitation and oppression, organise alongside our neighbours and workmates, host informative events, and produce publications that help make sense of the world around us.”

–=–

Be it socialists, communists, communitarians, syndiclists, or capitalists, it is as if someone is playing a cosmic joke on us useful innocents – just as Lenin was able to propagandize to Americans to support the Bolshevik Revolutionary “communist” killing of millions upon millions in the “Russian Revolution.” Note that revolution is defined as well as a synonym anarchy. And if you’ve been following my shows and that of Jan Irvin’s research, it is easy to see that historically, most “revolutions” are controlled by authors in the existing government apparatus. Revolutions are a form of circular logic, a necessary false movement that always seems to end right back where it started – with the same government rulers in different hats, or some other sect of the same bloodline or enemies of it. World War I was just a war for profit between royal cousins!

You see, anarchy cannot exist by itself without some system of government being attached to it, for anarchy is only chaos and disorder, and so it cannot be a viable system in and of itself. Anarchy can only destroy the current system. And without government, anarchy has no applications. It cannot and more importantly should not be redefined, for to do so would be to promote the repeating of some very bad, blood-filled history. We simply cannot allow these liars to turn chaos into a good thing by fallaciously redefining it.

Again with irony, the term federation simply means state. This seems to reflect an anarchy of literacy here in these so-called modern anarchists. There are international anarchist federations inside of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and in other nations.

Note that: Sovereignty = People = State.

FEDERAL – 1. Pertaining to a league or compact between independent sovereignties. Composed of states which retain only a portion of their original sovereignty relating to the constitution, treaties, or laws, or the power or government of the organization thereby formed. Appropriate to our General Government, the government of the United States, considered as a Union of States or local governments. The word “National” recognizes the State governments and the government of the Union as distinct systems.* In the second sense are the common expressions Federal or federal— amendments. Constitution, courts, elections, decisions, judges, laws and statutes, question, government, officer. In these phrases the word of contrast is “State:” as. State constitutions, courts, laws, etc. See those titles.

FEDERALIST – A publication issued from 1787 to 1789, and consisting of papers, written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, intended to prepare the people for accepting the Constitution. Of its eighty-flve numbers. Jay wrote five, Madison twenty-nine, and Hamilton fifty-one. ” They form a work of enduring interest, because they are the earliest commentary on the new experiment of mankind in establishing a republican form of government for a country of boundless dimensions.”

–William C Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889 Edition

FEDERALISM – Noun. 1. The federal principle of government. 2. U.S. History, advocacy of the federal system of government. (initial capital letter) The principles of the Federalist party. Origin of federalism: 1780-90, Americanism; federal + ism.

–Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.

–=–

States of anarchists? So they want to be more like the federal union of American States? Talk about confusion in terms…

It seems that even the concept of the “No-State Project” as put forward by Marc Steven’s is based on misconceptions and faulty grammar and therefore false dialectic (bad logic) yet again. At best, federalism is the support of political party called the Federalists. But how and why should a political party exist if government is non-existent? Why form organized political parties if anarchy (disorganization) is the goal? There is just something not right here. The terms are contradictory. I smell a stream of rats.

As we will see, organized anarchy can only be defined as organized chaos when applying proper grammar.

But first we must overwhelmingly define terms so as to have a reasonable and foundational discourse to accurately apply the trivium method… something these self-proclaimed anarchists seem to be vehemently opposed to.

–=–
Definitions:
The Terms Of Art
–=–

My first red flag was the foundational definition placed upon anarchy by such names as “Marc Stevens,” “Mark Passio” and others in similar circles who promote anarchy as a state of being. Rules without rulers…

When I tried to verify that this indeed is and historically was considered as the universally defined state of anarchy, I could find not one shred of evidence or verification. And so I was in a position where I could either believe Noah Webster, Black’s Law, the learned men titled “founding fathers of the United States,” and for that matter every other source of grammar in language, or I could trust a few gurus that have seemingly usurped the word anarchy and re-purposed it for their own ends and profits.

The Marc Stevens definition is a purely etymological one, and his whole argument is seamlessly hitched upon this one specific branding of just what anarchy is and is not. However, I could not find proper evidence to support what I believe to be the purposefully skewed mistranslation of the word, its roots in origin, and of the systems of anarchy. The maxim of law states that when the foundation falls, the magistrates (magi, magicians, false gods) fall. Yet another self-evident truth. An axiom. Belief creates foundation. Government exists on belief, faith, oath, fealty, credit, and confirmation of the fraud it is. Ironically, people believe in government and follow its laws more than they believe in God and follow what is called God’s law of nature, though government is an admitted, verifiable fiction of law.

To be accurate, let’s first clear up any misconceptions about what the law of nature actually is, for the Satanist will of course wish to remove the notion of God from the law, and the anarchist will admit to no such higher law of God.

Bouvier’s 1856 Dictionary was commissioned by congress to define the terms of the constitution, and became part of law. I’d say this is a good source to comprehend what was meant in the declaration of independence as regards the notion of the law of nature.

LAW OF NATURE – The law of nature is that which God, the sovereign of the universe, has prescribed to all men, not by any formal promulgation, but by the internal dictate of reason alone. It is discovered by a just consideration of the agreeableness or disagreeableness of human actions to the nature of man; and it comprehends all the duties which we owe either to the Supreme Being, to ourselves, or to our neighbors; as reverence to God, self-defence, temperance, honor to our parents, benevolence to all, a strict adherence to our engagements, gratitude, and the like… The primitive laws of nature may be reduced to six, namely: 1. Comparative sagacity, or reason. 2. Self-love. 3. The attraction of the sexes to each other. 4. The tenderness of parents towards their children. 5. The religious sentiment. 6. Sociability. 3. -1. When man is properly organized, he is able to discover moral good from moral evil; and the study of man proves that man is not only an intelligent, but a free being, and he is therefore responsible for his actions. The judgment we form of our good actions, produces happiness; on the contrary the judgment we form of our bad actions produces unhappiness… 7. – 5. The religious sentiment which leads us naturally towards the Supreme Being, is one of the attributes which belong to humanity alone; and its importance gives it the rank of the moral law of nature. From this sentiment arise all the sects and different forms of worship among men

–=–

You simply cannot take the religious sentiment and separate it from the law of nature. To do so is to fundamentally alter the ancient principles of universal reason and law. Lack of understanding of the Bible is no excuse to abandon it as fallacious dogma.

To be even more clear, and to show the ancient example of the same exact case, where a cult-like religion attempted to fundamentally alter the perception of what the law of nature is, Black’s 1st Edition gives us this history:

NATURAL LAWThe rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This expression, “natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life orderedaccording to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of astate of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgenceof the baser passions. See Maine, Anc. Law, 50, et seq.

–=–

And here we find the true fault in this modern notion of natural law as anarchy. For the stoics based their theories upon the notion that man was innocent from dishonesty, falsehoods such as names, titles, and citizenship, and the American way – the indulgence of the baser passions. What man in America qualifies as such? Where do we find a people that are untouched by greed, artifice, and indulgences against the natural order? From our childhood we are now taught to learn on computers, talk on cellphones, and eat artificial foods. Nothing about the American lifestyle is geared towards this philosophy, and our system of education is certainly not based on the liberal arts. Logic and reason based on grammar is conveniently absent from a majority of people, simply because they are masterfully entertained from all angles, drowning in bread and circus, and educated into beasts of burden not rational men.

And yet somehow we can expect to live under the natural law in anarchy and expect the rest of the vaccine-damaged, fully governed societies to recognize an unorganized, nation-less bunch of men under the tenets of international law? The majority will just suddenly overcome the artifice and magically become pro-anarchy, giving up all benefits and protections of the State and their social security and unemployment checks?

To put this into perspective, the hard rockin’ Marc Stevens is not stoic. The stoics were religious people. “Marc” is married to the state as a citizen-ship. His marriage is by license of the State. And his “free speech” is being allowed by the State.

And yet we need to know the disposition of the State, for it only recognizes “religious men” to be free to act upon their moral beliefs. To do this, we must commit the apparent sin against anarchy and define the terms of art used by the legal realm in government. For while anarchy is to have no organized language, government is opposed to anarchy. Again, to understand government, logically then we must learn its language.

RELIGIOUS MENSuch as entered into some monastery or convent. In old English deeds, the vendee was often restrained from aliening to “Jews or religious men” lest the lands should fall into mortmain (dead hands). Religious men were civilly dead. Blount.

ABJURETo renounce, or abandon, by or upon oath. See ABJURATION. “The decision of this court in Arthur v. Broadnax, 3 Ala. 557, affirms that if the husband has abjured the state, and remains abroad, the wife, meanwhile trading as a feme sole, could recover on a note which was given to her as such. We must consider the term ‘ abjure,’ as there used, as implying a total abandonment of the state; a departure from the state without the intention of returning, and not a renunciation of one’s country, upon an oath of perpetual banishment, as the term originally implied.”

ABJURATION OP THE REALM – In ancient English law. A renunciation of one’s country, a species of self-imposed banishment, under an oath never to return to the kingdom unless by permission. This was formerly allowed to criminals, as a means of saving their lives, when they had confessed their crimes, and fled to sanctuary. See 4 Bl. Comm. 332.

–Black’s Law 1st Edition

–=–

Note here that government cannot recognize a religious man. This is because a religious man lives a spiritual life, and cannot appear in legal fiction. A religious man simply has no need for a fictional person, needs no citizen-ship, because the religious man requires nor is in want of any benefit from the State. A religious man is invisible to legal, commercial law, except in his recognition that he is self-governing. More to the point, an anarchist is not and never will be considered by government as a free religious man.

Is this religion? No. Is this a recognized status? YES! Fiction cannot touch a man who is self-governing under GOD’s law of nature. But government will not recognize a man who claims some anarchical version of a redefined “natural law” as the same status as a religions man. And so I stand here today with utter confidence that anyone claiming anarchy will never be free from man’s government of them. This is because the claim of anarchy will never be accepted by government as a reason to not be governed by it. To attempt to profess to government that anarchy means anything but what government defines it as is an exercise in futility.

We must be clear here that citizenship and anarchy cannot exist together, except to say that the governing of anarchists is considered as a necessary endeavor by governments around the world. These words are in battle. If you wish to follow the natural law as the law of nature, you must be recognized by the state as a religious man, invoke a civil death (loss of rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations of citizenship), and then actually live your life according to that law of nature in spiritual life. Spiritual living and civil person-hood do not mix, and an anarchist will never be allowed to be free. Only one state of being can exist at one time. Fiction kills nature, as Cain killed Able. For the legal law makes moral actions illegal without permission and license.

Is this Clint’s opinion? No. Clint is not a statist. This is the result of many years of study and due diligence from a once foolish man that used to claim himself an atheist and anarchist because it sounded cool and because gurus told me it was cool. In fact, it is utterly ridiculous, immature, and is a guarantee of being oppressed by government.

An anarchist simply cannot show that they follow a higher law than government creates. A man without higher law must be governed by the lower. This is the disposition of government, not Clint’s statist opinion.

With this understanding, we may read historical quotes with new light, comprehending them not just as religious or political nonsense, but as the key to escaping the tyranny of man’s legal subjection:

–=–

“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.”

–William Penn

–=–

Truth is the most powerful thing in the world,
since even fiction itself must be governed by it,
and can only please by its resemblance”

–Anthony Ashley Cooper

–=–

“The success of our admirable system is a conclusive refutation of the theories of those in other countries who maintain that a “favored few” are born to rule and that the mass of mankind must be governed by force. Subject to no arbitrary or hereditary authority, the people are the only sovereigns recognized by our Constitution.”

–James K Polk

–=–

“As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness (anarchy) or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober under standing and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest

–=–

–Theodore Roosevelt, at the opening of the Jamestown Exposition, April 26, 1907
Link to full speech–> http://theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/247.txt

–=–

Am I a statist for quoting men who are? No.

Is it wise to learn how your enemy thinks so as to understand how he considers you? Yes, absolutely.

It was from the ‘Art Of War‘ that we leaned to know our enemy. But as this wolf in sheep’s clothing correctly puts forward here, we are our own worst enemy. Mr. Roosevelt delivered the keys to sovereignty here, telling us that government is only necessary for those who cannot govern themselves. And anarchy IS NOT GOVERNMENT! In fact, the one thing he is not promoting is anarchy. For he exclaims here in so many words that those in the chaos of lawlessness must be governed. Think about that for a moment… Is it really reasonable to expect a government to release you from its subjection if your evidence of being able to self-govern is reliant on being an anarchist – one who is against law and order? Again, try and contemplate your enemy, know it, and defeat it by invoking its adherence its own law and opinions.

Ignorance will surely never accomplish this feat.

More to the point, you should ask yourself why these gurus wish for you to make a profession and affirmation that you are an anarchist? Remember, the law is clear as is the Trivium that he who affirms must prove. Proof of claim. So why would you claim to a government, which seeks to control and squash anarchy, that you are an anarchist while under its rule?

I say again, revolutions are most often planned and controlled, and to revolve is to end up right back where you started under a different title.

Let’s be clear. These citizens promoting a false repackaging of anarchy and claiming it to be in harmony with the natural law are charlatans. They are allowed their speech under law and legal right of citizenship, not because they are actually in a state of anarchy. In other words, they are tolerated (and perhaps hired or promoted) by their own government. But if we stuck them in the middle of North Korea, they’d be flogged and/or dead by morning. At the very least we must comprehend here that in the disposition of the State and the actual statists of government, it will never recognize an “anarchist” as anything but a man that must be governed – a non-religious, unlawful man with no proof of self-governance. And this is because the word anarchy is firmly defined in all sources used by government as lawlessness and chaos, not to mention an opposition to established government.

Am I a statist for saying this? No. Just attempting to define terms so that the reader can make informed choices as to what title he or she might wish to exclaim to a militarized government. The point is that there is a wrong and a right way to confront government, and claiming to be in anarchy is certainly not going to get you very far, for its opinion of anarchy will always be the same.

To quote again the simplistic, specifically undefined definition and fallacious conclusion used by these gurus, both of the alter-egos called “Marc Stevens” and “Mark Passio” quote the same basic non-sequitur, which is to say in so many words that:

Anarchy = rules but no rulers.”

Most of what these gurus state is logical, but only in a completely prima facie (on the face of it/presumptive) way. In other words, they presume and rely on their followers to presume that their version of anarchy would work, despite absolutely no source or grammar to back the claim. The legal law is ironically also mainly prima facie, standing as a presumption of consent that must be confirmed or rebutted. Logic alone always stands in confusion, a dialectic without source (grammar). This is of course why fallacies are labeled as logical. Because they are logical does not make fallacies correct in their assumtions.

A non-sequitur is a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise and therefore the conclusion is arbitrary. It stems from the Latin phrase “it does not follow.”

Merriam Webster’s modern dictionary defines non-sequitur as follows:

NON SEQUITURA statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it. 1: An inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically, a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent. 2: A statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.

–=–

And so the question remains, does “Marc Steven’s” definition of anarchy follow some other source? Or is it truly a non-sequitur as defined above?

After repeated attempts to locate “Marc Steven’s” description of anarchy in a society (state) in history, none could be found. The one example that was quoted was a state of anarcho-capitalism, called the Anarchist Republic of Cospaia, spanning a whole 815 acres (330 hectares) with an average of 300 people at one time, which were totally illiterate except for the parish priest (i.e. a religious society). The reason for its long existence? The Papel States and the Republic of Florence saw great value in having a buffer “state” between its two borders, and so it sat unconquered for centuries at the whim and constraint of two adversarial Peoples (States), the only reason it stood without being utterly conquered. Rome was a republic too for a couple centuries. So I suppose we should include it as an anarchist society as well??? To be clear, I’m not against religious communities of men living under the law of nature in self-governing disposition according to God’s law, I’m against people promoting anarchy as law and as a solution to anything, and who attach anarchy to nature.

When I re-brought this example up and wished to have discourse about Cospaia in the debate, Marc balked and it was not presented in its historical form to show the fallacy of its use as an example of successful anarchy. Surprise, surprise. So in the fake-anarchist’s mind it still stands as “an example of successful anarchy” despite the protection it was granted by two enemies, which both used it for its own purposes. More fallacious rhetoric not based on proper grammar. It was certainly not pure anarchy, for it was a republic (state), and was in a state of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarchy is only chaos. It cannot exist alone except as chaos, without some system of organization attached to it… like satanism for instance. “Do as thou wilt” is not the law of nature!!!

The trick here is to find a way to be recognized as legitimate by governments under international law while living in a society not commercially connected with the already claimed “jurisdiction” it is formed in. In this way, the society is protected from that jurisdiction by showing itself to be a religious society, not one in anarchy of a well-established and protected international law. This is reason and logic applied to satisfy both dispositions, not the unrehearsed fancies of fools.

So back to the question: is the word anarchy in its etymology, as these gurus have claimed, the notion of men having rules but no rulers? And is this word ever implied to mean a state of self-government of men in a society as is purported? Let’s check the books…

From the etymolgoy online website (http://etymonline.com/), here is the result for a word search of “anarchy”.

ANARCHY – 1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia lack of a leader, the state of people without a government” (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos rulerless,” from an-without” (see an- (1)) + arkhosleader” (see archon). Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is … death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you! [Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)]

ANARCH – “leader of leaderlessness,” 1660s, a deliciously paradoxical word used by Milton, Pope, Byron; see anarchy.

ANARCHIST – (noun) 1670’s; see anarchy + -ist. The word got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution.

ANARCHISM – (noun) 1640’s; see anarchy + -ism.

ANARCHISTIC – (Adjective) 1845; see anarchy + -istic. Also see anarchic. Related: Anarchistically.

ANARCHIC – (Adjective) 1755, chaotic, without order or rule,” from Greek anarkhos without head or chief” (see anarchy) + -ic. anarchistic (1845) which tends to refer to the political philosophy of anarchism. An older word in this sense was anarchical (1590s). Anarchial is from 1710; Landor used anarchal (1824).

–=–

Is it a non-sequitur fallacy to state that anarchy is merely rules without rulers?

Or is this a misleading notion as to its full comprehension?

Chaos, a leader of the leaderless, a paradoxical word, used of a time when tyrants ruled over men. Is that rules without rulers? Or is the actual definition of anarchy in its true form simply of chaos and confusion?

I wanted to make sure that this was not just a singular happening; believing that the anarchy gurus must have some source for what seems to be a purposeful mistranslation of terms. And so I consulted the dictionaries, legal and common language, so as to possibly discover that there was indeed a state of anarchy or anarchism that might be different than put forward here. This is called due diligence, attempting to prove my own beliefs to be incorrect. It’s the only way to fly…

And here is what I found…

From Merriam Webster’s modern dictionary we read:

ANARCHYA situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws. 1a:  Absence of government. 1b: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. 1c: A utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. 2a: Absence or denial of any authority or established order. 2b: Absence of order: disordernot manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker> 3: Anarchism.

Examples of ANARCHY:

  • Anarchy reigned in the empire’s remote provinces.
  • When the teacher was absent, there was anarchy in the classroom.
  • Its immigration policies in the last five years have become the envy of those in the West who see in all but the most restrictive laws the specter of terrorism and social anarchy. —Caroline Moorehead, New York Review of Books, 16 Nov. 2006

Origin of ANARCHY: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchoshaving no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-.

First Known Use: 1539

Related to ANARCHY: Synonyms: Lawlessness, misrule.

–=–

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt…

I can deny a train is coming or I can learn its schedule and get off of its tracks.

Here in our second attempt to justify and support Marc Steven’s and other guru’s modern or “new age” definition of rules but no rulers, we seem to hit a rather painful brick wall. Granted, we do see the “no rulers” citation, but not as a reference to peace and harmony according to some set and followed rules that exist despite rulers. Quite the opposite, we see references to lawlessness and misrule (defining the anarchical reign of criminal tyrants) as opposed to rules despite rulers. And the examples used equate anarchy to a classroom of children without a teacher in chaos (no ruler), the bloodshed caused by anarchy, and a reference to how the virtually unchecked immigration of other cultures and belief systems of those foreign immigrants placed into nativity within the nation of an established government causes anarchy against that established rule and law. America is a perfect example of this, and self-evidently so. We should note that the above reference to a “utopian society” was used also in example, more so as a derogatory description than as the true nature of an actual society in harmony with nature; used here as a seemingly impossible condition or paradox of society and men not found anywhere in history.

So far, according to this definition, we see no correlation of anarchy having the implication of rules without rulers. So far, Marc seems to only fall into the denial category.

Let’s go to some other sources to verify that this is the typical definition applied to the word anarchy.

ANARCHY[ˈanərkē ] – Noun. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority: “he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.” Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. Synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection. Antonyms: government, order

–Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

–=–

ANARCHY – [an-er-kee] Noun. 1. A state of society without government or law. 2. Political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

ANARCHISM(def 1) 4. Lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years. 5. Confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence, license, disorganization, disintegration.

Origin of Anarchy:

Related formshyperanarchy, noun; proanarchy, adjective

Can be confused – anarchism, anarchy.

–Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.

–=–

Disorganization is certainly the opposite of the above tenets of the law of nature, sagacity (organization) and reason.

SAGACITY noun [Latin sagacitas.] 1. Quickness or acuteness of scent; applied to animals. 2. Quickness or acuteness of discernment or penetration; readiness of apprehension; the faculty of readily discerning and distinguishing ideas, and of separating truth from falsehood. Sagacity finds out the intermediate ideas, to discover what connection there is in each link of the chain.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

Sagacity is a scriptural term of course. You could call a sagacious man a prepper and a conspiracy theorist. Or you could just be one and not respect such demeaning names and titles. The meek, the prepared, shall inherit the Earth. In other words, the sagacious will live in nature, not the legal fiction that is but an open air debtor’s prison. For the Bible tells us to leave the cities, which will be utterly destroyed both morally and physically. Spiritual life. Is that religion? No. Just damn good, already happening advice!

It is important to stop here and notice that the word license is used here as a synonym of anarchism. It is also my own contention as the antithesis to these guru’s arguments that our current governments of each State are not bad because they are actually working according to their own foundational principles of law, but instead are bad because government itself is in a state of anarchy. The agents of government are abusing and acting outside of the law with no punishment for their actions. In other words, confusion and organized chaos in the form of protected crime. The granting of licenses is the action of allowing certain individuals or all of society the authority to do otherwise unlawful things, as in actions and the creation of laws opposed to natural law and opposed to the stated purpose of government. A license is permission to break an established law, thus it is defined as a synonym to anarchy. Congressmen, for instance, are notorious for their insider trading, simply because they had license (from themselves) to do so. In essence, government has outlawed moral actions like marriage and made it illegal without license from the state, while licensing corporations to ravish nature. This is anarchism of any moral law, for no person (individual or charity corporation) can act morally in public without incorporation and license. And nature (God) would certainly never allow license to man to destroy it.

Another example of anarchy in government is its syndicalism, or anarcho-syndicalism. Currently, almost every facet of government is being controlled by private associations, from the non-governmental Democrat and Republican political parties to the corporate Bar Association. Common Core standards, for instance, were created and copyrighted by the 100% private association called the National Governors Association (NGA), and then each governor in his official capacity took those standards back to their prospective State governments and lobbied on behalf of their own NGA to pass Common Core in the legislatures of the States, as a uniform state law. There is also the International Mayors Association and the National Sheriffs Association, to name just a few. In short, every office in government from the treasurer to the common worker has some form of private association or union. This is anarcho-syndicalism. It is anarchy in government, where the functionality of government is reassigned to private hands and associations. Government is not the problem, anarchism in government and its functions is the problem. Laws being written, maintained, and upgraded by corporations and special interest groups and associations is the problem. And the men (agents) in government that allow this against the fundamental law are the problem.

Take the over 100 “uniform laws” of the individual states as a final example. Just where did the Uniform Commercial Code come from, which Marc Stevens recently announced was somehow debunked by his rhetoric? Well… it didn’t originate from “government.”

A well-sourced, easily verifiable Wikipedia entry tells us about it:

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) – (also called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) is a non-profit, unincorporated association. Established in 1892, the ULC provides states with legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. The ULC researches, drafts, and promotes enactment of uniform acts in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. The ULC headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois.

The ULC consists of approximately 350 commissioners appointed by each state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. All of its members are lawyers, who may also serve as legislators, judges, or legal scholars. Each is appointed to the Commission by the government of their respective state or territory.

Every ULC commissioner must be an attorney. Each jurisdiction determines the method of appointment and its number of commissioners. In most states, the governor appoints the state’s commissioners to serve a specified term. In a few states, ULC commissioners serve at the will of the appointing authority and have no specific term. ULC commissioners are volunteers who do not receive salaries or other compensation for their public service.

The ULC is best known for its work on the landmark Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), drafted in conjunction with the American Law Institute.

Since the ULC first convened in 1892, it has produced more than 300 uniform acts. These acts focus on commercial law, family and domestic relations law, estates, probate and trusts, real estate, alternate dispute resolution, and much more. Among the ULC’s most widely adopted acts are the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act.

The current ULC President is Harriet Lansing of St. Paul, Minnesota, the Chair of the ULC’s Executive Committee is Richard Cassidy of Burlington, Vermont, and the Chair of the Scope and Program Committee is Anita Ramasastry of Seattle, Washington. Michael Houghton of Wilmington, Deleware is the Immediate Past President…

It must be emphasized that the [ULC] can only proposeno uniform law is effective until a state legislature adopts it.” Frequently, a state will make substantial variations when adopting a uniform act…

Source–>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Law_Commission

Source–> http://uniformlaws.org/

–=–

Along side of the ULC is the American Law Institute. Just because American is in its name, does not mean that it is governmental! Again we see the anarchism of syndicalism being used to literally change and restate the laws to our government officials by a private association.

Again from the sourced Wikipedia article:

The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of United States common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. The ALI drafts, approves, and publishes Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, model codes, and other proposals for law reform. The ALI is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, near the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

History – The American Law Institute was founded in 1923 on the initiative of William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, following a study by a group of prominent American judges, lawyers, and teachers who sought to address the uncertain and complex nature of early 20th century American law. According to the “Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law,” part of the law’s uncertainty stemmed from the lack of agreement on fundamental principles of the common-law system, while the law’s complexity was attributed to the numerous variations within different jurisdictions. The Committee recommended that a perpetual society be formed to improve the law and the administration of justice in a scholarly and scientific manner.

–=–

***Author’s note: Social means public, anti-private property, as in personhood as citizenship. See dictionaries. To reform/reshape the foundation of law is to cause anarchy in government, as anarcho-socialism through sindicalism (by private associations and universities). Civil law is strict, standing above and not in regard to the natural law, which is not strictly defined. Thus these attorneys are creating law in an anarchist state against nature and its laws, and it only applies to the public citizenship that are acting in the artifice of fictional personhood, which is also against natural law. If one voluntarily takes benefits and status from a government, then the strict law of admiralty and maritime commerce states that one must also accept voluntarily the obligations that attend the benefit. A fiction cannot claim nature, any more than a citizen can claim to be living in anarchy. And Marc Stevens (A.K.A.) would not be going to court unless he was summoned there by his public name as a citizen. The law not only enslaves its subjects to its strict rule, but allows privileged individuals to be above the law through license (anarchism) from any law.

SRICTI JURIS – Latin. Of strict right or law; according to strict law. “A license is a thing stricti juris; a privilege which a man does not possess by his own right, but it is conceded to him as an indulgence, and therefore it is to be strictly observed.

STRICTISSIMI JURIS – Latin. Of the strictest right of law. “Licenses being matter of special indulgence, the application of them was formerly strictissimi juris.

STRICTO JURE – Latin. In strict law.

STRICTUM JUS – Latin. Strict right or law; the rigor of the law as distinguished from equity.

–All from Black’s Law 4rth Edition.

EQUITABLE – That which is in conformity to the natural law. Wolff, Inst. 83.

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

–=–

This is to say that licenses are now given socially, through strict law, that men acting in citizenship have a general license to break the natural law as a foundation of the legal law – a benefit of citizenship. His actions are legal, not moral. He asks what is legal, not what is right. And special licenses (as in species, special, according to title or status) are granted to special (species of/titled) persons (artifice). This is of course anarchy towards natural law, and necessarily towards written law (because license trumps law), ans so we must comprehend that this action of licensing is also an intent and motive of anarchism towards government’s foundational origins and generally adhered to ancient principles (maxims).

In short, the laws are being created by outside influences to replace anciently respected foundational principles and laws. This is anarchy in its syndicalist form.

American Law Institute article continued…

History… The organization was incorporated on February 23, 1923, at a meeting called by the Committee in the auditorium of Memorial Continental Hall in Washington D.C. According to ALI’s Certificate of Incorporation, its purpose is “to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scgientific leal work“. (Author’s note: Legal means against equity and natural law, as the formation of strict law for fictional persons.)

Membership – Membership in the American Law Institute is limited to 3,000 elected members who are judges, lawyers, and legal scholars from a wide range of practice areas, from all areas of the United States and from many foreign countries. The total membership of more than 4,200 includes ex officio members and life members who, after 25 years as an elected member, are no longer required to pay dues. New members must be proposed by an existing member, who writes a letter of recommendation, and seconded by two others. Proposals are evaluated by a Membership Committee that selects members based on several factors, including professional achievement, personal character, and demonstrated interest in improving the law.

(Author’s note: Government is not involved in the selection process, making this membership association anarchistic to government, yet approved and allowed by government, as all non-governmental-private associations or NGO’s are.)

ALI members are obligated to actively support the work of the Institute, including attending Annual Meetings and other project conferences, joining Members Consultative Groups for Institute projects, and submitting comments on project drafts. Members are asked to write, speak, and vote on the basis of their own personal and professional convictions, without regard to client interests, so as to maintain ALI’s respected reputation for thoughtful and impartial analysis.

GovernanceThe Institute is governed by its Council, a volunteer board of directors that oversees the management of ALI’s business and projects. Having no fewer than 42 and no more than 65 members, the Council consists of lawyers, judges, and academics, and reflects a broad range of specialties and experiences. Council members are elected from the Institute membership for a term of five years, and can be renominated for an additional two terms. Under the current rules, a Council member can request emeritus status upon reaching 70 years of age; for having served on the council for at least ten consecutive years; or for having served for three terms in total. The ALI Council ordinarily meets in May, October, and January.

Restatements of the LawThe Institute’s first endeavor upon formation was a comprehensive restatement of basic legal subjects that would inform judges and lawyers what the law was. This effort produced what ALI is best known for: the Restatement of the Law. Between 1923 and 1944, Restatements of the Law were developed for Agency, Conflict of Laws, Contracts, Judgments, Property, Restitution, Security, Torts, and Trusts. In 1952, the Institute started Restatement Second — updates of the original Restatements with new analyses and concepts with and expanded authorities. A Restatement on Foreign Relations Law of the United States was also undertaken.

The third series of Restatements was started in 1987 with a new Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The Restatement Third now includes volumes on Agency, the Law Governing Lawyers, Property (Mortgages, Servitudes, Wills and Other Donative Transfers), Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Suretyship and Guaranty, Torts (Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, and Physical and Emotional Harm), and Unfair Competition. New Restatement projects on Economic Torts, Employment Law, Trusts, and the U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration are currently underway as part of the Restatement Third series.

Restatements are essentially codifications of case law, common law judge-made doctrines that develop gradually over time because of the principle of stare decisis. Although Restatements are not binding authority in and of themselves, they are highly persuasive because they are formulated over several years with extensive input from law professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. They are meant to reflect the consensus of the American legal community as to what the law is (and in some areas, what it should become). All told, the Restatement of the Law is one of the most respected and well-used sources of secondary authority, covering nearly every area of common law.

Principles of the LawBeginning with the Principles of Corporate Governance(governance of corporations as artificial persons) (issued in 1994), the American Law Institute has more recently undertaken intensive studies of areas of law thought to need reform. This type of analysis typically results in a publication that recommends changes in the law. Principles of the Law issued so far include volumes on Aggregate Litigation (2010), Family Dissolution (2002), Intellectual Property (2008), Software Contracts (2010), Transnational Civil Procedure (2006; cosponsored by UNIDROIT), and Transnational InsolvencyCooperation Among the NATA Countries (2003). Work in the Principles of the Law series continues with projects covering Corporate Compliance, Data Privacy, Election Law, and Government Ethics.

Model Codes Another important area of the Institute’s work is model statutory codification. ALI code projects have included model acts dealing with air flight, criminal procedure, evidence, federal securities law, land development, pre-arraignment procedure, and property. Some of these projects were undertaken jointly with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).

The chief joint ALI-NCCUSL project is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which the Institute has been developing and revising with the National Conference since the 1940s. First published in 1952, the UCC is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America. The Uniform Commercial Code is generally viewed as one of the most important developments in American law, having been enacted (with local adaptations) in almost every jurisdiction.

The Model Penal Code (MPC) is another ALI statutory formulation that has been widely accepted throughout the United States. Adopted by the Institute membership in 1962 after twelve years of drafting and development, the Code’s purpose was to stimulate and assist legislatures in making an effort to update and standardize the penal law of the United States. Primary responsibility for criminal law lies with the individual states, and such national efforts work to produce similar laws in different jurisdictions. The standard they used to make a determination of what the penal code should be was one of “contemporary reasoned judgment” — meaning what a reasoned person at the time of the development of the MPC would judge the penal law to do. The Chief Reporter for this undertaking was Herbert Wechler, who later became a Director of the Institute.

Two current ALI projects will revise portions of the Model Penal Code. One focuses on sentencing provisions in light of the many changes in sentencing philosophy and practice that have taken place since the Code was developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The second focuses on sexual assault and related offenses and will re-examine Article 213 of the Model Penal Code, which was ahead of its time when approved by the ALI in 1962, but is now outdated and no longer a reliable guide for legislatures and courts.

 –=–

This is legalized anarchy, fully supported by wined and dined (lobbied) legislators. When the elected government no longer makes its own determinations on what law is, and instead allows private usurper organizations to reconstruct, reform, and fundamentally alter the very principles which are the foundation of law, then that government is in a state of anarchy; confusion in government; organized criminal chaos.

Here we see that everything the citizen-ship does is considered in commerce. Every action taken by a commercial citizen of the United States jurisdiction is an act of commerce (a man acting in agency to the United States, operating its fictional person in interstate commerce). The very existence of citizenship is ONLY of a commercial nature. This is not the authors opinion, but is the nature of U.S. citizenship. A U.S. citizen is a domicile of the United States jurisdiction, and noted to be “found” therein. The word found is a seaman’s term referring to treasure. The word treasure means thesaurus. Words, especially names (proper nouns), are the treasure of government. For words hold power and construct secrets…

A U.S. citizen only has a foreign residence status in the State where he has his dwelling. Therefore, all actions taken by the United States citizen are considered as interstate commerce (between the United States and the State, for a U.S. citizen is a foreigner in any other “State”), which is why license and permit is needed for things like driving under the traffic code. The word traffic is a synonym for commerce. Trafficking, especially human trafficking, is certainly commerce. For all U.S. citizens, the United States stands as their principal, while the State stands as a third party to that commercial agency. The constitution does not apply to U.S. citizens, only to private citizens of each State, for they are private citizens of only their State, not of or in the United States. The word State means People. A U.S. citizen is not considered as one of the “We, the People” of the 50 States united, which are in compact with the United States as a body corporate. A U.S. citizen is a legal creation of the United States proper, not of any individual State, and is a fictional person-hood (title of nobility) thereof. The creator controls the creation as the Maxims of law declare. A creation of government, a citizenship, is property of government. Men only use their person-hood (status/surname) for commercial activity. We serve no other purpose for being in a State than as a commercial entity if we are not one of the People that is the individual State.

Though I will not speak further to this, it is verifiable and is verified by myself in triplicate in my upcoming work (book). Your belief in this information is not required here, but your due diligence is. Your knowledge of these facts is not required by law, but the fact that you participate voluntarily and receive benefits through the surname and number is evidence of tacit contract. Again, this is not Clint’s statist opinion, this is Clint trying to show you your own chains by explaining the disposition of the State.

It is important to note here that these BAR Association lawyers, a subdivision of the International Bar Association, are literally attempting and succeeding in altering the very foundational principles or maxims of law. Bouvier defines the word Maxim as such:

MAXIM

  1. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.
  2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms de Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.
  3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.
  4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210…

–=–

The ancient wisdom of these maxims as the foundation of law stem from several sources, not the least important are the various scriptures of history. The word scripture, as a term, simply means ancient knowledge. One must not confuse the syndicalist doctrines of the various corporate religions with the words of the scriptures. Church and scripture are not related. And scripture comes from many sources, most importantly, from the correctly read Bible in its legal and anti-legal intent. For the Bible is only the story of man’s fall into legal fiction person-hood (mammon). A fool who reads the Bible in the common language remains a fool. The wise become wiser only because they know the legal language (terms of art) to which the Bible scriptures are to be utilized. And wise-men, unfortunately, are historically liars and thieves, for only the priest-class was allowed to be literate. Like the Trivium in its classical form, as Marc Stevens and other anarchy gurus display, the Bible too can be used as a weapon against the ignorant and unlearned. The entire legal, commercial structure is based on the voluntary ignorance of its unwitting citizensips as to the legal language that makes up the legal law. In fact, government counts on its subject’s ignorance to garner their tacit consent.

But don’t just take my word for it…

VOLUNTARY IGNORANCEThis exists where a party might, by taking reasonable pains, have acquired the necessary knowledge, but has neglected to do so.

–Black’s Law 1st Edition

–=–

Some don’t like my rhetoric because I tell them that they are their own worst enemy, and that they need to take responsibility for themselves and learn by themselves. Most would rather listen to gurus pillow-sit them and say exactly what they want to hear. No individual responsibility.

For those actually interested in knowledge, who know or are starting to realize that nothing worth doing, learning, or mastering is easy, I recommend that you view my exhaustive research on anarcho-syndicalism in government and especially as “education” at these two sources:

From my blog: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/debunking-education-exposing-the-syndicate/

From my video lecture: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/common-core-agenda-21-and-global-governance/

When the United States and uniform laws of the States are being created by outside influences, including duel-citizens of foreign states, by organizations with international ties, and by “foreign countries” as is stated above, this is truly a state of anarchy within government. But let us continue to define anarchy from various independent sources, looking for some verification for the definition put forward by the apparently mislead, possibly controlled opposition, modern anarchy movement:

ANARCHY – [ˈænəkɪ] Noun. 1. General lawlessness and disorder, especially when thought to result from an absence or failure of government. 2. The absence or lack of government. 3. The absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos. 4. The theory or practice of political anarchism.

Derived Formsanarchic (ænˈɑːkɪk), anarchical, adjective; anarchically, adverb.

Word Origin – 16th century: from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, fromanarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, fromarkhein to rule.

–Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012.

–=–

ANARCHY noun [Gr. rule.] Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.

ANARCHISTnoun – An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state.

ANARCHnoun [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion; one who excites revolt.

ARCH –adjective [Latin arcus, a bow; Eng. rogue.] Cunning; sly; shrewd; waggish; mischievous for sport; mirthful; as we say in popular language, roguish; as an arch lad. adjective Used also in composition. [Gr. chief.] Chief; of the first class; principal; as, an arch deed. Shakespeare uses this word as a noun; ‘My worthy arch and patrons; ‘ but the use is not authorized.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Of The English Language

–=–

While there is no reference to the word archon here, let us understand clearly this word and its use in the Greek, knowing that anarchy in the form used by modern gurus is being referenced from a specific time and place where a certain people of Greece revolted against the specific “Archons” of the time. This is a grammatical and historical logical fallacy on behalf of these gurus, and should be considered as such in regard to anarchy’s true definition. For in a voluntary society such as ours, we have no traditional archons, no princes, no kings… and the legislature is not appointed by princes or kings. Our current legislature and judges sit only over citizenships of the United States, not the private People (States) as a sovereignty. Our judges and legislature rule only over commercial fictions of law – persons acting in commercial citizen-ship with us attached in surety. Voluntary ignorance reigns, for no man in his right mind (compos mentis) would voluntarily be a citizen under Title 42, Section 1981.

Note that a full breakdown of these facts will be in my massive tome of research, the non-commercial work being called STRAWMAN: The Real Story of Your Artificial Person, to be released sometime this year. Keep updated on its release (will always be available to download for free or in printed “book” form) here: http://www.strawmanstory.info/

ARCHON noun [Gr. a prince.] The archons in Greece were chief magistrates chosen, after the death of Codrus, from the most illustrious families, to superintend civil and religious concerns. They were nine in number; the first was properly the archon; the second was called king; the third, polemarch, or general of the forces. The other six were called thesmothetae, or legislators.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

The word thesmothetae  (θεσμοθέται) in the Greek was a name of the six junior “archons” at Athens, on which devolved the administration of specific parts of the law. So applying it to our current system with this specific, antiquated purpose is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

ANARCHYThe destruction of government; lawlessness; the absence of all political government; by extension, confusion in government. See 122 111. 253.

–Black’s ‘Law 1st Edition’

–=–

ANARCHYThe absence of government; a state of society in which there is no law or supreme power. “If the conspiracy had for its object the destruction of the law and government, it had for its object the bringing about of practical anarchy. And when murder has resulted from the conspiracy and the perpetrators are on trial for the crime, whether or not they were anarchists may be a proper circumstance to be considered in connection with other circumstances, with a view, of showing what connection, if any, they had with the conspiracy and what were their purposes in joining it.” See further as to case cited, Accessary; Challenge; Character; Charge; Conspiracy; Courts, United States; Criminate; Doubt, Reasonable; Jury; Malice; Opinion.

–William C Anderson’s ‘A Dictionary of Law’

–=–

ANARCHYThe absence of all political government; by extension, it signifies confusion in government.

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

–=–

So what does confusion mean then? Is it the common meaning or the legal? Is it two words, a combination of con and fusion (against fusion)? Is it a confidence game? Is it of Latin origin? Inquiring minds want to know!

Let’s consult Webster. Notice the general and legal terminology:

CONFUSION Noun 1. In a general sense, a mixture of several things promiscuously; hence, disorder; irregularity; as the confusion of tongues at Babel. 2. Tumult; want of order in society. The whole city was filled with confusion.Acts 19:29. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33. 3. A blending or confounding; indistinct combination; opposed to distinctness or perspicuity; as a confusion of ideas. 4. Abashment; shame. O Lord, let me never be put to confusion. Psalms 71:1. We lie in shame and our confusion covereth us. Jeremiah 3:25. 5. Astonishment; agitation; perturbation; distraction of mind. Confusion dwelt in every face. 6. Overthrow; defeat; ruin. The makers of idols shall go to confusion together. Isaiah 45:16. 7. A shameful blending of natures, a shocking crime. Leviticus 18:23, 20:12.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Of English Language

–=–

Why all the scriptural references? Because the Bible must be read in the legal language, the language of the king (government) who transliterated and rewrote it, and then officially vested it into the Crown corporation as law. If that’s not logical I don’t know what is. The reference that God is not the author of confusion is a reference to the natural law, to God as nature’s design and self-evident truth. Proper grammar, it should go without saying here, certainly defeats the confusion offered by anarchs. And the scriptural reference to a blending of natures refers to mixing the christian, given name with the fictional state surname, or any other blending of the legal realm with the natural.

We demonize often what we simply do not understand, like a movie critic giving a thumbs down to a movie he did not see. The scriptures are not a religion, and religious doctrine of corporations called churches is certainly not the Bible. Read it, and read it correctly, as law. The images and false idols of the church only serve to confuse the true message of the Bible.

Was Noah Webster a government agent as the anarchist’s over at the No-State Project suggest? Let’s see what he has to say…

–=–

“Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“The heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed… No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“A pure democracy is generally a very bad government, It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“The education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. [I]t is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system … than to correct by penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system. … The education of youth … lays the foundations on which both law and gospel rest for success.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

It this is statism… count me in!

To demonize Webster is only to use unfounded fallacy to discredit a most respected author.

But if you like, the “ex-” Satanist Passio has a different view of the Bible, which should not be surprising. For the adversary is confounded by scripture…

–=–

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light.”

–2 Corinthians 11: 13-14, KJB

–=–

“George Washington the founder of this country was the first Grand Master of Masons’ of this commonwealth compromising the original thirteen States of this Land of Liberty founded on the principles of Brotherly Love, Faith, Hope and Charity, the vital breath of which is “Individual Liberty” and an equal opportunity to all of its citizens. Of the twenty-nine Major Generals in Washington’s army twenty four were master masons, of the thirty seven Brigadiers, thirty seven were Master Masons, proving that this “Land of Liberty” was founded by Master Masons. Now as then, masonry’s challenge is the Holy Bible, its teachings from the center to circumference symbols of the everlasting… Of fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, fifty-three were Master Masons.”

–Holy Masonic Bible Red Letter Edition, KJV (1942)

–=–

The word satan simply means adversary. The church doctrine and scary images of personification and anthropomorphism have nothing to do with the scriptural meaning of this simple word. LEGAL FICTION IS ADVERSARIAL TO NATURE, AND MAN’s LAW IS ADVERSARIAL TO THE NATURAL LAW.

Think you know what liberty and freedom means in the legal parlance? Guess again. For a rat has liberty and freedom inside its cage, just as a prisoner has liberty in his cell. Stop here and look these terms up, and know then that their use in common language is not the same as in the king’s language.

This quote from the Masonic Bible regarding the Bible as Masonry’s obstacle is was what made me read the Bible, instead of just poo-pooing it. And the knowledge gained has been priceless. For if the teachings of the scriptures are such a great challenge to the flourishing of masonry, who would not seek out that knowledge? But to read the Bible, we must read it figuratively in the legal cipher.

You might also ask the question why the most subversive book to the State and Church is so easily accessible to anyone who seeks it, in every hotel room and given free by every corporate church under the State? Perhaps it’s because they know we can’t actually read or decipher it because of our voluntary ignorance of its language?

Ignore these warnings from the source of principles and natural law at your own peril, as any good anarchist or satanist (adversary) will wish you to do. And by the way, the christ character was not an anarchist. That is patently false and ridiculous for the learned seeker and researcher. Are the Ten Commandments anarchy? Does it really make logical sense that the scriptures describe anarchy as we have now defined it, as lawlessness? Bibles are a dime a dozen, placed in every hotel room, because the powers that be are simply not afraid that we will read them. We do not have the deciphering language of the legal terms to actually read it for what it is. For the word common means goyim. So the secrets stay hidden in plain sight, under the cipher of language code.

Let us explore one last source, that being the highly respected Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1989):

ANARCHY – (ˈænəkɪ) [ad. Gr. ἀναρχία, n. of state f. ἄναρχ-ος without a chief or head, f. ἀν priv. + ἀρχός leader, chief. The word was also adopted in med.L. anarchia, and Fr. anarchie (Cotgr. 1611), from one or other of which the Eng. may have been immediately taken.] 1.a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. 1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie. 1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his designto cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion. 1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy. 1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy. 1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things. 1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy. 1.b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder). 1850 Eclectic Rev. XCI. 167 Confessions of an Anarchist.‥ Proudhon proceeds‥that ‘all men are equal and free. Society is, therefore, by nature and destination, autonomic‥there is no government’.‥ We see nothing a-head that warrants us in supposing that man is about to be regenerated; and, for the present, must pronounce anarchy to be a delightful dream! 1884 Rae Contemp. Socialism vii. 281 This idea of a ‘genial anarchy’‥has always been the favourite social remedy of the Russian revolutionary party. 1889 W. Donisthorpe Individualism 282 Scientific anarchy isthe end towards which society is moving. 1892 Daily News 27 Apr. 5/8 Anarchy means the placing in common of all this world’s riches to allow each to consume according to his needs. Anarchy is a great family where each will be protected by all and will take whatever he requires. 2.2 transf. Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any sphere. a.2.a gen. 1667 Milton P.L. x. 283 The waste Wide Anarchie of Chaos. 1821 Byron Sardan. i. ii. (1868) 356 The satraps uncontroll’d, the gods unworshipped, And all things in the anarchy of sloth. 1831 Brewster Newton (1855) II. xix. 205 Some of the provincial mints were in a state of anarchy. 1959 Daily Tel. 23 Feb. 10/5 The spirit of anarchy today current in the visual arts. Ibid., A form of emotional anarchy even more destructive of talent than the slovenly disregard of technique. 2.b Non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder. 1656 Cowley Chronicle ix, Thousand worse Passions then possest The Inter-regnum of my Breast. Bless me from such an Anarchy! 1713 Steele Englishm. No. 7. 44 The Licentious are in a State of barbarous Anarchy. 1875 Hamerton Intell. Life vi. ii. 203 A moral anarchy difficult to conceive. c.2.c Unsettledness or conflict of opinion. a 1661 Fuller in Webster, There being then‥an anarchy, as I may term it, in authors and their reckoning of years. 1719 Young Revenge iv. i, No more I’ll bear this battle of the mind, This inward anarchy. 1754 Chesterfield in Boswell Johnson (1816) I. 237 Our language is, at present, in a state of anarchy. 1842 W. Grove Corr. Phys. Forces 3 An anarchy of thought,—a perpetuity of mental revolutions.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM – (æˌnɑːkəʊ ˈsɪndɪkəlɪz(ə)m) [comb. form. of anarchy + syndicalism.] = syndicalism. So aˌnarcho-syndicalist n., = syndicalist; also as adj. [1913 J. A. Estey Revolutionary Syndicalism i. 31 Jaurès‥was throwing them back into Anarchist-Syndicalism.] 1934 in Webster. 1937 A. Koestler Spanish Test. i. ii. 49 The party and Trades Union of the Anarchists and Anarcho-syndicalists. 1938 Ann. Reg. 1937 241 Anarcho⁓syndicalist opposition was forced underground. 1940 H. Read Philos. Anarchism iv. 28 Whatever may be the merits and demerits of the anarcho-syndicalist system, it can and does work. 1949 J. S. Schapiro Liberalism xiv. 362 Proudhon has been exalted as the father of anarchosyndicalism. 1955 H. Hodgkinson Doubletalk 12 Anarcho-syndicalism, or direct action by anarchist factory workers, is equally anathema (abomination, outrage). Ibid., The anarcho-syndicalists carry their treacherous activities under the banner of the ‘protection of the rights of the individual and his free development’.

ANARCHIZE – Verb (ˈænəkaɪz) [f. Gr. ἄναρχ-ος (see anarch) + -ize; cf. monarchize and mod.Fr. anarchiser.] To render anarchic, reduce to anarchy; to destroy the settled order of. 1800 Coleridge Own Times I. 263 That Suwarrow, though he had rescued the North of Italy from its invaders, should have pillaged and anarchised it. 1815 T. Jefferson Writ. (1830) IV. 248 To anarchize by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms.

ANARCHICALLY – Adverb [f. prec. + -ly2.] In an anarchic or anarchical manner or condition; in defiance of existing order, lawlessly. 1872 Liddon Elem. Relig. iv. 152 It [the earth] cannot plunge anarchically through space.

–=–

Is there really any hint that anarchy is ever considered as a good thing?

Are you really going to abandon reason by abandoning all of these definitions for Marc Steven’s rules but no rulers?

Notice that the anarcho-syndaclist’s false-flag banner is as the protection of individual rights? Sound familiar?

In final consideration as to the actual definition and etymology of the word anarchy, it seems that no matter where we look, be it a legal, etymological, or common language dictionary, the definitions are always the same. It seems, in other words, that the only source for this modern new age definition of anarchy comes from modern gurus like Frank Rizzo (A.K.A. Marc Stevens), supposedly ex-satanist Mark Thocher (A.K.A. Mark Passio – the word Passio is defined as an old English word pannage, referring to “feed for hogs or swine,” which this author seriously doubts is mere coincidence), and other adversarial preachers of anarchy as a solution to government as opposed to the obvious problem of and within government, chaos within and without, even as it stands helpless in the confusion of syndicalist anarchy!

–=–
To Be Or Not To Be:
Order -vs- Chaos
–=–

You cannot serve two masters...

I suppose of all the complaints I have about this so-called anarchy movement, it would be the same complaint I have about corporate Christianity – either act like an anarchist or stop pretending to be one. Likewise, either act like a follower of christ or stop claiming to be christian.

Simply talking about or believing in anarchy doesn’t make you anarchist. All these gurus are in a citizenship with their prospective governments. They talk a big game, then drive home in commerce in persona. They receive benefits from government and so are bound in person to government’s legal codes. They have seemingly found something that actually works in the court system, though it has nothing to do with anarchy, and therefore state that they do know what they are doing in court.

To explain what Marc Steven’s system accomplishes, let’s compare it to something most of us can relate to. Walmart.

Walmart, like the commercial court system, is a place of business. It only operates in commerce. Nothing more, nothing less. So too is the commercial court system. A man has but one purpose to appear in court, and that is to appear in U.S. person or as the registered agent to the U.S. person to allow the United States admiralty court to administrate their commercial activity. A man has no other purpose for entering into a public courtroom except to appear in a public capacity, in a fiction of citizen-ship (a commercial vessel) or as the agent (attorney) for that person. Thus, when Marc Stevens goes to court, he is appearing not as his alter-ego radio personality “Marc Stevens,” but as a fictional person of government with first name Frank and the last (surname) name Rizzo. Frank Rizzo is the name of a citizen-ship of the United States. It is a fictional corporate entity (an incorporation of the christian or given name and the surname), which is further verified by Franks numbers, legal address, and other identifying marks and signs (I.D.) that show him to be a beast of burden (citizen) of the State. The court will not hear “Marc Stevens” because “Marc Stevens” cannot appear in court. “Marc Stevens” is not a person of the Untied States. “Marc Stevens” doesn’t exist except as Frank Rizzo’s pretend radio voice personality and alter ego.

How do I know who Frank Rizzo is?

When I held a conference in Salt Lake County I invited “Marc Stevens” to speak. The only way that I could get him here was to make an airline reservation under the legal name “Frank Rizzo,” so that he could show his commercial identification and use the benefit of legal status (personhood) to board the plane in his commercial capacity as a citizen of the United States. Does that sound like an anarchist to you? What I distinctly remember though was his specific and seemingly odd request at the time that I personally do not speak of his “real name” to any of the other speakers, especially to one Walter Burien. I did as requested, and covered up the nature of his false-identity.

I refuse to do this anymore…

Here is the promo video we did for the conference, with the above names mentioned:

–=–

The conference itself went off without a hitch. But the attendance was next to nothing, since I was unknown and had next to no national support and absolutely no local support. So it was a successful failure to be sure, humbling and teaching me many lessons that I value greatly. As with many fools, I lost my shirt to throw that conference in support of a few gurus. But it was a necessary life lesson and an inside look into the guru circuit.

Remind me to tell you the story of Sheriff Mack and the hairspray debacle some time. Priceless!

Humorously, I now realize that having Marc Stevens speak at a conference called “Axiom” was a ridiculous oxymoron. I couldn’t even debate old Frank because he could not agree to the axiom that government even exists! An axiom [ak-see-uhm] is defined as a self-evident truth; a universally accepted principle or rule.

Strangely enough and in ever more confusion, Marc Stevens promotes what he calls the “No-State Project.” In our interview, he didn’t quite understand what a State actually was. Of course the fact that he wishes to have no states would certainly imply that Marc must believe that the State and its government already exists. Why else would someone be against the notion of a State unless the State exists? How can the leader of the No-State Project claim that a state of government doesn’t exist?

Just asking…

As a self-correction in disclaimer, I accidentally used the name Calvin DeWitt as Frank’s actual name, as Calvin seems to post, speak, insult, and use rhetoric at times as if he is Marc Stevens. I suppose this makes sense since nobody acutally is “Marc Stevens.” My mistake. I remembered the dualism of names, not the actual proper “legal” name. My sincere apologies for that. Of course my mistake in memory and therefore in rhetoric will be used in fallacious tones to poison my well, and the fake name will be somehow justified as such. So be it.

Why is this important?

A man afraid of his own name…

–=–

“A nickname is the hardest stone that the devil can throw at a man.”
~Author unknown, quoted by William Hazlitt

–=–

“You have but to know an object by its proper name for it to lose its dangerous magic.”
~Elias Canetti

–=–

“[I]t is a sneaking piece of cowardice for Authors to put feigned names to their works, as if like Bastards of their Brain they were afraid to own them.”
~Desiderius Erasmus, translated from Latin

–=–

“Names are an important key to what a society values. Anthropologists recognize naming as ‘one of the chief methods for imposing order on perception.'” 
~David S. Slawson

–=–

“If names are not correct, language will not be in accordance with the truth of things.”
~Confucius

–=–

But I digress… Back to the Walmart analogy.

The court is merely a business. Its operation and profitability relies upon a mass of illiterate men lining up as if in line to check out, only to be unwittingly exacted and extorted due to their lack of the legal language and process – a “mass of illiterates” (the definition by Webster of common people) that cannot defend themselves because they are non compos mentis (not of right mind). They exude their voluntary ignorance as the commercial court system sucks in their administrative fees and penalties like a sponge. After all, that is their legal right…

So how is this like Walmart?

If the mass of illiterates (their definition, not mine) would do their due diligence, they would comprehend that Walmart is a grocer.

So what you say? You love your “friendly neighborhood” grocer?

This word is, as I have come to realize, based on illiteracy and voluntary ignorance of the legal terminology that binds us in the tacit contract of citizenship. And so we participate in an act that is unlawful, but which is licensed by government. In other words, the anarchy of organized crime.

GROCER – In old English law, a merchant or trader who engrossed all vendible merchandise; an engrosser.

ENGROSS – …In old English law. To buy up so much of a commodity on the market as to obtain a monopoly and sell again at a forced price.

ENGROSSEROne who purchases large quantities of any commodity in order to acquire a monopoly, and to sell them again at high prices.

ENGROSSING – In English law. The getting into one’s possession, or buying up, large quantities of corn, or other dead victuals, with intent to sell them again. The total engrossing of any other commodity, with intent to sell it at an unreasonable price. This was a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment… now repealed.

–=–

The importance of words and their origin cannot be understated, and defining terms is everything when it comes to the commercial realm of legal existence.

Yet I was actually accused of the crime of using too many definitions in this debate. I’m not sure how to even respond to such a pedagogical foundation of idiocy.

The promoters of anarchy simply despise definitions, and demand that only their own personal doctrine of chaos apply. And so I’m supposed to bypass the most respected dictionaries in the world and accept blindly the guru’s deluded mythos.

Several maxim’s of law state that to not appear is to not exist… that which does not appear, does not exist. In other words, the courts only recognize the fictional person in full legal name. Man appears in persona, an actor before the state. Interestingly, the legal definition of the word lie is to exist (see Black’s and Webster’s). The lie exists because it is believed in, has faith placed upon it, has an oath of allegiance taken to it, and it is confirmed by its citizens who act in its legal fiction persons. A man acting in fraud (in persona) cannot claim fraud while voluntarily participating in the fraud (fiction). This too, is a valid and self-evident principle of law. A liar (actor) has no justification to claim the source of his lie is a lie, for he confirms the lie by participation without rebuttal of the lie and the name he uses in the lie. Government exists and subsists as a lie confirmed by its voluntary participants.

The problem is, when we are shopping in Walmart we are also presumed to be doing so commercially, in person, which presumes consumer protections from government apply to the person consuming. A man not in citizenship has no such protections (securities) by government, for his actions would be private, and the commercial law only applies to public persons (individuals and corporations). The presumption of the legal law as applied to persons stands 100% of the time. The merchandise is purchased with United States currency or credit being used in a foreign State (residence/third party) by a United States agent (Domicile/principle) acting publicly in a United States person, and so it is considered a transaction in interstate commerce. This is the presumption of law. The presumption stands until correctly rebutted. This is not to say it is right or wrong, only to explain why a citizen cannot also claim to be in anarchy. That is illogical when the foundational principles are understood.

To be clear, this is business between two corporate states by the agent of the principal (United States), using the principals currency only by a permissive commercial contractual relationship between the individual State government and the government of the United States. If this is unclear, you better do some studying. You could start by reading “A Treatise On The Law Of Agency,” though it’s about 2,200 pages long. Or you could listen to my 7 or so interviews with “KW” on my radio archives (https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/) (search tool at bottom of page).

Due diligence, you know… it changes everything.

Now, if I go into Walmart and start making affirmations and spouting off with pure logical discourse about the sins of commerce, how government doesn’t exist (though Walmart exists only as an incorporated artificial person under government), and how food and water should be free or at least un-engrosed, and if I try to apply logic to an employee of Walmart who simply follows the strict legal rules of the jurisdiction of Walmart, then the only thing I will accomplish is to disrupt the commercial flow of business of that particular Walmart franchise. I will prevent the exaction and extortion of the grocer upon my fellow citizen-ships. I’ll expend pointless energy and eventually I will be dismissed or physically removed from the store, kicked out for not being an easy mark. And commerce will immediately return to normal, serving the millions upon millions of “the people of Walmart.”

The slaves will continue to love their servitude, and they will forever wonder at the shadows on the cave wall.

Hmm… sounds a lot like my local court, now doesn’t it? It’s got a monopoly on justice, the grocer of administrative law and commerce. If I seek a benefit or remedy or protection, I have to go pray (plead) for it in court while in surety and appearance as its fictional persona (property). But if I pull the Walmart stunt above in court, well then I will again try and apply pointless logic and rhetoric to a situation and jurisdiction that only follows the strictest of printed rules of court procedure – its own legal grammar – which has no place in natural law or in anarchy, and certainly needs no foundation in logic. Fiction and nature just don’t mix, nor do anarchy and law. Like that checkout girl, the judge isn’t really impressed with equitable statements of reason, because the judge is just there to do his commercial best without equitable consideration; to follow the strict commercial laws, and to administrate according to strictest of commercial code. He or she is just running a business. Nothing more, nothing less. Reason need not apply, though logical fallacy abounds in the attorney’s repartee, as it does in Marc Stevens prank calls to government officials.

So why do Marc and his followers have “success” in court using the three questions and any other systems based on pure non sequitur logic with no grammatical consciousness or application of legal law or court procedure?

Because only one in a thousand men ever challenge the presumption of the legal law. And so commerce is good. Like the Walmart clerk, the judge’s job is to keep the extortion and exaction flowing in commerce. His is a for-profit business, just like the grocer, but worse. The system Mark uses is simply a big butt-plug in the commercial system’s anal cavity, temporarily stopping up its flow of dirty money. And so like in Walmart, the other customers are waiting as good little commercial citizens to have their turn to be engrossed and exacted from by that court. It’s simply easier to dismiss the case and remove the butt-plug from the courthouse than to sit and argue with a fool trying to apply logic and reason to a specifically and purposefully illogical and unreasonable format. Marc doesn’t win, he confuses. Anarchy has no place in court procedure. In the courts perspective, it would be illogical and unreasonable to allow Marc and other gurus to speak on the record and in front of other listening victims of the court, whom might actually learn of the commercial fraud that exacts from them.

But let’s ask the even more logical question. In business (commerce), what’s one missed opportunity to extort an individual mark (pun intended) when there are 100 more just waiting in the pews of justice for their turn to be voluntarily robbed?

A slave that frustrates and tricks his master occasionally is still a slave. His victories are artificial, though they might be perceived by the fool as otherwise. The cage still surrounds the rat. Cleverness is not a remedy. And a butt-plug is only remedial in its ability to confuse the flow of shit that comes from the court system. In other words, Marc’s approach is just anarchic towards government – a disruption of procedure and law. But again, this is not “anarchy” because Frank Rizzo is not in an actual state of anarchy.

Yes, the Steven’s approach will “provably” work at times, and will not “work” at other times. This cannot be denied. I’ve seen many-a-trick used, including a fake fall by an old man that threatened to sue the court for not employing handicap-accessible rampage, to which the case was immediately dismissed. This provably “worked” as well, but it had nothing to do with cracking the code of legal law or escaping its tyranny. It was clever. That’s all. And eventually the psychopath is more clever than the guru, which speaks to why Frank Rizzo claims to have been in jail 10 times while still professing that government does not exist.

“Marc” uses the word bureaucracy and bureaucrat repeatedly in his dialectic. But I wonder if he realizes that he is using a word that disproves his own foundational theories?

Let’s look it up for fun…

BUREAU – A French word, which literally means a large writing table. It is used figuratively for the place where business is transacted: it has been borrowed by us, and used in nearly the same sense; as, the bureau of the secretary of state. Vide Merl. Repert. h. t.

BUREAUCRACYThe abuse of official influence in the affairs of government; corruption. This word has lately been adopted to signify that those persons who are employed in bureaus abuse their authority by intrigue to promote their own benefit, or that of friends, rather than the public good. The word is derived from the French.

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

–=–

Ironically, Marc’s use of this word bureaucracy as a reference to government workers is defined as exactly opposite to what he says about them in his fallacious rhetoric, even while calling them as such. His main argument is that government uses violence by and according to its own law, what he constantly refers to as “threat, duress, and coercion.” And yet the definition of one of his favorite insulting words is that a bureaucrat abuses only in the corruption of the government law, applying authority not granted by the law, and is taken from a word meaning a place used for business (commerce). So again, I ask the reader, is it important to define terms before using them?

Remember, the abuse suffered under Title 42 Section 1981 and from other U.S. Code is voluntarily accepted by the man in exchange for the use of government property in surety. The man vicariously follows the “justice” that is applied to the fictional person.

I love Marks approach. It is humorous, it is logical, it is seemingly reasonable to one who doesn’t know better, and it works in its confusion at times. But it’s got very little to do with legal law. It is not a remedy. It is not necesarily procedural. It is not even that hard to figure out for yourself as a moral concept. But what it isn’t is a settling of law. It’s a temporary glitch in the matrix, which is fixed the second the next surname is called to BAR. And the racquet of organized crime continues like nothing ever happened. No precedent is set. Corruption flows just as it did before. And Mark- I mean Frank Rizzo… goes right back into his commercial life while preaching anarchy to any fans he can be a rhetorician to.

To be clear, his approach has nothing to do with a state of living in anarchy. Placing the name of anarchy in with the trivium method and natural law is a huge red flag, and claiming to be an anarchist while acting as a citizen in court is about the most ludicrous schism of duality I can think of.

You cannot serve two masters.

And so the monopoly game continues…

And “Frank Rizzo” magically keeps appearing and therefore existing whenever citizen “Rizzo” needs a helping from the government tit. Ironically, it’s “Marc Stevens” that actually doesn’t exist!!!

Here’s a funny video where Marc doesn’t know municipal procedure while appearing falsely as “Marc Stevens” before his city council. He shows up to a public comment session expecting to put the city council on trial, and actually expecting them to incriminate themselves or answer his questions. Hilariously, the councilman kindly informs “Marc” of the correct procedural forum, to which a somehow unembarrassed citizen continues with his rhetoric in comment form; absolutely ridiculous rhetoric, with no legal weight at all, let alone any respect or acknowledgement of the strict legal code of the municipality. At the end, he plays music recognizably from the matrix movies, and apparently thinks he did anything but be tolerated by the syndicate, which was totally unfazed by his accusations. This, to alter-ego super hero “Marc” is apparently proof of victory.

(This is where I would place a “LOL” if I was texting.)

–=–

Now in full disclosure, I find this so funny because I did the same exact thing when I was still listening to gurus and was unlearned. I did the guerrilla journalism. I did the logic and reason approach without grammar and without understanding code, and sometimes even better than Mr. “Stevens.” And I stood in front of my city councils with utter contempt in my speech and voiced how corrupt they truly are. It made me feel good, got my blood flowing in excitement, and the audience agreed. It was an interesting high, temporary in its rush, and of course the council went right ahead and did exactly what I was there to attempt to dissuade them to do. Why? Because I used a public comment forum incorrectly and without a clue as to legal procedure. And I accomplished absolutely jack shit.

A tyrant knows he’s a tyrant, a thief knows he’s a thief, and a politician knows he’s a politician. All of them have honor among themselves. So saying the obvious in a public comment forum is a foolish mistake made by many of us “fans” of other fools, the blind leading the blind. But I woke up from my haze. I put aside the programming and controlled opposition. I stopped listening to self-proclaimed experts whose influences were Alex Jones and the Founding Father freemasons, and I started reading only primary sources. That means no discourses from Passio or Stevens, but actually learning the grammar of government and the legal language its written in so that I could actually take the grammar and logically converse with the agents existing only in that legal matrix. So I tease myself as much as I do Marc here, but say also that its time to wake the hell up and stop institutionalizing such otherwise appealing ignorance.

The journey, when it comes to the learning process and curve here is tremendous, I know. Voluntary ignorance is much easier. It has no end, nor does knowledge itself. Only the followers who stop following succeed, breaking loose of institutionalized dogma, for they are forced to apply the trivium method to their own beliefs, and deprogram their own minds from both mainstream and alternative bullshit. It is a frightening thing to challenge yourself and find out that you are lying to yourself. Been there…

In another video, Marc actually recommends that folks sign a confession of guilt as a way to get a traffic ticket “thrown out” of court. He does this while telling you that all judges are likely psychopaths and total liars, a hasty generalization fallacy to be sure.

So, to be clear, we should appeal to a lying psychopath with logic and reason, and hope that our words make the Grinch’s heart grow by five inches? Is it really logical to attempt to apply reason to a psychopath? So many confusions and contradictions… but then, that’s anarchy!

–=–

Apparently Marc just can’t understand that calling government a lie is a compliment. It’s an admitted fiction of law. It knows its a lie, a fiction. He’s not really saying anything at all but the truth, which is that the lie exists.

In another so-called “discrediting” by Marc Stevens, the quite low-level government employee dominates his foolishness by answering his questions correctly without even knowing it. This is no stupid American. She even calls him out for claiming to have a “client” he is calling on behalf of, which she assumed meant he was practicing as an attorney – not the first time this misconception has happened with Marc and his clients. She finally tells him that his argument is irrelevant, which is totally correct. She is bound to employ strict law in a commercial center. Marc wishes to confuse what the strict law is by asking completely ridiculous questions (ridiculous to those with grammar) and whining about being interrupted as he did in our debate, an appeal to the emotional response of the listener. He speaks of her “rudeness” and demands she answer questions as if she is on trial, which she declines with surprising dignity and grace… and logic. Marc calls a lot of secretaries and low-level employees and then claims a victorious exclamation that logic wins every time. It’s a bit pathetic to watch when you get to the point where you can actually comprehend and answer his questions, which most people and more specifically most low-level government workers cannot. They are just following the strict rules that they are employed under. It’s just a job, as horrible as that reality is.

–=–

Do I have to point out that Marc states he is calling from “Scottsdale, Arizona” (a governmental, municipal, corporate jurisdiction) and then refers to his “physical presence” in that fictional city, which he claims at other times doesn’t really even exist? That’s like being a man inside of a cartoon realm, Roger Rabbit style. Only fictional persons can be in Scottsdale, Arizona, and fictions aren’t physical entities. The misconceptions flourish with this guy, and the lack of grammar is absolutely shocking.

So where does that leave the anarchy gurus?

That is up to the reader to decide. The path can only be shown, not forced upon you.

To the follower, I can only empathize as a former follower of gurus myself that this could appear like Marc somehow “wins” these unofficial discussions. But there was no contest. No game. No solicitation. No contract. No hearing. No court. No judge. No god. Nothing. It was a pointless call that only made the useful idiot employee more convinced of her job as being lawful and in the right than before he called her. Oh, and it gave Marc what he thinks is evidence and proof of his success. Let’s not forget his version and definition of “proof” after all…

What more is there to say here? I am not selling you anything. I can only offer grammar. Follow foolish men or learn for yourself.

To those with eyes to see and ears to hear, I hope this helps in your own journey.

To the rest, may you find some peace in your anarchy.

Wait… Wha?

Special thanks to Jan Irvin for his courage to moderate with integrity and then speak out against these false prophets even as his reputation is being attacked, though not his message. The fallacies are flying, and the gurus are in full damage control. We must suffer the attack-the-messenger volley’s together my friend. Keep up the good work!

And in final conclusion, let us get to the moral of this strange and convoluted story. The natural law is a law to be in duty to. It grants no rights or privileges. It is a religious and spiritual existence. Anarchy, on the other hand, is the absence of any law, contrary to the new age reinventions of this word. Lawlessness and law do not mix. they are diametrically opposed. And so ultimately I only ask that these gurus admit their logical fallacy in the form of a verifiable non sequitur and state that natural law and indeed nature itself and anarchy are opposing concepts. Otherwise, natural law merely stands as a confusion of understanding, exactly as anarchy is defined. Remember, nature (God) is not the author of confusion, and anarchy is defined as the authoring and promotion of confusion.

Self-governance cannot be achieved in a state of anarchism.

This is a ridiculous non sequitur.

.

–Clint > Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, June 17th, 2015

STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person


Apologies for my absence lately in the blogosphere, and for those comments I have not read and managed yet. I am also catching up on emails and wish to thank everyone who has made donations to keep me alive, researching, writing, and hosting the daily radio show (Mon-Fri, 7pm Eastern, on republicbroadcasting.org).

That being said, I’d like to introduce my new website and that which has been taking most of my attention these days:

http://www.strawmanstory.info/

I’ve been writing this work in book-form for several years off and on, building it bit by bit, until this year when I made it my full-time project. As I have been researching and writing I am continuously learning while pouring over legal dictionaries, U.S. Code, international law, etymology sources, scripture, concordances, and other sources of ancient and hidden knowledge, from Plato to Bastiat. This fact has not and certainly will not change.

There is a point in which a researcher must bravely and with uncertain confidence finalize his writings into a utilizable form, though when this point is supposed to happen is beyond my own comprehension. For I wish not to be bound by my own misunderstandings and set-in-word errors in logic and rhetoric due to so much faulty grammar out there, as so many (most) authors certainly have. Perhaps this notion of perfection is as much an impossibility as the idea of attaining all knowledge is. Only time will tell…

Of this work I can only say one thing… that it has never been attempted before. It is being compiled so as to teach a new language, the legal language, to those who seek to comprehend that which enslaves them. The magic of words is the invisible web that entraps and enjoins us to a legal matrix of fictional things. But we are not shown or taught this authoritative, “higher” language in which true knowledge has been hidden. Instead, we are taught the common words of illiteracy. This is called public education. And it keeps us public, stealing all privacy.

One cannot simply pick up a Bible, for instance, and read it in the common tongue. It’s meaning will remain a mystery even while its Law remains highest. The common words are often quite opposite in meaning from their legal counterparts, though they appear to be the same. But the symptom of this disease causes the victims of this “vulgar” form of common communication to remain subject not only to man, but specifically to man’s creation of language terms of art. For the word common also means “goyim.”

The illusion is steadily shattered with every word uncovered, with every maxim revealed, with every Bible verse clarified, and with every lie demystified.

For the reader and as disclaimer, there will be no turning back. No more turning away from reality. No more living in ignorance. No more convenient lies. No more shirking of responsibility by blaming a fictional persona. And therefore no more legal excuses.

What is legal is not what is right.

This work will be offered in (non-commercial) book form in exchange for gifts in private donation and barter. I will be offering it in advance soon as well so that I can raise the funds to have it created (printed) in that “book” format. But it will always be offered for free as well, for no one should be without the knowledge of their own enslavement. A (.pdf) will be available to anyone unable or unwilling to offer trade or gift. The only difference between these two formats will be that the physical book-form will be indexed. At over 1,000 pages, this will be a reference book as much as anything.

Yes, 1,000+ pages… If there is one thing I have learned for certain in my many years of laboring for knowledge, it is that nothing worth learning or doing is easy. The path is narrow, and only a few will walk it. This work is designed to help light that path.

The website is temporary for now, and will be updated in the next few months as I begin to organize my tome of notes and research into a final collection. Again, thanks to those who have supported me with love and kindness, and the ability to continue this work.

If you’d like to hear what’s been happening in “The Corporation Nation” radio show, you can check out any of my 375+ shows from the last 20 months for free here:

https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/

(Note: Search tool at bottom of page, looks like a magnifying glass)

I hope to have the “book” finished in the next few months, and I’ll set up a unique email for that purpose. I will rely on merely word of mouth and radio promotion, so please help to spread the word and share freely. Just remember I can only continue this effort with your support.

Be well…

.

Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015

Archons And Mind Parasites And Extremophiles, Oh My!


I seem as of late to be using the phrase “in their right mind” a lot.

For instance, I often say that nobody in their right mind should be melancholy to what is happening in the world. No one in their right mind should be ok with the fact that the U.S. government in its U.S. Code has an active biological weapons program that makes it “legal” and “acceptable” to test those biologics, radiation, vaccines, and any other thing for “research purposes” on any and every population in the world, including and especially its own. And no body politic of “people” in its right mind would sit back and allow what the United States government has become in all aspects of politics and war.

Yet the deeds are done, and the crime against us is only getting more and more organized and lethal.

And this leads me to believe that my over-use of this declaratory judgement in assumption of the default belief in the state of right-mindedness might very well be misplaced. And so perhaps it is time to consider the very strange and unbelievable reality that maybe, just maybe, the majority of the population is not in fact in their right minds. And if this is the case, well then it might just be possible that they no longer even have the ability to control their own minds…

More and more I contemplate that those who might read this blog and others like it are in fact seeking answers to questions that cannot be found with an “educated” and “entertained” mind. It is not so much that there is no answer to be found, but rather that the answers that can be found do not conform to the reasoning and intent of the asker of the questions. In other words, the questions that seem unanswerable only appear that way because their askers will not look in the places where those answers might so obviously be hiding.

The difference between history (his story) and fiction, and between science and science fiction, has been so divisively blurred and so masterfully intertwined that most of us have been educated through entertainment to ignore anything resembling reality if it has been before musingly portrayed as a story of science or other fiction. Ironically, while the science fiction of yesterday could be considered the uninhibited dream of what the future could hold, today it seems that fiction is dead, and that the rules and science of fiction have been devolved and redacted, fitting only into the defined tenets of today’s real scientific limitations. Today, fiction writers are not dreaming of future possibilities and dystopias, they are describing the planned future of a dystopian science reality. The limits now placed on the imagination of the writer of fiction seem to be solely based on the current but flexible limitations of the practice of modern science. And so the once vibrant dream of utopian philosophers has seemingly also come to its visionary death, for today’s practitioners within the institution of science have taken up not the study of nature but the art of the alteration and control of nature. Anti-nature…

And so those of us who still feel; we who still conform to and therefore know the natural aspects of empathy, logic, reason, virtue, responsibility, and all that makes up the uniqueness and wonder of man are left hopelessly wondering why everything in the world seems somehow, for lack of a better term, just innately wrong. We search for individual answers that, when thoughtfully placed in connective order, we hope might make up the clear summation of the problem at hand. And yet no matter what, the ultimate answer still seems to lay out of sensual understanding. From our sense of reality, we seek a type of knowledge that very likely cannot be obtained through the ordinary processes and facts that otherwise we may find using the traditional scientific method. For that method was created to specifically study the natural state and order of things. So we must ask ourselves some very disturbing questions:

How can we possibly use this traditional scientific method to find answers when all of nature is being corrupted by the abuse of modern scientific methods?

If science is the study of nature and how it works without the intervention of man, and if at the same time nature itself is being fundamentally altered by the false institution of science, what then should the new definition of modern science be?

More to the point, how can a reasonable researcher use traditional scientific means in logical sequence to accomplish the goals of this new non-traditional science?

What was before the study of the laws of nature is now the study of the destruction of those constants. What was before the craft of benefiting mankind through understanding the natural process is now the craft of overcoming that process to control mankind through control of nature.

So for those who seek provable answers using the traditional scientific method, it is advised that you should go back to watching re-runs of “History Channel Presents.” For today, we are going to delve into what is indeed possible yet seemingly not. And as of yet, there is no proof or test that I can offer you to satisfy your “scientific” curiosity. Instead, for a brief moment, I ask you to consider that what might be the answer to your unanswered questions may very well be so different than you expect that you won’t even wish to bring up the subject to friends and family for fear of ridicule. And honestly, the only reason I am writing this now, with the same contemplation and fear in mind, is that I have a strange feeling that only those of us left out here that are still in our right mind will believe that the following information is perhaps more self-evident than any other explanation.

The great rhetorical mind of the Scottish author and physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a graduate of the University of Edinburgh Medical School no less, might be of import in this endeavor. His character Sherlock Holmes was essentially represented as the crowning authority in the use of forensic science. The word forensic comes from the Latin forēnsis, meaning “of or before the forum (court),” dating to the roman republic. Created in the late 1890’s, detective Holmes was required to use his brain, his logic and his reason to solve the case, for the modern technology of crime scene investigation was not yet in existence, and this allowed many criminals to flee justice.

Today, I ask the same of you, my dear Watson’s…

In the novels based on Sherlock Holmes; those fictional tales about the unorthodox, de-educated, non-conformative detective, it was said of man that, “His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge.

Even more remarkably, the fictional detective stated that, “In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically.” It is my opinion that if you are reading this blog, you may very well be one in fifty.

Of course, his most famous musing concluded that, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But perhaps in light of our current disposition as sentient beings searching for answers to questions that seemingly won’t be answered, it is this quote we should be romancing:  “I fear that if the matter is beyond humanity it is certainly beyond me. Yet we must exhaust all natural explanations before we fall back upon such a theory as this.

In the spirit of this Holmesian deductive reasoning, I hope that the reader will allow herein a presentation of my own theory on why everything in science and in the actions of the leaders of men seem to be centralized on creating a fictional dystopia of mis-used science rather than on the use of science to realize the dream of fictional utopia.

(Que ‘Twilight Zone’ music)

–=–
Warning:
This Is Not Science Fiction!

–=–

In movies, the monster is usually something that you can see. The alien from Alien. The clown from IT. The Martians from Mars Attacks. The Englishmen from Downton Abbey. And who can forget Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus?

The use of the genre of sci-fi horror movies depicting gruesome monsters and viscously putrefying aliens has created a false dicotomy of left or right opinions regarding what the typical person might be able to believe is possible within the institutional reality of biological science, which today has seemingly crossed the barrier of perception with its primary basis now in the world of the unseen – the less-than-microscopic nano-world of genetic code. “Science” has mapped the genomes of many species, and is now hot on the trail of mapping the epigenetic on/off mechanisms of DNA/RNA encoding that controls gene expression and disease. It is one thing to see how genes are put together to make up life on earth, but an entirely more dangerous thing to have one’s hands on the knowledge and function of turning those gene’s expressions on and off. In this manner, science has become a very frightening brave new world.

The Genome project is now a thing of the past, old news, ancient technology. The Epigenome Project is now where it’s at!

The Human Epigenome Project website explains its surface goals:

The Human Epigenome Project (HEP) aims to identify, catalogue and interpret genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of all human genes in all major tissues. Methylation is the only flexible genomic parameter that can change genome function under exogenous influence. Hence it constitutes the main and so far missing link between genetics, disease and the environment that is widely thought to play a decisive role in the aetiology of virtually all human pathologies. Methylation occurs naturally on cytosine bases at CpG sequences and is involved in controlling the correct expression of genes. Differentially methylated cytosines give rise to distinct patterns specific for tissue type and disease state. Such methylation variable positions (MVPs) are common epigenetic markers. Like single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), they promise to significantly advance our ability to understand and diagnose human disease.

The Human Epigenome Project (HEP) is a public/private collaboration run by the members of the Human Epigenome Consortium. MVPs identified as part of the HEP will be released publicly in accordance with the HEP data release policy.

Source–> http://www.epigenome.org/index.php?page=project

–=–

And just who or what makes up the members of this “consortium?”

Current consortium members:

The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is a recognised leader in genome sequencing, high-throughput systems, informatics and analysis of gene function using genetic approaches in a variety of model organisms and humans.

Epigenomics AG is a transatlantic biotechnology company with headquarters in Berlin, Germany and its wholly owned subsidiary in Seattle, Washington, USA, pioneering tomorrow’s personalized medicine by exploiting the information of DNA methylation patterns.

The Centre National de Génotypage is a national research institute set up in 1998 by the French Government in anticipation of using the genome sequencing information for the identification of genes and gene function.

Source–> http://www.epigenome.org/index.php?page=consortium

–=–

Now, if you are not familiar with Margaret Sanger, you really should be. As one of the most famous soft eugenisists, her legacy includes Planned Parenthood and modern birth control. But let’s take a deeper look at this feminist de-populationist, and imagine for a moment if she had her finger on the trigger of modern genetic and epigenetic technology. Planned Parenthood would look a lot differently than it does today.

Surprisingly, even Wikipedia must admit to the truth of the easily found history of her motives (citations and sources left in):

Sanger’s 1920 book endorsed eugenics.

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[84] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[85] Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[86][87] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[88] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[89][90][91]

In contrast with eugenicist William Robinson, who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, “we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”[92] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[87] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[89][93]

Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In “A Plan for Peace”, a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude thosewhose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities[86][87][94]

Sanger’s writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States.[85] In one “What Every Girl Should Know” commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were “just a step higher than the chimpanzeewithlittle sexual control,” as compared to thenormal man and Woman.”[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics“…have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted…”[93]

From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamblein the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.[100] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble “we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” This quote has been cited by Angela Davis to support her claims that Sanger wanted to exterminate black people.[101] However, New York University’s Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, “Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”[102]

One might perhaps laugh at the caption of this article,
promoting birth control while posing with her own two birthed sons.
Of course, birth control was really intended for the “lesser” races…

–=–

Ironically, but not surprisingly, Sanger’s racially pure mother Anne Higgins went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49. Sanger was the sixth of eleven children. But then, she was apparently gifted with good blood from a good race, so that’s just alright now isn’t it?

So why should you, if indeed you are in your right mind, be concerned that the most prominent organization participating in the Genome and Epigenome Projects honor in their titles this eugenicist that promoted racial purity and depopulation? Are you frickin’ kidding me? Do you think plants, fruits, and vegetables are the only life that can be purposefully, scientifically, and genetically altered from their natural form?

Let’s get more acquainted with the institute celebrating her legacy, shall we?

Embracing a postgenomic era

The Sanger Institute will examine how genomes are implicated in the biology of disease in greater detail, with greater precision and at faster rate than previously thought possible. Genomes are rapidly becoming a part of the essential fabric of biology, rather than an expensive resource.

Our target is to understand the function of genes on a genome-wide scale. The intellectual commitment and drive of our researchers, combined with developments in technology, will allow us to make a contribution to the understanding of how genes work that is as significant as our contribution to the Human Genome Project.

This contribution will be founded in efforts to tackle the basis of common genetic and infectious disease and to build resources and tools that will help others to tackle disease. Our dual role, as researcher and resource provider, has served biology well and we believe it will become more valuable in the future.

In the next two years, we will sequence more than 1000 human genomes. By 2012, we will make stem cells in more than 10,000 genes.

Human genetics

Our research in Human Genetics will harness the power of our improving sequencing and genotyping infrastructure in order to gain a better understanding of the diversity of the human species and how this diversity influences our health and disease. By 2011, the Institute will have sequenced more than 1000 human genomes. As part of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and other similar large-scale consortia, we will continue to discover important genetic variants on the scale that is required to give insight into the genetics of common disease.

By 2013, the International Cancer Genome Consortium will have produced comprehensive catalogues of mutations in more than 50 different tumour types. This work, in which we play a leading role, will lay the foundation for clinical research to produce treatments that could help to reduce the global cancer burden.

Building on new technologies, we will help to develop a rapidly growing understanding of diseases including cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Our research outputs and resources, such as the DECIPHER database, will move into clinical practice as our biological understanding becomes clinically essential.

Infectious disease

Our capacity to analyse genomes means that we can examine the diversity of pathogens, both within and between species, on a scale unmatched within Europe. Our future research will lead to new understanding of infectious disease and its development and spread: using new technologies we can map individual organisms and the development of disease in an individual or among a population with exquisite accuracy. Embracing these technologies, our researchers will complete a staggering 10,000 pathogen sequences by 2011.

We will move rapidly to examining the interactions between pathogen and host a vital meeting point that influences the genetics of both organisms. Our research in malaria will strengthen understanding of genetics of host-pathogen interactions. Our programmes will help to build capacity among researchers in the UK and in front-line countries facing the challenge of infectious disease. Our research into malaria shares the Global Malaria Action Plan’s morbidity reduction targets for 2010 and 2015.

Our research in pathogens will also build on the MRSA and C. difficile sequences in order to help health authorities make rational and considered plans for dealing with healthcare-associated infections.

Model organisms

Working with our collaborators, we will deliver, over the next few years, resources that will transform research using model organisms.

 –=–

Mice are used as a model organism.

Cloning of genetically created mice justifies total abuse of life, for the
life is created by man and therefore owned by man. How long before
humans are treated merely as model organisms used as resources?

Oops! Too late…

–=–

These remarkable resources notwithstanding, it is our research programmes that hold increasing promise.

Our research in the mouse will give a biological understanding of the genes implicated in cancer found through other programmes, such as the International Cancer Genome Consortium. Using mouse models, we will identify and unlock the networks of genes that drive cancer.

We will develop systems to accelerate stem cell research by allowing better manipulation of cell lines and by enhancing the production of embryonic stem (ES) cells.

The resources will support new research in developmental biology, hearing and cognition.

Source–> http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/what/future.html

–=–

You might say that mice are the gateway drug to human resource cloning as model organisms. For if we don’t protect that which cannot protect itself, then perhaps we deserve a similar fate.

To view this disturbing mouse resource collection, go here:

Community

The Institute is a leading contributor to the European Conditional Mouse Mutagenesis Program (EUCOMM), the NIH-funded Knockout mouse programmes of KOMP and KOMP2, the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC), and the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC).

We have generated BACs for various mouse strains that are displayed on the Mouse Resources Portal and Ensembl and are available from Source BioScienceLifeSciences and the BACPAC Resources Center. Mouse ES cells are available from MMRC UC Davis.

Data generated at the Sanger Institute is available from our from the Mouse Genomes Project.

Source–> http://www.sanger.ac.uk/resources/mouse/

–=–

Now, those in their right mind should be very concerned with the potential of this type of power. This is like children getting ahold of God’s constructor set and becoming little creators of hell on Earth. This is not just power, but the absolute power of negative creation, undoing the natural mathematical order of the DNA of all things.

But then, no body seems to be in their right mind when considering this. For man is patenting his creation as he goes, using word magic to be the master of life itself…

(CNN) — Here’s a little-known fact: Under current law, it’s possible to hold a patent on a piece of human DNA, otherwise known as a gene.

Some breast cancers… are linked with the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Companies that have acquired patents for genes have specific rights to their use, which may include diagnostic tests based on those genes, as well as future mutations that are discovered.

In a new lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union alleges that the policy is unconstitutional.

The targets of the lawsuit, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, hold patents to BRCA1 and BRCA2, the genes responsible for many cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is also named in the suit.

The lawsuit asserts that the patents prevent some people from accessing medical screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2. It also challenges the general patentability of genes, which has been legal since 1980. That year, in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court found in favor of Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, who used bacteria to engineer a microbe that dissolves oil.  Watch Dr. Gupta explain the lawsuit »

Genes form the basic unit of heredity. With modern technology, researchers have determined that particular genes carry an associated risk of illness.

A striking 20 percent of all human genes have been patented. However, now that all 20,000 to 25,000 human genes have been mapped and sequenced through the Human Genome Project, they are in the public domain, meaning they would no longer be considered “new” for the purposes of patents, said Lee Silver, professor of molecular biology and public policy at Princeton University. Now, patents on human genes must specify a new use, such as a diagnostic test.

If a company wants to patent the purified form of an antibiotic that exists in nature in a fungus, no one challenges that, Silver said. Plant DNA, as well as human DNA, can be synthesized in a laboratory. Distinguishing this case from a patented human gene that is useful in diagnostics would require the ethical argument that the human genome is sacred — and even then, things get murky, considering that about 25 percent of human genes are shared by chimpanzees, he said.

THE PATENT LAW SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ETHICS,” he said…

Source–> http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/13/genes.patent.myriad/index.html?_s=PM:HEALTH

–=–

Again, it is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, in reference to this notion of power, what would you consider on a scale of 1-10 the power-base of knowledge in being able to control the entire expression of the human genome within the entire population of Earth – real or synthetic? Would you say that it is a 10 on that scale perhaps if one could wipe out the expression for empathy and religious capacity? How about the expression for logical thinking and reason… would that be a corruption of power? And what about love…?

What about synthetic people, or clones? Who needs the real thing when you can hand deliver the perfect, docile, subservient beast of a patented human?

From its website, the Sanger Institute explains it’s purpose:

What we do

Our research at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute builds understanding of gene function in health and disease as well as creating resources of lasting value to biomedical research.

We study diseases that have an impact on health globally by investigating genomes. Building on our past achievements and based on priorities that exploit the unique expertise of our Faculty of researchers, we will lead global efforts to understand the biology of genomes. We are convinced of the importance of making this research available and accessible for all audiences

Our research into genetics and disease

Our genomic information has a significant impact on our health. Global health problems including cancer, malaria, diabetes, obesity and infectious disease are partially determined genetically. At the Sanger Institute we are uniquely placed to build on genome sequences and to engage in biomedical research that elucidates the genetic basis of such common diseases as well as rare or neglected diseases.

Why we study genomes

Genomes are the archival instructions upon which an organism is built. The sequence data provided by the Human Genome Project is a rich source of information that drives improved understanding of human health and variation. Studying human sequences, comparing model organism genomes and investigating the effects of pathogens on humans will build knowledge of the diversity of our genomes and how this affects our susceptibility to disease

Source–> http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/what/

–=–

From its annual review, we read:

Genomes continue to revolutionise the study of biology. Their contribution to medicine is just kicking off.

In 2011 our sequencing pipeline delivered 200,000,000,000,000 (200 trillion) bases of DNAmore than all the previous years of the Institute combined.

Coupled with the output from our genotyping pipeline, which is using the latest DNA chip technology, our researchers are able to interrogate genomes at a scale and resolution that is many orders of magnitude greater than before. This rich vein of information is enabling our researchers to discover and interpret at ever greater depth the significance of genomic variation within and between species.

Drawing on our vast genomic resources enables us to play a leading role in national and international collaborations. The techniques, databases and software we develop allow us to make vital contributions to research into the spread of infectious disease, the development of cancer, and the epidemiology of malaria, sickle cell disease and metabolic risk factors in Africa.

Our ability to answer new questions is turning received genomic understanding on its head. For example, when the Cancer Genome Project team investigated structural DNA rearrangements in the chromosomes in cancer, they uncovered an entirely new mechanism for cancer development. The team discovered that some people’s cancer genomes bore the scars of a catastrophic event that had driven them a number of steps towards cancer in a single cell cycle. The chromosomes had exploded and incorrect pasting together of the DNA had produced many cancer-driving mutations.

Another convention-busting discovery was made when our researchers sought to complete the genomic picture of the spectrum of Leishmania parasites. Seeking to understand the genomic variations responsible for the differing severity of symptoms caused by the different strains, the team made a surprising discovery. Producing high-quality reference genome sequences showed that the different strains had almost identical genetic codes, but that the strains’ genomes contained different numbers of copies of the chromosomes. This finding suggests that the parasite’s evolutionary development and success is founded on the numbers of particular genes and chromosomes it has – a genetic abnormality that would kill most organisms.

Our Pathogens teams are harnessing our high-throughput sequencing and analysis resources to compare variation between individual bacterial and viral genomes from patients to track and trace precisely the spread of disease. By comparing cholera genomes during the current global pandemic, our researchers have been able to categorically trace its origin back to the Bay of Bengal. Using the same technique, we have mapped the spread of the H1N1 flu virus across the UK during the most recent epidemic and have shown that the disease entered at a number of geographic locations at different times, before the first clinical case was identified.

Our ability to conduct genomic research at high resolution and vast scope enables us to provide the foundations for the global research community to build upon. For example, the fruits of our investment in the 1000 Genomes Project are being harvested by researchers across the globe as they use the data to enhance the resolution of the genome-wide association studies and understand the origins of genetic mutation

Source–> http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/how/assets/2011wtsi_annual_review_full.pdf

–=–

Open source genetic codes for genomes?

Instructional genomic blueprints for cancer offered to the world?

Offering the entire mechanism for the spread of disease on the cellular level to the militaries (governments) of the world?

Sharing the origins of genetic mutation with anyone interested?

20 trillion base DNA sets deconstructed in a single year?

Perhaps my concern is not being completely burned into the readers conscious here, and perhaps that’s because the reader may not be reading this from the point of view of a racially driven, psychopathic purist de-populationist! Get it? The “Sanger” institute? In honor of dear old Margaret? This should make even the roots of your own DNA shake violently with fear and loathing. Satan, if you believe in that sort of thing, could not ask for a better tool as the defined “adversary of man,” with this toolset being the epitome of the model chemistry set to de-construct nature and reform it in man’s own image. This new world order of DNA and genomic expression belongs in no mans hands, for no man is immune from the ultimate disease of unrestrained power. There are no true ethics in the modern notion of what is “science,” because the institution of science today specifically disregards nature’s (God’s) design in order to exploit and alter the intent of that self-evident design. It studies nature only in order to change or destroy it. The diseases it is claiming to be able to treat and cure on the genetic level were of course caused by this very same institution of medical and scientific crimes against man and nature in the first place, and so the placing of our faith in such institutions to cure us from its own self-inflicted ills is fool-hearted at best. Cancer was all but non-existant before modern practices of those who profess to be professors, professionals, scientists, and doctors spread it experimentally as vaccine ingredients, rearing its ugly head according to some in history only after modern vaccination was introduced.

And that brings me to my point. We have all been stung by this beast of medical science. Vaccination is designed to apparently replace what nature has already installed within the expressions of the body as the natural immune response to outside influences. One has no allergy to bee stings, for instance, unless one is stung by the bee, which delivers its disease-causing agents through a stinging injection. Spiders penetrate by a stinging bite, as do dogs with rabies. Tetanus and hepatitis thrive many places, but can only enter the body through a stinging penetration of the skin (or through the penetration of intercourse, i.e. the exchange of bodily fluids). The vaccination needle is the simulated, weaponized sexual appendage of the science of modern medicine. We are violated by it, raped by it; we are injected (stung) with substances and DNA that would never otherwise have the capacity to enter our bodies and mix with our substance. We are literally being grafted like fruit trees with the foundational building blocks of the gene expression and DNA of other life forms, including that of our fellow man as with the injection of cloned human diploid cells (including DNA and proteins) from various aborted fetal tissues, human albumin (from blood), rhesus monkey fetal lung cells, continuous (cloned) line of monkey kidney cells, rhesus monkey fetal diploid cells, simian cancer virus-40 (and at least 79 others), vesicle fluid from calf skins, calf serum, bovine serum, bovine fetal serum, U.S. sourced bovine extract, washed sheep red blood cells (RBC’s), chick embryo, chick embryonic fluid, chicken protein, mouse serum proteins, guinea pig embryo cells, shark squalene, gelatin, hydrolized gelatin, processed gelatin, lactose, and others. These are just a few of the ingredients that you have been infected with by stingers called needles.

Vaccination is, in its most simple description, the purposeful infection of the body with foreign particles and substances. Whether those substances are good or bad, beneficial or harmful, therapeutic or deadly does not remove the fact that vaccination is nothing more than purposeful infection with disease. This is not contagion, for a vaccinated person is not necessarily contagious, though some “shedding” of the vaccine does take place after infection (vaccination). The injection of peanut oils and lactose as ingredients in vaccines, for instance, is certainly linked to localized milk and peanut allergies that are not spreadable as contagious infection to others, but are rather local reactions to otherwise harmless foods, if only they were eaten instead of injected past any natural barriers. Thus, we must think outside of the box we are placed into by media education and realize that infection is a neutral word that actually also represents any forcing of so-called “medicine” into the body.

But consider how the body then might react to monkey kidney tissue or cow blood being injected into it, bypassing the natural protective barriers for such agents through the deep, penetrating sting of the inoculation needle. It is well known that even the Rh factor of some human blood types prevents negative and positive bloods from mixing to create life. The mother’s body will literally attack the newly formed embryo of a different blood type (Rh) to kill it as a foreign infection. So imagine how incompatible your body and its blood and fluid is to cow, monkey, pig, sheep, insect, and other animal blood and protein products used in vaccines, which have no other way to enter and infect your body but through the penetrating sting of vaccination.

But let’s not stop there. For other ingredients within vaccines also have no hope of forcibly entering past your body’s defenses without the sting of a nurse or pharmacy technician with a couple of weeks of government sponsered training and indoctrination mixed with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance. The arrogant advocate for vaccination is always one who’s livelihood depends on delivering it, no differently than those animals and insects that sting or bite in protection of their own livelihood… or to spread parasites. And the propaganda machine of fallacy and quack science fills the heads of those who subject themselves and their own children to such violations of the natural law as vaccines are.

Let’s not forget the heavy metals and other extra ingredients also used in vaccines with thinly veiled reasonings and names such as preservatives and adjuvents. Those include such other foreign particles and poisons (medicines) as formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal (mercury-based), polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), ammonium sulfate, formalin, sucrose, sorbitol, benzethonium chloride, glycerin, phenol (a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar), beta-propiolactone, 2-phenoxyethanol, polysorbate 20, yeast, chemically defined yeast-based medium, soy protein, phenol red indicator, phosphate buffered saline, monosodium L-glutamate (MSG), potassium glutamate, potassium chloride, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium phosphate dibasic, potassium monophosphate, potassium diphosphate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium phosphate dibasic, polydimethylsiloxane (silicone), and even the known cancer causing agent aspartame.

It is therefore likely that in yours, and especially in your child’s lifetime, most or all of these listed vaccine ingredients have been injected into your body, along with the various disease causing microbes, antibiotics (anti-life), and other ingredients not listed here. And your body reacts to every one of these ingredients, either in the short or long term as the manifestation of chronic disease states. I can think of nothing else to call this but sheer insanity. The blanket acceptance of the “science” of vaccination in my mind can only be attributed to two things. Ignorance is certinaly a fine-tuned and well oiled machine within the general population. But can we really blame sheer ignorance? What about custom, routine, greed, profits, and medical advice?

But what if there is another factor at play here? What if there is another unseen force that is driving people to promote and commit to actions like vaccination, eating junk food as their main staple, taking pharmaceutical drugs that will knowingly cause more severe disease than what they will treat, and submitting themselves to the unspeakable atrocities of modern and cosmetic medicine – which is by the way the leading cause by far of death in the world, called “iatrogenic” death, or death by medicine/doctor.

Is it possible that mankind could be driven subconsciously by another infective force more powerful than ignorance, more persuasive than propaganda, and more controlling than hypnosis?

And if this possibility may indeed be the case, would man even know he was infected?

This is the theory I’d like to explore herein…

–=–
The Parasite Lives By Control
And Knows No Other Path

–=–

I ask you now to become a neutral.

As I postulated in the opening of this thesis, I believe that any reader of this work may have only gotten this far due to their uninfected empathy and therefore unvaccinated desire to learn the answers to questions that cannot seem to be answered by merely considering what is known or by what is normal or natural. And so the question to the answer we seek may very well sit in the world of the unseen, and may therefore be hidden in the unknown. For the purely logical thinker, who needs proof of claim to every aspect of reality, I can only try my best to qualify the facts presented herein, for I cannot show you the unseeable. I have not the tools to make proof, and so I cannot prove the unprovable. And so I ask your forgiveness in this regard, and ask that you clear your mind of what you think you know so that your limiting perceptions of reality don’t get in your own way. Yet at the same time, I wish to invoke in you your use of the logic machine, the Trivium, and to examine what I present here with the goal not of belief or disbelief, but with the desire to prove or disprove – what the scientific method once also was designed to do instead of genetically altering everything so as to create falsely created evidence of a genetically altered reality.

The question I propose to answer here to the best of my rational ability is simply this:

Can the actions and inactions for which most of mankind are exhibiting in acting against its own best interest be attributed to a parasitic infection of his brain and DNA? 

First, let’s place on the exhibit table the evidence of these actions of man against his own interest.

1) Geoengineering. It is being taught in universities around the world now. It is highly regulated in the codes and statutes of government, permits are required, and international treaties are law regarding its use in war and in peacetime. It is no longer a theory, but a certified and provable current practice. In other words, it is a provable conspiracy (plan between two or more people) to significantly and purposefully alter the environment, and is a highly protected industry by governments around the world, including the United Nations. If this fact is not readily apparent to the reader, then please see the links below. For those who can see it happening in the sky above them, again I can only assume according to my presented theory here that you are not parasitically restricted from recognition and comprehension of these strange happenings. Geoengeneering though, as defined and taught in the University system, is not merely the alteration of the air and atmosphere. It is the alteration of the land and oceans as well. For more factual information on this, please see my sourced research here:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/degrees-in-geo-engineering-and-sustainable-development/

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/geoengineering-and-cloud-seeding/

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-only-way-we-can-stop-geoengineering/

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/research-tips/

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/weather-modification-in-utah-begins-today/

2) Species Die Offs. As we sit back and watch with a helpless feeling and a bag of Funyons, we are digitally presented with facts and figures that the surface life on planet Earth, on both the land and in the ocean, is dying. We are shown images and videos of mass schools of dead fish washed up on shores or in harbors, of hundreds of birds falling dead from the sky mid-flight, and of statistical realities of millions of species of plants, animals, and insects becoming extinct. Is it at all strange to think that this may be directly correlated with the actions of man, if as above we can see that the organized actions of man are literally altering the entire biosphere of the planet on a global scale through quite purposeful Geoengineering? Where is the logic, the empathy, and the calvary, for we cannot live without the rest of nature? That is, unless man and nature are being fundamentally altered and with genomic precision reconstituted at the cellular level to survive as hosts within such a dystopia as is apparently being created by what is seemingly, if you will, men who may very well be parasitically infected and controlled at the cellular level. And so the question may no longer be who is causing the problems, but what is infecting the brains of the men who are causing these problems?

3) Natural Healthy Foods Are Being Outlawed. “Codex Alimentarius Austriacus,” is a collection of standards and product descriptions for a wide variety of foods developed In the Austrian-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911 as a voluntary effort between “experts” in the food industry and in universities. Though used in legal proceedings for identity and standards purposes, this collection is not legally enforceable. However, the bastardization of this effort was created into what is today known as the international Codex Alimentarius Commission, part of the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization of the United Nations, which is employed as the international food codex, or “law.” This integration as a legal overlord of food took place in Austrian law in 1975. The council was created in 1958 under the joint sponsorship of the International Commission on Agricultural Industries and the International Bureau of Analytical Chemistry. And you wonder why the ingredient list on your cereal box looks like a chemistry experiment? Today, Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Book of Food”) is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to what is food, production of that food, and what is considered safe as food. Food is one of those things in nature that are, well, pretty damn self-evident. And while it’s probably a good thing to know enough about nature to eat from it without being poisoned, the extent of what is now being labeled as “food” and “food ingredients” defies all possible logic… unless of course the parasitic infection of man is taken into consideration!!! Simply stated, if a parasite were hungry for the nutrient diet it needs to survive, it is logical and provable in nature that the parasite would control the actions of its host in order to cause the man or other host to “infect” itself with “food stuffs” that are in actuality harmful, poisonous, and even fatal to the man but promotive of the parasite. Inversely, it would be a logical conclusion to assume that the parasite would do anything within its power to cause the man to cease to ingest anything that might harm the parasite that would otherwise be beneficial to the man, especially those food stuffs that would kill or prevent the growth and viability of parasites. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion to be made if indeed mankind is suffering from an ancient, highly advanced, parasitic intelligence that controls man’s will would be to assume that those men who organize to write laws, alter the environment, and promote or ban certain food stuffs and ingredients would be the ones being controlled by said parasites so as to act against the best interests of man and nature while at the same time promoting the best interests of the parasite. The host only lives to serve the parasite, as far as the parasite is concerned. This is evident all throughout nature, which we will explore the evidence of in depth later in this essay. And so the answer to one of the many questions the reader may be seeking as to ascertain what the hell is happening in the world may rely on the readers ability to contemplate this theory. Why are foods being re-engineered and genetically altered? Why are they being changed in a way that provably causes such harm to man and nature while men in high authority positions pass laws to protect these genetic alterations? If these men are indeed parasitically controlled, then the answer to these questions is quite clear. And this even answers what seemed before to be the great unanswerable preponderance of all who are asking such questions… Why are they knowingly causing harm to their own environment? Don’t they have to live here too? What about their children’s future? Here again the only truly logical answer is parasitic infection. Some may call them psychopaths. But what if they simply have no capability to act in anyone’s best interest but their own, which is now only in the best interest of the parasite controlling their actions? To give a few examples of this subversion of foods that might harm the parasite, we can think back to the half century mark when propaganda was just starting to take flight. Butter, animal fats, and other staples of diets around the world were suddenly being demonized. Soon, synthetic food products like margarine, American cheese, and shortening were being advertised as replacements for fats. What the reader might not know is that cholesterol, that is to say what was demonized as “bad cholesterol,” is listed in many government sponsored research studies as being the essential ingredient in expelling pathogens from the body. No cholesterol means that disease may flourish. Other examples are Cannabis Sativa, which has properties shown to prevent and destroy diseases like cancer. We are currently experiencing the total genetic alteration of this miracle plant by companies like Monsanto seeking to genetically alter it so as to patent and control its use. The therapeutic uses, therefore, are being bred out of the plant and who knows what is being bred into it. Both marijuana and cholesterol are proven to prevent the spread of prion disease, but only in their natural form. Genetically altered stains will be useless for medical purposes, just as margarine is. Though countless examples persist, where the alteration or banning of foods, spices, seeds, and plants that are extremely healthy and more importantly can cure disease, are outrightly being replaced with synthetics, most of us in our right mind cannot even come close to creating a good reason why this is taking place against humanities best interests. And yet, here again, parasitic infection of the minds of those participating in this “food science” is in fact the only plausible answer. Not greed, not profits, and not ignorance. It seems no other plausible reason exists!

4. Unprecedented Technological Advancement. In 1946, ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) was unveiled as the supposed first true all-purpose electronic computer. Weighing in at 30 tons, the size of two semis, and consisting of 19,000 vacuum tubes, 6,000 switches, and requiring many human attendants to answer to incredible amounts of blinking lights. It had the capability in unheard of marvel to add 5,000 numbers in a single second! And it could predict through this powerful computation the trajectory of an artillery shell before it landed. Naturally it was government (military) funded! Just 20 years later, “the hand-held pocket calculator was invented at Texas Instruments, Incorporated (TI) in 1966, following their invention of the first integrated circuit in 1958, subsequently patented in 1964. In 1974, the miniature electronic calculator came into being along with the Texas Instruments’  patent for personal-sized, battery-operated calculators using a single integrated semiconductor circuit array or “one-chip” calculators. 12 years later, in 1986, calculators still represented an estimated 41% of the world’s general-purpose hardware capacity to compute information. Flashing forward only 21 years to 2007, calculators had reportedly been replaced by personal computers to the point that calculator use diminished to less than 0.05% use by 2007. And here we are today, with the 30 ounce computer replacing the 30 ton ENIAC in less than 70 years. Let’s compare that to the invention of the light bulb. In 1801, British inventor Humphry Davy invented an incandescent light bulb, and later created the “arc lamp” in 1809. Though many similar inventions were created over the years, it was not until 1880 (79 years later) that Joseph Wilson Swan became the first man with a house lit by a lightbulb at the same time Edison was plagiarizing his own patents for profit of what should be free energy. 78 years… And yet in today’s high tech world we are seeing technology double every few months or years. Many theories have been attributed to this impossible race of technological breakthroughs, including the reverse engineering of alien technology and even aliens themselves doing the work. But what if the aliens were merely parasites? What if the question is not which man is inventing things today so rapidly in succession, but instead we should be asking how is such sudden knowledge possible? Is it ancient knowledge? Is it parasitic infection that is driving the intent of men to create nuclear bombs, biological weapons, Geoengineering designs, genomic subversion and mapping, and the host of other inventions that go so far against nature and the self-interest of mankind that no other explanation makes any logical sense? In one year, 200 trillion bases of DNA catalogued… which was more than all previous years put together. Does that seem reasonable to you? Does anything our leaders and organizations or corporations are doing today seem reasonable or logical to you? Have you ever talked to anyone who is capable of inventing such super-advanced technology, or just the people who put the parts together and operate the machinery? Do they really know how it works? Could they re-create the technology that machines are programed to produce and manufacture today, or are they just worker bees for the parasite hive-mind? And let’s not forget to mention the strange advent of transhumanism, i.e. the genetic alteration of humans to interface with machines or synthetic biologic technologies.

While other examples could be looked at, perhaps it is time to explain just where I could possibly have gotten this strange notion from.

–=–

Meet The Family: Toxoplasmosis Rules!

–=–

This is a fascinating look into cross-species protozoan parasitic infection, which literally makes a rat act against its best interest (its own life) by making it sexually attracted to it’s most deadly enemy. It gives rewards for stupid behavior. And this parasite purposefully infects the rat just to get itself into the cat’s stomach after it eats the rat.

When toxoplasmosis infects the human brain, it also seems to create feelings of sexual reward and pleasure through dopamine production for dangerous behavior. In other words, the human is rewarded for acting against his or her best interest.

What does the government say about this?

From the CDC website we read:

Toxoplasmosis is considered to be a leading cause of death attributed to foodborne illness in the United States. More than 60 million men, women, and children in the U.S. carry the Toxoplasma parasite, but very few have symptoms because the immune system usually keeps the parasite from causing illness.

However, women newly infected with Toxoplasma during pregnancy and anyone with a compromised immune system should be aware that toxoplasmosis can have severe consequences.

Toxoplasmosis is considered one of the Neglected Parasitic Infections, a group of five parasitic diseases that have been targeted by CDC for public health action.

Source–> http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/index.html

–=–

Keep in mind that science of vaccines and the various frequency generators in our modern conveniences specifically weakens the immune system, as do many pharmaceutical drugs.

The International Scientific Times reports:

Scientists say that the Toxoplasma gondii parasite, or Toxo for short, living in 40 percent of our brains affects our sense of fear and risk-taking. Researchers found that rats, with which humans share a number of characteristics with, infected with the Toxo parasite were attracted to the smell of cat urine, instead of being afraid of it.

“Pathways that normally responded to the smell of cat urine with alarm had been damped down, while the pleasure hormone dopamine, normally released in response to female rodent urine, was now triggered by the whiff of cat,” The Telegraph reports. Scientists say it’s all part of the parasite’s way of spreading from host to host – rats that aren’t afraid of cats are more likely to be eaten by them, thereby spreading the parasite to the cat.

In human studies, the findings were similarly alarming. While men infected with the parasite were more likely to become introverted and dress down, infected women behaved just the opposite dressing up and acting more sociable. The more likely a person is to interact with others, the better chances the parasite has of passing itself on.

Joanne Webster, professor of parasite epidemiology at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph that parasites prefer the brain because it is removed from the body’s immune system and also because it gives them “direct access” to the mechanisms of behavior.

We’ve known about the Toxo parasite since the 1920s, when scientists learned that the parasite was present in the feces of cats. During the AIDS epidemic, before antiretroviral drugs were effective and more widely available, the Toxo parasite was blamed for the dementia that many AIDS patients experienced towards the end of their lives.

The idea that parasites could control human behavior was first investigated in the early 1990s by an evolutionary biologist at Charles University in Prague named Jaroslav Flegr.

There is strong psychological resistance to the possibility that human behavior can be influenced by some stupid parasite,” Flegr told the The Atlantic in March 2012.

He said he first learned of the ability of parasites to control their hosts 30 years ago after reading about how a certain flatworm can control ants by taking over their nervous systems. “It was the first I learned about this kind of manipulation, so it made a big impression on me,” Flegr said.

Source–> http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/4792/20130328/toxoplasma-gondii-brain-parasite-40-percent-infected.htm

–=–

brainworms
A human brain overrun with cysts from Taenia solium, a tapeworm that normally inhabits the muscles of pigs.

Gee… how could a pig parasite have gotten past the blood brain barrier unless it was injected?

–=–

“In terms of numbers, there are more parasitic infections
acquired in this country (United States) than in Africa.”

– Dr Frank Nova, NIH Parasitic Diseases Lab Chief

–=–

A recent issue of National Geographic came with the shocking cover story named “Real Zombies: The Strange Science of the Living Dead.”

Naturally, I was intrigued. And when I read the story, my worse fears were suddenly manifest, as it revealed some of the worst possible parasite infections in nature.

Perhaps the most shocking display of the designs that can be willed by the parasite to the host is this one:

“In Costa Rica, the orb-weaving spider Leucauge argyra will go to extravagant lengths to accommodate the needs of Hymenoepimecis argyraphaga, another freeloading wasp. The female glues its egg to the host’s body. After the larva emerges, it pokes a few holes in the spider’s abdomen and sucks its blood. When the larva has grown to full size, in a couple of weeks, the spider takes it upon itself to rip down its own web and build a new one of a radically different shape. Instead of a multistranded net designed for catching flying insects, the new web is merely a few thick cables converging at a central point. Having sucked its host dry, the larva spins its cocoon on a thread hanging from the intersection of the cables. Suspended in the air, the cocoon is nearly impossible for would-be predators to reach.”

Considering this dramatic takeover of the mind, where the spider is literally stripped of its natural instincts of survival in order to protect its unwelcome parasitic guest and thus mind-controlled to be made to demolish its own web, is it at all unreasonable to assume that this may be happening in the human population as well, which is observably and virtually doing just about the same thing?

Other documented cases include:

“A fly that infects bumblebees causes them to burrow into the ground in autumn, right before the fly emerges to form a pupa. In the ground the fly is protected not only from predators but also from the cold of winter.”

“Killifish, for example, normally stay away from the surface of the water to avoid being picked off by wading birds. But when they’re infected with flatworms known as flukes, they spend more time near the surface and sometimes roll so that their silvery bellies glint in the light. Infected killifish are far more likely to be picked off than healthy ones. And it just so happens that the gut of a bird is where the flukes need to go next to mature and reproduce.”

“Before infecting a human host, Plasmodium, the protozoan that causes malaria, spends the first stages of its life cycle in a mosquito. The mosquito needs to drink blood to survive. But this behavior poses a risk to the protozoan, because the mosquito may be crushed by the hand of an annoyed human victim, eliminating the opportunity forPlasmodium to move to the next stage of its life cycle, in the human. To reduce this risk while it is still developing in the mosquito, Plasmodium makes its host blood shy, seeking fewer victims each night and giving up faster if it can’t find a gusher of blood. Once Plasmodium has matured and is ready to enter a human host, it manipulates the mosquito’s behavior in the opposite direction. Now the mosquito grows thirsty and foolhardy, seeking out more humans each night and biting repeatedly even if it is already full. If the mosquito dies at the hand of a human, it is no longer of any consequence. Plasmodium has moved on.”

“Frederic Libersat of Ben-Gurion University and his colleagues, for example, are dissecting the sinister attacks of the jewel wasp, Ampulex compressa. The wasp stings a cockroach, transforming it into a passive zombie. The wasp can then walk its drugged victim into a burrow by the roach’s antenna, like a dog on a leash. The roach is perfectly capable of movement. It just lacks any motivation to move on its own behalf. The wasp lays an egg on the roach’s underside, and the roach simply stands there as the wasp larva emerges from the egg and digs into its abdomen. What is the secret hold that the wasp has over its victim? Libersat and his colleagues have found that the wasp delicately snakes its stinger into the roach’s brain, sensing its way to the regions that initiate movements. The wasp douses the neurons with a cocktail of neurotransmitters, which work like psychoactive drugs. Libersat’s experiments suggest that they tamp down the activity of neurons that normally respond to danger by prompting the cockroach to escape.”

“Baculoviruses, for example, infect the caterpillars of gypsy moths and a number of other species of moths and butterflies. The parasite invades its host’s cells, hijacking them to make new baculoviruses. On the outside the caterpillar appears normal, continuing to munch on leaves as before. But the food it eats is not becoming more caterpillar tissue. Instead it’s becoming more baculoviruses. When the virus is ready to leave its host, the caterpillars undergo a radical change. They become agitated, feeding without rest. And then they begin to climb. Instead of stopping in safe spots out of the way of predators, the infected caterpillars creep higher into the trees, remaining on top of leaves or on tree bark in daylight hours, when they are easily seen by predators. The baculoviruses carry genes for several enzymes. When they’re ready to leave their host, certain genes become active in caterpillar cells, producing a torrent of enzymes that dissolve the animal into goo. As the caterpillars dissolve, clumps of viruses shower down onto the leaves below, to be ingested by new caterpillar hosts. To Kelli Hoover and David Hughes of Penn State University and their colleagues, the climbing behavior of the caterpillars seemed like an exquisite example of an extended phenotype. By causing their hosts to move up in trees, the baculoviruses increased their chances of infecting a new host down below. To test Dawkins’s idea, they examined the genes in baculoviruses, to see if they could find one that controlled the climbing of caterpillars. When the researchers shut down a single gene in the virus, called egt, it continued to infect caterpillar cells and replicate as before, even turning the caterpillars to goo as before. But baculoviruses without a working copy of egt could not cause the caterpillars to climb trees. It’s unlikely that many other parasites control their hosts with a single gene; an animal’s behavior is typically influenced by a number of its own genes, each contributing a small part to the sum. So it’s probable that many parasites control their hosts with a multitude of their own genes.”

“And what of D. coccinellae and its hapless ladybug host? While at the University of Montreal, Fanny Maure and her colleagues made a startling discovery: In turning its victim into a willing bodyguard, the wasp itself may only be acting as the extended phenotype of yet another organism. The researchers found that when a wasp injects an egg into a ladybug victim, she also injects a cocktail of chemicals and other substancesincluding a virus that replicates in the wasp’s ovaries. Some evidence suggests it is this virus that immobilizes the ladybug, protecting the wasp’s cocoon from intruders. The virus and the wasp have the same evolutionary interests; turning a ladybug into a bodyguard produces more wasps, and more wasps beget more viruses. And so their genes work together to make the ladybug their puppet. The D. coccinellae wasp may not be the puppet master it once seemed. Instead it hides another puppet master within.”

Source–> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/mindsuckers/zimmer-text

–=–

Now you tell me that this wasps sting and payload as read above is not the exact description of the vaccination process!!! The wasp injects… a cocktail of chemicals and other substances…

And what could be a more sympathetic project for parasites that control their victims through gene expression than that of the Epigenome and Genome Projects?

Oh the joys of what can be created with genetic sequencing and vaccination of its result.

The author of this article also speculates that about 80% of ALL LIFE on Earth is in actuality parasitic in nature. 80%!

In our exploration of the horrors of parasitic brainwashing, let us not forget one of the most wonderfully bizarre and frightening parasitic manifestations of strange, anti-self-interest behavior…

–=–

Meet the Cordyceps

–=–

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the ant colony in its customary dealings with infected zombie ants due to the obvious manifestation of cordycep infection, is that the ants that are “in their right mind” forcibly quarantine the rest of the ant colony from the infected ant. And so you might want to ask yourself why we are not emulating nature in this regard? Why are we, that is we who are still collectively in our right minds, not at least quarantining ourselves and perhaps organizing to stop our own infected madmen from destroying our colony on Earth?

In 2010, National Geographic published an even more disturbing article and documentary movie on the notion of a real “zombie” infection in the human population:

“Zombie Virus” Possible via Rabies-Flu Hybrid?

Highly improbable genetic tweak could create mutant virus.

In the zombie flicks 28 Days Later and I Am Legend, an unstoppable viral plague sweeps across humanity, transforming people into mindless monsters with cannibalistic tendencies.

Though dead humans can’t come back to life, certain viruses can induce such aggressive, zombie-like behavior, scientists say in the new National Geographic Channel documentary The Truth Behind Zombies, premiering Saturday at 10 p.m. ET/PT. (National Geographic News is part of the National Geographic Society, which part-owns the National Geographic Channel.)

For instance, rabies—a viral disease that infects the central nervous system—can drive people to be violently mad, according to Samita Andreansky, a virologist at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine in Florida who also appears in the documentary.

Combine rabies with the ability of a flu virus to spread quickly through the air, and you might have the makings of a zombie apocalypse.

Rabies Virus Mutation Possible?

Unlike movie zombies, which become reanimated almost immediately after infection, the first signs a human has rabies—such as anxiety, confusion, hallucinations, and paralysisdon’t typically appear for ten days to a year, as the virus incubates inside the body.

Once rabies sets in, though, it’s fatal within a week if left untreated.

If the genetic code of the rabies virus experienced enough changes, or mutations, its incubation time could be reduced dramatically, scientists say.

Many viruses have naturally high mutation rates and constantly change as a means of evading or bypassing the defenses of their hosts.

There are various ways viral mutations can occur, for example through copying mistakes during gene replication or damage from ultraviolet light.

If a rabies virus can mutate fast enough, it could cause infection within an hour or a few hours. That’s entirely plausible,” Andreansky said.

Airborne Rabies Would Create “Rage Virus”

But for the rabies virus to trigger a zombie pandemic like in the movies, it would also have to be much more contagious.

Humans typically catch rabies after being bitten by an infected animal, usually a dog—and the infection usually stops there.

Thanks to pet vaccinations, people rarely contract rabies in the United States today, and even fewer people die from the disease. For example, in 2008 only two cases of human rabies infection were reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A faster mode of transmission would be through the air, which is how the influenza virus spreads.

“All rabies has to do is go airborne, and you have the rage virus” like in 28 Days Later, Max Mogk, head of the Zombie Research Society, says in the documentary. The international nonprofit is devoted to “raising the level of zombie scholarship in the Arts and Sciences,” according to their website.

To be transmitted by air, rabies would have to “borrow” traits from another virus, such as influenza.

Different forms, or strains, of the same virus can swap pieces of genetic code through processes called reassortment or recombination, said Elankumaran Subbiah, a virologist at Virginia Tech who was not involved in the documentary.

But unrelated viruses simply do not hybridize in nature, Subbiah told National Geographic News.

Likewise, it’s scientifically unheard of for two radically different viruses such as rabies and influenza to borrow traits, he said.

“They’re too different. They cannot share genetic information. Viruses assemble only parts that belong to them, and they don’t mix and match from different families.”

Engineered Zombie Virus Possible?

It’s theoretically possible—though extremely difficult—to create a hybrid rabies-influenza virus using modern genetic-engineering techniques, the University of Miami’s Andreansky said.

“Sure, I could imagine a scenario where you mix rabies with a flu virus to get airborne transmission, a measles virus to get personality changes, the encephalitis virus to cook your brain with fever”—and thus increase aggression even further—”and throw in the ebola virus to cause you to bleed from your guts. Combine all these things, and you’ll [get] something like a zombie virus,” she said.

But [nature] doesn’t allow all of these things to happen at the same time. … You’d most likely get a dead virus.”

Source–> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/1001027-rabies-influenza-zombie-virus-science/

–=–

Notice that the rule spoken over and over is that “nature” will not allow this type of recombinant mixing to happen. But let’s not forget that science isn’t interested in respecting the limits of nature, but instead seeks to conquer every aspect of it. Recombination happens in the lab, and new recombinations are patented as property of these madmen. Whether this is just human curiosity or parasitic will that is creating the insanity that is the institutional destruction of all that is sacred to man and nature unfortunately cannot be answered here. But the evidence provided here I dare say supports the very possible, even probable theory that this just might be the case.

–=–
The Thing Test
–=–

So what in the hell can we do about this if it is a reality? After all, we can’t see them if they are indeed controlling a portion of humanity.

The real question is whether an infected human would voluntarily be able to submit him or herself to any test conceived to find out! After all, such a test would be against the best interest of the parasite, and the expression of this will to stay hidden would probably be transferred to the personality of the host.

In John Carpenter’s “The Thing,” where the stranded victims could not tell who was the parasite and who was the human, they developed a test which burned the blood samples of each subject. When the parasitic blood was burned, the reaction gave evidence of infection.

–=–

So could such a test be used to detect those who are either infected or not infected?

Before I go all science fiction on you, I’d like to explore another avenue of control that may be explained by this parasitic infection of humanity. That is the notion of harmonic resonance and the spectrum of frequency.

One of the most tightly regulated areas in the world are the airwaves. The control and tuning of broadcast and other frequency is so governed and policed that the penalty for using the air without strict guidelines and permission from the state is harsh to say the least. I have often speculated, considering the history of Royal Rife, Tesla, and other researchers into the power of frequency to both heal and destroy life, including parasites, that the reasons for the “standards and practices” in broadcasting may very well be friendly to a parasitic infection, which would be in control of the regulators. With the advent of localized smart meters, cell phones, and other frequency radiation admiting and receiving devices that are provably dangerous to human health, I find myself ever more curious that we again knowingly act against our own best interest by ignoring the warnings and actual data.

It is a standard test, for instance, to use ultra-sound frequency in autopsy to literally activate and excite prions which in turn start mis-folding the healthy brain prions, infecting what is left of the healthy brain. This method is a specific frequency that benefits prions, and so the assumption is that there would also be an equal and opposite reaction with other specific ultra-sound ranges of frequency. Royal Rife certainly proved this to be the case with many organisms, speculating that all life had both health and death frequency ranges.

And so I musingly wonder if maybe, just maybe, it could very well be frequency that might be our Thing test.

Perhaps the foreshadowing of this in many science fiction movies may prevent us from realizing the reality of the fiction. After all, when Mars Attacks, no body really believes this can happen:

–=–

The alteration of the tuning of instruments is an interesting story, with the usual players. Rockafeller interests funded the United Nations in New York City, and thus within was spawned the International Standards Organization (ISO) based in London. From this organization was set the new global standard in musical tuning, from the harmonious and Biblical mathematical perfection of the healthy 432 hz to the now standard 440 hz, which is not harmonic with human health and vibration.

The very interesting history can be found here: https://atrueott.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/why-christians-and-worship-teams-should-tune-all-instruments-to-432-hz-and-abandon-440-hz/

So why the push to directly alter what was a standard tuning for generations?

Again, I can only state here that parasitic infection is a plausible answer to all of these questions.

After all this, one thing is certain. Mere conjecture as is posited here is not going to change anything. If indeed this theory is correct, we literally would have a war on our hands to save what remains of the natural order.

–=–
Archon Love
–=–

One final word about this theory… It’s not really mine.

While I am providing the evidence to support it, the truth is that this notion of mind parasites dates back for many centuries and from many different sources. The gnostics warned about these archons as demented mind parasites long ago. In my understanding, even the Bible warns not to cross species and races, perhaps even for this reason of creating unnatural chimeras. And yet here we are, cannibalizing our unborn like junkie freebasers, but for therapeutic reasons of course! Again I state that no one in their right mind would allow a doctor to inject human or animal proteins and DNA into their own body, especially aborted fetal tissue. But who among us is in their right minds? Logically, is it the vaccine user and abuser, or the “clean” vaccine opponent? The answer, it seems to me, lies microscopically within the very syringe in question.

The word archon is translated from Greek to mean ruler or lord, and sometimes master. The word is used to describe past kings, law-givers, and gods. But there is a more important translation I want to bring forward here…

Archaeon (är’kē-ŏn’) – Plural archaea – 

Any of a group of microorganisms that resemble bacteria but are different from
them in certain aspects of their chemical structure, such as the composition of their
cell walls. Archaea usually live in extreme, often very hot or salty environments,
such as hot mineral springs or deep-sea hydrothermal vents, but some are also
found in animal digestive 
systemsThe archaea are considered a separate
kingdom
 in some classifications, but a division of the prokaryotes (Monera) in
others. Some scientists believe that archaea were the earliest forms of
cellular 
life. Also called archaebacterium.

–The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

–=–

This is the story of the extremophile, including virtually indestructible prions. Extremophiles hate oxygen. They hate just about any environment that is healthy for human and animal life. Be it volcanos, hot springs, methane pockets, or deep freezes, the extremophile thrives in the antithesis of what we enjoy. It is important to note that with all of our meddling, the oxygen levels of the Earth are also shrinking away, again creating a more parasite friendly environment for these extremophiles while, not ironically, causing more disease susceptibility and infect-ability in humans. Just another modern global event that can certainly be explained by parasites. But nothing to see here, right?

Form the Encyclopedia Britanica we read the entry for archaea:

In some systems for classifying all of life, the archaea constitute one of three great domains of living creatures. In 1977 American microbiologist Carl Woese, on the basis of analyses of ribosomal RNA, proposed that the prokaryotes, long considered to be a single group of organisms (essentially, the bacteria), actually consist of two separate lineages. Woese called these two lineages the eubacteria and the archaebacteria. These names were subsequently changed to bacteria and archaea (the archaea being distinctly different from bacteria), but Woese’s splitting of the prokaryotes into two groups has remained, and all living organisms are now considered by many biologists to fall into one of three great domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Further molecular analysis has shown that domain Archaea consists of two major subdivisions, the Crenarchaeota and the Euryarchaeota, and two minor ancient lineages, the Korarchaeota and the Nanoarchaeota.

Habitats of the archaea

Archaea are microorganisms that define the limits of life on Earth. They were originally discovered and described in extreme environments, such as hydrothermal vents and terrestrial hot springs. They were also found in a diverse range of highly saline, acidic, and anaerobic environments.

Although many of the cultured archaea are extremophiles, these organisms in their respective extreme habitats represent only a minority of the total diversity of the Archaea domain. The majority of archaea cannot be cultured within the laboratory setting, and their ubiquitous presence in global habitats has been realized through the use of culture-independent techniques. One commonly used culture-independent technique is the isolation and analysis of nucleic acids (i.e., DNA and RNA) directly from an environment, rather than the analysis of cultured samples isolated from the same environment. Culture-independent studies have shown that archaea are abundant and fulfill important ecological roles in cold and temperate ecosystems. Uncultivated organisms in the subdivision Crenarchaeota are postulated to be the most abundant ammonia-oxidizing organisms in soils and to account for a large proportion (roughly 20 percent) of the microorganisms present in the picoplankton in the world’s oceans. In the subdivision Euryarchaeota, uncultivated organisms in deep-sea marine sediments are responsible for the removal of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, via anaerobic oxidation of methane stored in these sediments. In contrast, uncultivated methanogenic (methane-producing) euryarchaea from terrestrial anaerobic environments, such as rice fields, are estimated to generate approximately 10–25 percent of global methane emissions.

The cultured representatives of the Crenarchaeota are from high-temperature environments, such as hot springs and submarine hydrothermal vents. Likewise, cultured members of the Euryarchaeota include organisms isolated from hot environments, organisms that are methanogenic, and organisms that grow vigorously in high-salt environments (halophiles). Organisms in the lineages Korarchaeota andNanoarchaeota also inhabit high-temperature environments; however, the nanoarchaea are highly unusual because they grow and divide on the surface of another archaea, Ignicoccus. Nanoarchaea, which were discovered in 2002, contain both the smallest known living cell (1/100th the size of Escherichia coli) and the smallest known genome (480 kilobases [1 kilobase = 1,000 base pairs of DNA]; for comparison, the human genome contains 3 million kilobases). Members of the Korarchaeota and Nanoarchaeota have not been detected in pure culture; rather, they have been detected only in mixed laboratory cultures.

Archaea are also found living in association with eukaryotes; for example, methanogenic archaea are present in the digestive systems of some animals, including humans. Some archaea also form symbiotic relationships with sponges; in fact, Cenarchaeum symbiosum was grown in the laboratory with its host sponge and was the first nonthermophilic Crenarchaeota to be cultured and described.

–=–

How many times have you heard the notion that a healthy human body must be in balance between acidic and alkaline Ph levels, and that disease flourishes in an acidic environment? Well so do archons (archaea). They like methane. They like extreme environments. They like stomach acid.

But more importantly they don’t like oxygen, they don’t like ozone, and thrive in anaerobic environments. Thus one curative measure might be to flood the body with the purest of oxygen, or to commit to oxygen therapy where the blood is oxygenated outside the body and reinserted. The trend and sophist popularity of anti-oxydents is suspect as well for these reasons. You can listen to my interviews with Mr. Oxygen (Ed McCabe) here:

Show #1 Ed McCabe (Mr. Oxygen):
https://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/show140_may12.mp3

Show #2 Ed McCabe (Mr. Oxygen):
https://corporationnationradioarchives.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/show145_may19.mp3

His websites:

http://www.mroxygen.org/

http://oxygenhealth.com/

http://www.ozoneuniversity.com/index.html

Archaea are ancient forms of life compared to us. They are an RNA-based life form. It is RNA that controls the DNA switches of the epigenome. And the intelligence of this kingdom and domain of life is not measurable within the limited communication structure of man. We are indeed competitive life forms.

For a basic model of the communication and control that encoded RNA expresses over DNA, and how this archaea RNA life form might intercept that communication through transcription to control the host body, here is the technical jargon:

DNA transcription is a process that involves transcribing genetic information from DNA toRNA. The transcribed DNA message, or RNA transcript, is used to produce proteins. DNA is housed within the nucleus of our cells. It controls cellular activity by coding for the production of proteins. The information in DNA is not directly converted into proteins, but must first be copied into RNA. This ensures that the information contained within the DNA does not become tainted. DNA consists of four nucliotide bases [adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T) ] that are paired together (A-T and C-G) to give DNA its double helical shape. Nucleotide base sequences are the genetic code or instructions for protein synthesis.

Elongation – Certain proteins called transcription factors unwind the DNA strand and allow RNA polymerase to transcribe only a single strand of DNA into a single stranded RNA polymer called messenger RNA (mRNA). The strand that serves as the template is called the antisense strand. The strand that is not transcribed is called the sense strand. Like DNA, RNA is composed of nucleotide bases. RNA however, contains the nucleotides adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil (U). When RNA polymerase transcribes the DNA, guanine pairs with cytosine and adenine pairs with uracil.

Termination – RNA polymerase moves along the DNA until it reaches a terminator sequence. At that point, RNA polymerase releases the mRNA polymer and detaches from the DNA.

There are three main steps to the process of DNA transcription.

RNA Polymerase Binds to DNA – DNA is transcribed by an enzyme called RNA polymerase. Specific nucleotide sequences tell RNA polymerase where to begin and where to end. RNA polymerase attaches to the DNA at a specific area called the promoter region. Since proteins are constructed in the cytoplasm of the cell, mRNA must cross the nuclear membrane to reach the cytoplasm. Once in the cytoplasm, ribosomes and another RNA molecule called transfer RNA work together to translate mRNA into a protein. This process is called translation . Proteins can be manufactured in large quantities because a single DNA sequence can be transcribed by many RNA. Protein synthesis is accomplished through a process called translation. After DNA is transcribed into a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule during transcription, the mRNA must be translated to produce a protein. In translation, mRNA along with transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomes work together to produce proteins.

Protein Synthesis: Transfer RNA – Transfer RNA plays a huge role in protein synthesis and translation. Its job is to translate the message within the nucleotide sequence of mRNA to a specific amino acid sequence. These sequences are joined together to form a protein. Transfer RNA is shaped like a clover leaf with three loops. It contains an amino acid attachment site on one end and a special section in the middle loop called the anticodon site. The anticodon recognizes a specific area on a mRNA called a codon.

Protein Synthesis: Messenger RNA Modifications – Translation occurs in the cytoplasm . After leaving the nucleus , mRNA must undergo several modifications before being translated. Sections of the mRNA that do not code for amino acids, called introns, are removed. A poly-A tail, consisting of several adenine bases, is added to one end of the mRNA, while a guanosine triphosphate cap is added to the other end. These modifications remove unneeded sections and protect the ends of the mRNA molecule. Once all modifications are complete, mRNA is ready for translation.

Protein Synthesis – Translation – Once mRNA has been modified and is ready for translation, it binds to a specific site on a ribosome . Ribosomes consist of two parts, a large subunit and a small subunit. They contain a binding site for mRNA and two binding sites for tRNA located in the large ribosomal subunit. During translation, a small ribosomal subunit attaches to a mRNA molecule. At the same time an initiator tRNA molecule recognizes and binds to a specific codon sequence on the same mRNA molecule. A large ribosomal subunit then joins the newly formed complex. The initiator tRNA resides in one binding site of the ribosome called the P site, leaving the second binding site, the A site, open. When a new tRNA molecule recognizes the next codon sequence on the mRNA, it attaches to the open A site. A peptide bond forms connecting the amino acid of the tRNA in the P site to the amino acid of the tRNA in the A binding site.

As the ribosome moves along the mRNA molecule, the tRNA in the P site is released and the tRNA in the A site is translocated to the P site. The A binding site becomes vacant again until another tRNA that recognizes the new mRNA codon takes the open position. This pattern continues as molecules of tRNA are released from the complex, new tRNA molecules attach, and the amino acid chain grows. The ribosome will translate the mRNA molecule until it reaches a termination codon on the mRNA. When this happens, the growing protein called a polypeptide chain is released from the tRNA molecule and the ribosome splits back into large and small subunits. The newly formed polypeptide chain undergoes several modifications before becoming a fully functioning protein. Proteins have a variety of functions . Some will be used in the membrane of the cell, while others will remain in the cytoplasm or be transported out of the cell. Many copies of a protein can be made from one mRNA molecule. This is because several ribosomes can translate the same mRNA molecule at the same time. These clusters of ribosomes that translate a single mRNA sequence are called polyribosomes or polysomes.

Source–> http://biology.about.com/od/cellularprocesses/ss/Dna-Transcription.htm

–=–

For the tech-savvy mind, we can read government sponsored research about signal transcription and communication between RNA archaea and human DNA here. It is very important to understand that this type of research is in mass and ongoing, and is very concerning when considering again our theory. Who or what is guiding these studies and for what purpose? And the real mind bending question becomes: Could man do this and other research and invention without a little help from his archaeon friends?

Determinants of transcription initiation by archaeal RNA polymerase.

Abstract

Transcription in Archaea is catalyzed by an RNA polymerase that is most similar to eukaryotic RNA polymerases both in subunit composition and in transcription initiation factor requirements. Recent studies on archaeal transcription in diverse members of this domain have contributed new details concerning the functions of promoters and transcription factors in guiding initiation by RNA polymerase, and phylogenetic arguments have allowed modeling of archaeal transcription initiation complexes by comparison with recently described models of eukaryotic and bacterial transcription initiation complexes. Important new advances in reconstitution of archaeal transcription complexes from fully recombinant components is permitting testing of hypotheses derived from and informed by these structural models, and will help bring the study of archaeal transcription to the levels of understanding currently enjoyed by bacterial and eukaryotic RNA polymerase II transcription.

Source–> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249119

 –=–

Transcription factor B contacts promoter DNA near the transcription start site of the archaeal transcription initiation complex.

Abstract

Transcription initiation in all three domains of life requires the assembly of large multiprotein complexes at DNA promoters before RNA polymerase (RNAP)-catalyzed transcript synthesis. Core RNAP subunits show homology among the three domains of life, and recent structural information supports this homology. General transcription factors are required for productive transcription initiation complex formation. The archaeal general transcription factors TATA-element-binding protein (TBP), which mediates promoter recognition, and transcription factor B (TFB), which mediates recruitment of RNAP, show extensive homology to eukaryal TBP and TFIIB. Crystallographic information is becoming available for fragments of transcription initiation complexes (e.g. RNAP, TBP-TFB-DNA, TBP-TFIIB-DNA), but understanding the molecular topography of complete initiation complexes still requires biochemical and biophysical characterization of protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions. In published work, systematic site-specific protein-DNA photocrosslinking has been used to define positions of RNAP subunits and general transcription factors in bacterial and eukaryal initiation complexes. In this work, we have used systematic site-specific protein-DNA photocrosslinking to define positions of RNAP subunits and general transcription factors in an archaeal initiation complex. Employing a set of 41 derivatized DNA fragments, each having a phenyl azide photoactivable crosslinking agent incorporated at a single, defined site within positions -40 to +1 of the gdh promoter of the hyperthermophilic marine archaea, Pyrococcus furiosus (Pf), we have determined the locations of PfRNAP subunits PfTBP and PfTFB relative to promoter DNA. The resulting topographical information supports the striking homology with the eukaryal initiation complex and permits one major new conclusion, which is that PfTFB interacts with promoter DNA not only in the TATA-element region but also in the transcription-bubble region, near the transcription start site. Comparison with crystallographic information implicates the PfTFB N-terminal domain in the interaction with the transcription-bubble region. The results are discussed in relation to the known effects of substitutions in the TFB and TFIIB N-terminal domains on transcription initiation and transcription start-site selection.

Source–> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14597623

–=–

In biology, the word homology as used in this study refers to the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different species. In other words, RNA archaea can interact with DNA humans. We are compatible in a parasite-to-host kind of way. If that still isn’t clear, the archons can control us like puppets by utilizing transcription factors in the DNA transcription (communication) process of transfer RNA in protien syntheses.

This is a little bit like explaining the way a computer works in its communication by viewing the movie TRON. In the human body, this communication process of transcription that creates who we are and what our intentions will be manifested as is a bit like writing a book. The RNA must enconde the DNA and thus send various proteins throughout the body, be it for the immune response or cognitive response. These proteins are small enough to penetrate the brain.

So what is the difference between these cells, and why should we be concerned that archaeon RNA is most similar to eukaryotic RNA in regards to this transcription process?

Cells in our world come in two basic types, prokaryotic and eukaryotic. “Karyose” comes from a Greek word which means “kernel,” as in a kernel of grain. In biology, we use this word root to refer to the nucleus of a cell. “Pro” means “before,” and “eu” means “true,” or “good.” So “Prokaryotic” means “before a nucleus,” and “eukaryoticmeanspossessing a true nucleus.” This is a big hint about one of the differences between these two cell types. Prokaryotic cells have no nuclei, while eukaryotic cells do have true nuclei.

Source–> http://www.cod.edu/PEOPLE/FACULTY/FANCHER/ProkEuk.htm

–=–

Could the archaea be attributed with other qualities as well, such as king-maker? Does it explain the bloodlines and blood-types of the kings and popes being exclusively Rh-, and are the archons passed from one infected generation to to the next? Can publications like the Talmud and the Authorized King James Bible be the manifestation of this control factor? What about non-linear, 4rth generation, and other modern warfare methods, as expressed in such documents as Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars and the Iron Mountain Report? Can it explain the notion of the usurious corruption in banking, government, and religion, where vast designs of enslavement and control of the mind are institutionalized in ways that seem so incredibly convoluted and hidden that they would be impossible for man to invent? Does it explain the subversion of all that is good and nurturing in nature?

In conclusion, it seems we are in a tough position. I can only appeal to logic and reason here by providing the verifiable facts that make up the outline of this theory, and yet those traits have seemingly been hammered out of the majority of us through the very entertaining science fiction and fantasy genres that apparently reveal this reality over and over through a similitude of variations in story-telling. It’s a perfect way to hide things in plain sight if you think about it. Even the phrase conspiracy theory may be used here, though its user should be poked with a stick and examined for sanity and for brain parasites when considering that the conspiracy referred to would be responsible for the cognitive dissonance of that fallacious name-caller. I sometimes wonder if that blank stare and disconnect from reality that appears in peoples eyes when speaking to them about reality and possibility and the lines in the sky that form clouds is not some chemically induced archaeon response mechanism to keep its host in the dark about itself, like the toxoplasmosis pleasure response for stupid behavior. But I can only speculate…

And perhaps in the end that is the most frightening aspect of this whole theory. For, like the pod-people from The Body Snatchers, these seemingly psychopathic scientists, doctors, biologists, and Geoengineers would never be allowed by their parasitic infection to allow a “clean,” parasite-free person to challenge this theory in search of proof for it with funding or legitimacy for research. We would be spotted immediately; if not only for our uncontrolled, inquisitive minds in asking simply why?

If anything, this would make a fine script for a science fiction story. If only we could guess the way to a happy ending…

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, February 4rth, 2015

I Am Not The People, And Neither Are You


It is the greatest of fallacies; indeed it might be the greatest public relations stunt ever conceived. It cannot be defined. It cannot be touched or spoken to. It cannot be seen. It has no substance.

And yet we as individuals identify ourselves as it with perfectly unhindered irrationality, while at the same time never being able to grasp its totality of non-existence. It is used to describe every last one of us, even when it singles out one of us to bully and plunder. It represents the basis of the entire structure of power over us, while at the same time somehow being us. And the power of it has created the most impressive false dialectic ever conceived in the history of the world.

Monarchies and dictatorships are surely envious of it, for even the most violent of militarized tyrannies cannot match the shear driving force of the consent of it. And all who oppose it have learned that no power in the world, including an act of God, seems to be able to stop it.

So just what is it?

It is the ambiguous title of “the People.”

In its most surreal application, the People is most often used to cause a lack of tangible responsibility for the actions of the People. Like the Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde model, the men and women that make up the citizenry of government can simply blame the government for everything done in the People’s name, even though it was supposedly done with the consent of the governed. For the government, the men and women that make up that legislature and Executive branch can simply blame the citizenry for giving their consent as the governed People, never admitting that their own actions (which are often despite the actual People’s will) were anything but the will of the People.

Either way, it seems, no one is ever to blame for the actions of the People because the People simply does not exist.

Does the People cast a shadow? Can the People be touched or seen? Can the People actually only speak with one voice, considering it supposedly equates to all the citizens in the nation? Can the elected officials somehow be the People despite the rest of the People just because those People voted for the legislators to be the voice of the People?

Just who, in the end, do you suppose is taking responsibility as the actual People? Is it the president? Is he the People when He decides to act as the People without actually consulting the People? Is the entire citizenry of People thus responsible as a collective People for the actions of the president acting as the People?

–=–
The People vs. The People
–=–

I can just imagine it… where all parties claiming to be the People actually go into arbitration so as to decide just who is in actuality responsible for the actions of government. It would be more devious than a divorce case, more televised than the O.J. Simpson case, and more flippant than a cat in a hot tub.

The common People would claim that the government committed a crime. The government would then counter-claim that the People voted for government, and therefore the crime was in the name of the People. But, so argues the attorney for the voting People, government is acting without consulting the People in its actions. To which government’s Attorney General retorts that the People gave consent for the government to act as the People in all things political, which really means that government is the spirit of the People. Nay, nay, says the common People’s representative, for the People have voiced in private and have called and sent petitions to these re-presentations of the People in government and spoken their individual opinions of government’s actions, and a majority of the People do not approve of government’s actions while acting as the People. And still in stalemate defiance, the government would claim that while the People certainly have the right to individually voice their personal opinions under the doctrine of “free speech”, says the Attorney General for the United States (i.e. the People), the People (government) is certainly not required in any way to consider the People’s (any citizen’s) individual opinions on the actions of government (the People)…

And at this point, Judge Judy slams her gavel down in Talmudic entropy and declares a mistrial due to irreconcilable differences in sameness.

And when the opinions of the case are written into case law, it would read that no distinction could be established in either separating the government from the People or the People from government, and that no individual citizen could claim to be the People, for all the People cannot be manifest in just one common person. Finally, it is the courts opinion that no individual or group of persons can claim to be the actual full body of People, because the People is a plural title for a singular body politic called the People. Therefore, only government can call itself the People, despite the fact that government is merely a fiction of law with no substance, and so the People cannot in fact sue the government for the government is in fact and in title actually the People.

Final decision: the case cannot exist because the People cannot sue the People. The government cannot sue itself. The People, therefore, must submit to the will of the People.

Here exists the hand of the People,
claiming to exist despite its non-existence,
presenting its own representation.

–=–
Say What?
–=–

If the above is confusing for you, ask yourself a few questions….

Are you a People? Is there any way that the word People can be a singular term that refers to only one man or woman?

Is government a People? Inasmuch as Walmart is a corporation, and the entire staff, board, CEO, shareholders, and owners could loosely be called a People, then yes.

Is government the People? How can government be all of us People if we are not voting for the actions or laws created by the small group of People in government?

Sure, we vote for which persons will inhabit government, but those People never ask permission from the rest of the People who voted for them when they pass laws on the People’s behalf. But if the government (the People) is able to put the responsibility of its actions on the entirety of all the People, then is it any wonder that the People never punish the People in government for crimes against the People?

Trying to figure out just what the People is at this point is like looking at an infinite, self-similar fractal. The beginning and the ending of just what the People is can never be truly be ascertained. And just when you think you have it figured out, you realize the paradox that its true quantitative power is that it is an equation with no solution – an impossible perfection of the political corruption of natural reason and logic.

 

Don’t get lost

–=–

How can such a nonsensical word as the People have been foisted upon the masses of men, who self-identify as both an individual sentient being and a fictional plural construct? How can hundreds of millions of men be convinced that they are not men but legally a single hive-minded political term known as the People? And from that experiential belief, how were so many strong-willed men able to be convinced that We, the People is the creator of all things and all laws, and that even though they are supposedly one of the People, the People can somehow single one of the individual People out and sue, fine, tax, punish, imprison, and even put to death that individual all in the name of that great god called We, the People? Amazingly, even as individual sentient beings, we still consider and address ourselves not as our selves, but as the whole People. I am We. We am I.

And therein lies the greatest word magic and trickery ever spell-cast. For by saying I am We, the People, a man is really saying I am of government. I am a fictional representation of myself. I am an individual fictional person and one of the fictional People at the same time? I am not man. I have no voice. I am totally controllable. I am a creation of government

Literally, my will is the People’s will, and so therefore the People’s will tells me my will, whether I like it or not, and whether the People them-selves like it or not. Cause there are no real People, just a bunch of subjects called persons. It’s all just a fiction. Just a name. A big lie.

–=–
Maxim’s Of Law:
–=–

“The creator controls.”

“A thing similar is not exactly the same.”

“One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury.”

“He who consents cannot receive an injury.”

“Consent removes or obviates a mistake.”

“The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.”

“Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supercedes such understanding as the law would imply.”

“No one can sue in the name of another.”

“It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.”

“A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true.”

“Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.”

“Whoever does anything by the command of a judge (magistrate/We, the People as god) is not reckoned to have done it with an evil intent, because it is necessary to obey.”

“Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial (magistrative) authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounded duty to obey.”

 –=–

Why can’t anyone get in trouble by the law for crimes against humanity? Because People aren’t men! A man acting in person as one of the People has the permission of the People to do what the People tell the person to do on behalf of the People. In other words, if the People are sovereign, and a sovereign knows no law above it, then the People have no real law when acting as the sovereign We, the People, and pretend to operate their crimes under the law of the People! This is the simulacra and simulation of the People and of government. The People is a copy with no (living) original. The government is similar to the law but not the law; a simulation of God. This is the fractal reality of a great and powerful lie, the underlying law being truly that of anything goes.

Who, what, where, when, and how is the People?
Will the real People please stand up?

–=–

People is a fiction of law. The law, however, assumes that the fiction (People) is non-fiction (Mankind), and that therefore the fiction is true in the eyes of the law. The law says that all of mankind are a single People. Man acting as persons of the People (government) are acting in another name (in the name of the People), and so man acting in the name of or as the People can certainly not sue the government, for the government is the People, and the People cannot sue the People itself, and so this makes somehow a functional paradox we call justice.

The People cannot really complain to government, which claims to be doing the will of the People, because again the People cannot complain about the People. They are the same thing. One single body politic. On individual thing. E pluibus unum. One world order is merely a one world People of the same world government (the People). Individual nations are called “state’s” of the United Nations, and the member nations will just be the new People of the One World Nation. For ultimately, in a global government, the People that is the United States will only be considered one individual person in the United Nations.

Now don’t be confused, for it is easy to fall into the fractal trap of this word porn. A diehard “We, the People” person that just can’t imagine not being regarded as a plural and thus actually be responsible for his own actions despite the People he identifies himself as, and therefore as a real non-dependent man, is no longer able to blame government or his mistaken identity he calls the People for his or her own inaction; somehow blaming all other People as opposed to himself while simultaneously believing that he is indeed one of the People which he himself blames. Damn People!

Whoa there!

Seriously, before the fractal gets way out of hand (Mandelbrot would be so proud), let’s make sure that this whole diatribe isn’t just some modern abstract from a fractal crack-head’s dream…

Let’s see what this word People means in the legal books:

PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.]1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. 2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons. The knowing artist may judge better than the people 3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank. Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor, And strive to gain his pardon from the people 4. Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community; as country people 5. Persons in general; any persons indefinitely; like on in French, and man in Saxon. 6. A collection or community of animals. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer. Proverbs 30:25. 7. When people signified a separate nation or tribe, it has the plural number. Thou must prophesy again before many peoples. Revelation 10:11. 8. In Scripture, fathers or kindred. Genesis 25:8. 9. The Gentiles. –To him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10. – verb transitive  – To stock with inhabitants. Emigrants from Europe have peopled the United States. (–Webster’s 1828)

PEOPLEA state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacityThe aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state… In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors… In neutrality laws, a government recognized by the United States. The word “people” may have various signification according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction an to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that select and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government. (–Black’s 4rth Edition)

PEOPLE – Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power; the qualified voters. The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others to the state in its sovereign capacity. The United States government proceeds directly, from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people. It is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” Under our system, the “people,” who in England are called “subjects,” constitute the sovereign. The simple word “people”  is sometimes applied to a nation or foreign power. When the constitution of a State directs that processes shall run in the name of the State, a process in the name of the “people” will be held deficient, notwithstanding the form be statutory.” See Citizen; Country; Government; Lex, Salus, etc.; Magistrate; Nation; Sovereignty; State, Welfare. (–W.C. Anderson 1889)

–=–

Ever wonder why a petition never seems to work? That’s because a petition is not created by all the People, but only by some persons. Persons are not the People. In other words, a petition may be considered as legal evidence, but not as the will of the People. The People is a legal concept that the People can’t seem to access, though We are supposedly the People.

PETITION – A written address, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license.

PRAYERThe request contained in a bill in equity that the court will grant the process, aid, or relief which the complainant desires. Also, by extension, the term is applied to that part of the bill which contains this request.

PRAYER – chancery pleadings. That part of a bill which asks for relief. 2. The skill of the solicitor is to be exercised in framing this part of the bill. An accurate specification of the matters to be decreed in complicated cases, requires great discernment and experience; it is varied as the case is made out, concluding always with a prayer of general relief, at the discretion of the court.

–=–

We pray to the court, because the court is the god, an other word for magistrate, which is another word for government as the People. The court represents We, the People against us, either wholly or as individuals or corporations. We as individuals or groups, associations, or corporations are never addressing the court as the People, it is the Court that is addressing us as the People, because government is the People. It is impossible for the People to sue the court because the court is the People. The court offers the opinion of the People. All we can do is pray to that magi-god in a black robe for remedy. The word prayer has been modernly re-named into “pleading.” The People need not plead, for the court is the People.

–=–
The Chicken Or The Egg?
–=–

I’m not sure how many other ways I can say this, but it should be clear that I, you, we, and us is not the People. It’s a physical impossibility, which is part of the strategy of control. The government knows that the People can never be together in one room, acting as its true self – all the millions of actual voters. It’s a gloriously impossible feat. And that’s why the legal god that has been named the We, the People as a representation of the People is so powerful and seemingly immutable.

The only last fallacy to be consumed in the fire of this fractal debtor’s hell is to dispel the notion that the People created the government. Here again, the romantic patriotic view is that the People all voted for the constitution. Of course this is a verifiable untruth. Very few of the People could vote, because they weren’t good enough to vote due to blood, status, lack of land-holdings, and of course color. The People who created the constitution were clear on this 3/5ths of a point, which makes it humorous to see a patriotic “negro” man eager to wave the flag.

While it is accurate to say that the group of Free-masonic men who signed the constitution were certainly a specific, proper noun group of People, it is not accurate to say that they were all the People of the entire nation, any more than it is accurate to say that the legislature actually represents the will of every person in the United States as the People. It is more accurate to say that the individual states as body politics’ were the things that made up the People, and not the men within acting as citizens, slaves, and voluntary or involuntary servants. The People, as defined above, are the states of the nation and therefore is the nation itself. That’s not real People, that’s just an incorporated thing. An idol. A god.

How could there have been a People if there was no nation? Was there a specific day that all men became the People? They certainly weren’t natural born at the time they became the People. Could the People of a nation exist before the nation was created? Obviously, if none of us out here can represent the People in court, then we are not really the People.

If government disappeared tomorrow, there would be no place for the People to legally appear as a legal body. For the People only exist as and in a fictional jurisdiction. Government creates and becomes the People, and the creator controls.

And so I end this puzzling commentary with one last question…

When are you going to quit denying the beauty and wonder of your uniqueness and individuality, quit denying your personal responsibility, and quit letting evil men commit atrocious crimes against all the men and creatures of the Earth in your name – in the name of the god of We, the People?

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, January 15th, 2015

The Absurdity Of Modern Free Speech


In light of yet another Talmudic spectacle of intentional despoilment of any respect America might have left in the world, isn’t it time to admit that from within the arsenal of complex patriotic weapons used as universal excuses for downright bad behavior, the free speech card has been well overplayed?

Watching the people of America being strung along like fiddles in quite forced romantic support for an at best mediocre movie before its release through a poorly-staged conspiracy worthy only of the lowest freak show display was painful. Despite the false dialectic of public outcry created by the now infamous ‘corporations are people too’ comment by Mitt Romney last election cycle – ridiculous not in its insanity but in its utterly soul-saturating truth – the collective dichotomy has now been sublimely shifted into supporting a corporation’s free speech in its release of a mainstream movie. For the doctrine of free speech is equally yoked in natural and artificial persons, thanks to the virtually unlimited exceptionalism given to the chartered 1st amendment.

No such demand would have been artificially created, plugged, and asserted through the magic of media trickery if the movie at question would have been a true historical documentary relating to a sympathetic view of Hitler and the easily proved false-history pertaining to the so-called “Holocaust.” In fact, even the very thought of public support for “free speech” as an excuse for the desire of making and releasing such a documentary film without protest or political barrier, provable as every fact would be, is a generally repugnant public opinion. For when push comes to shove, the responsibility that is implied in the creation of and thus use of this notion of free speech is being disappeared and then reappeared in the legal setting whenever it serves the interests of powerful men in their rewriting of current and past history.

Would a “comedy” put forth by the same two Jewish film-maker/actors and by the same Jewish-run media corporations with the plot of assassinating specifically the current President Obama through clandestine, covet means be acceptable free speech as well in this free speech society? By the current standards regarding “The Interview” movie it would. How about a snuff film about stabbing Mother Theresa to a bloody pulp with a crucifix, or better yet a splintery Dreidel? Does the amorphous, ambiguous term “free speech” also somehow protect such efforts in the purview of public opinion?

The question I pose today is a difficult one… Is free speech really to be considered an unrequited absolute?

Bearing in mind that the term “free speech” is not in any way defined in its constitutional proclamation in the articled 1st amendment, does the rational man truly believe that this is the legal version of anything goes? Can there be law without a foundation of some moral compass as a limit to the absoluteness of that law, especially when we consider that we are all forced to accept that even the most immoral speech is publicly acceptable because public opinion says all speech must be free and accepted?

And how soon will the element of freedom turn into the chains of subjection as the gavel of the supreme court resounds the new law that free speech and expression of opinion about certain Zionist factions only equals hate speech, as has happened in so many other “civilized” nations?

From both a logical and Biblical perspective, the answer is touted in support of the duties invoked by natural law (God’s law-order) to do no harm rather than to just accept this supposed unabashed liberty-without-responsibility assumed in the modern interpretations of constitutional theory. Here, Rousas John Rushdoony says it best in his foreshadowing warnings:

–=–

“…[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.”

“Whenever freedom is made into the absolute, the result is not freedom but anarchism. Freedom must be under law, or it is not freedom…. Only a law-order which holds to the primacy of God’s law can bring forth true freedom, freedom for justice, truth, and godly life. Freedom as an absolute is simply an assertion of man’s “right” to be his own god; this means a radical denial of God’s law-order. “Freedom” thus is another name for the claim by man to divinity and autonomy. It means that man becomes his own absolute”

–Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law
(The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581, 583–

–=–

As a rational man or woman, can the reader truly accept that this simple term “freedom of speech” was intended to equate to freedom from responsibility, ethics, respect, and from the very notion of the law itself? Can laws against such freedom of speech such as slander and perjury truly be subservient and bypassed by the right to free speech itself?

We have certainly defined the word freedom before on this blog, and so we know that political freedom is under the state of a false legal capacity. No matter which dictionary of law and court opinion we open, we find the same definition of the term.

FREEDOMLiberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. –Bouvier’s 1856

FREEDOM – The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen. –Black’s Law 1st

–=–

The fact is that this notion of “free speech” in the constitution needs to be taken for its intent, not in its stretched out modern usage as an excuse for immorality and irresponsibility.

To be free in speech means to not be forced to say something against your will. This negative right, with regards to the legal setting, is designed to avoid false witness under coercion and to avoid self-incrimination, which means that the law cannot harm a man for speaking his mind or even the truth as a defendant or witness. Here though is assumed a sense of personal control and responsibility with our speech that it should not defame or arbitrarily defraud another, which the laws are clear to punish in perjury. And this free speech doctrine was not intended to apply to all aspects of personal life, only to political ones regarding rights and duties.

Does this specific notion of freedom from being forced to say something against ones will really imply too that a man (as a citizen) must thus allow any degrading, debilitating, slanderous opinion or untruth to be uttered at any time, tossing personal responsibility out the window while hiding under the false notion that all speech is protected by the god of the constitution; the god without substance known as We, The People?

This author believes the answer here to be no, at least with regards to the intent of the notion of what this doctrine of freedom of speech is with intent designed to protect. The concept of law is not designed to be used to force all speech upon others, any more than it is designed to force actions and political participation.

Frederick Nymeyer in Progressive Calvinism stated that:

“What gold is to money, the law of God is to liberty.”

When comparing this notion of personal responsibility with the modern perversion of the seemingly unlimited liberty of modern free speech, one must question just where the foundation of that doctrine may be found? Just as our U.S. dollar, as an unlimited currency, has no foundation in intrinsic physicality or morality (i.e. it is not “backed” by a foundation of gold) and is therefore without actual limit in its liberty of production, the currency of free speech in its projected unlimited capacity seems to be as well without foundation or principle in the modern era – totally misused, abused, and out of control! Both of these things seem to be killing us slowly; the bankrupting not only of our bank accounts but of our prosperity, integrity, and national reputation as well.

The public relations spectacle that was the Sony/Franco/Rogen/North Korea/Obama public opinion dilemma, as poorly played as it was, was quite effectual not only in positively publicizing the immorality and societal subversion of the Zionist Protocols of the Elder’s agenda, but also in the art of the swaying of public opinion without a day in court. It was a hoax of hoaxes; a successful subversion of reality and lawful intent. It was a typical American meme from the meme machine of Hollywood proper.

Should free speech be religiously used to protect all forms of speech?

Should this unlimited doctrine be protected even when the speech itself is offensive to law and freedom itself?

Should free speech be allowed to intrude upon the private rights of others?

And at what point does free speech become indistinguishable with forced speech, where you must hear it pumped into your living room and at work 1984 style and thus pretend to agree with it because the law forces you to accept and live by it as an unlimited right guarded by the thought police?

When is freedom actually redefined as objectified tyranny?

You decide…

And after your own contemplations, ask yourself why you allow others to define what is right and just in your own mind, what is correct and moral by the justice of legal code, and why it is that “entertainment” is now a legitimate title and excuse for pure unadulterated corruption and subversion protected by law?

The answer is simple and clear in all cases. Government is the supreme god (magistrate) from which all public opinion now flows.

MAG’ISTRATE, noun [Latin magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate as is the President of the United States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the peace, and the like. The magistrate must have his reverence; the laws their authority. –Webster’s 1828

GODnoun – 2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel… 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good.- verb transitiveTo deify. –Webster’s 1828

–=–

Is the law exalted too high? How about the magistrates as the law-givers and administrators? Do you as a subject of the body politic (e pluribus unum) even recognize that you worship the law of the gods as magistrates?

As the saying goes: Change your god, change your law… before God’s law becomes illegal.

P.S… This is what responsible speech looks like!!!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, January 8th, 2015

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,642 other followers