What Is A Strawman? And Debunking The IRS’s Straw Man Argument


A drowning man will clutch at a straw.

“Said about someone who is in a very difficult situation,
and who will take any available opportunity to improve it”

–Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, Cambridge University Press


This is a topic that serves as the perfect opportunity to utilize my book in its intended digital form, as a massive reference source to pull from as part of any researcher’s due diligence process. In fact, this entry could be seen as a summary of the book series. Many of the quotes and sources below were harvested from my 1st book, which is free to download in pdf form at (StrawmanStory.info). This serves as a perfect opportunity to put to rest all the fallacious rhetoric out there of exactly what a strawman is, what its creator is, and to whom it applies.

Today’s topic: what is a “Taxpayer,” and what relation is a “taxpayer” to a “straw man,” why the truth/patriot movement has it all wrong, and why the IRS is so intent on making sure each of us remain without comprehension through its own official publications? As we will see in the IRS published whitewash paper below, the best way for government and its agencies to hide facts is to hide those facts behind the public’s misinterpretation of them. What government needs propaganda when its citizen-ships are creating their own lies and calling them as mainstream or alternative truths?

Firstly, we must get to the root of just what this legal “strawman” is. In its simplest explanation, we merely need to understand the legal (artificial) concept of personhood as compared to what is Real. For a man’s persona (mask) is never actually the man (as form without substance). In short, the legal term strawman is merely the personification (legal identity) of a classic strawman argument — a logical fallacy brought into artificial (legal) existence as a fictional, commercial vessel. And when we go to court, we present ourselves as if we actually are the mask (persona) we legally operate in, which is legally called as an appearance. The actual Living (True) man appears as an actor (agent) in personification (mask) of a legal entity created by and thus property of government, from which he or she makes legal arguments and accepts administrative decisions. When we go to court, we put this strawman forward as bail and act in surety (puppet master) to it, causing us to be bound by whatever judgement is placed upon it (the person/legal identity). To be clear, all legal law (government) applies only to the strawman, the government’s created property, never to any man… unless that is he is acting in surety to that person (property). When we rent a car (vessel), are we not bound by the law of government (law of the road) and by the rules of the owner of that property? As surety for that person (property/commercial vessel of government), whatever is assigned as punishment for the person (strawman) is thus sanctioned and thus put upon (imposted) upon the man (actor/agent) using that persona in commerce.

And so the strawman argument has been turned into a seemingly realistic and inseparable part of the man in surety to it, causing the appearance of responsibility for the actions and contractual (legal) obligations assigned to it, including the entirety of the US CODE when proven applicable to the person (strawman).

And so the court’s argument is essentially this: the strawman committed a legal (fictional) crime in the fictional (legal) realm we created, and though no actual harm has happened to anyone or anything in Reality, in Nature, we are charging the strawman (person) with a legal crime against another legal (fictional) person, place, or thing, and therefore as surety to that strawman (person), we expect you to pay for the strawman’s crime!

And so we can see that the court just personified a logical fallacy. It created a strawman (artificial, legal identity in form but no substance) at the time of your Live Birth, induced you to use that persona (status) in life to receive benefits and legal “consumer protections,” and so convinced you that this is actually your identity in Reality, in a voluntary agency relationship, and then expects you to be responsible for any extortions, exactions, punishments and pains it prescribes to that fictional, legal persona (mask), which again is all government (corporate) property.

To appear in the jurisdiction of a the United States (district corporation) is to appear in legal form only, without substance (without blood), the very definition of a straw man. For, as defined, what is made of straw is a metaphor that means without substance. To be clear, all legal persons, places, and things (nouns/names) are without substance. Nothing legal is Real. What is legal does not Exist in Nature. It is only ever a creation of man, and defines the forces of Nature as an “Act of God” in all insurance policies, or in other words, not an act of the state (fiction) or any of its property (persons, places, or things). An “Act of God,” then, is never the act of a strawman (person), nor is it an act of man. The point here is to understand that government recognizes and defines “God” (Jehovah) as a higher power, a sovereign authority and Law than itself, and that it and its persons (property) stand helpless before an Act of God (Reality/Nature), and therefore its fictional insurance (based in mammon) cannot cover any damages caused to fictional things (legal property) unless a specific Act of God is covered (i.e. “earthquake insurance,’ “flood insurance”).

Indeed, the maxims (principles) of law clearly show this to be True:

Maxims On God

“An act of God does wrong to no one.

“The act of God does no injury;
that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents.”

“No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force,
or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed.”

Maxims On Appearance

“He who does anything through another (e.g. a person/strawman),
is considered as doing it himself.

“What does not appear does not exist,
and nothing appears judicially before judgment.”

Fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.”

Concerning things not appearing and things not existing,
the rule (reasoning, conclusion) is the same.”

“A thing which is not made to appear is regarded
as if
it could not be made to appear and did not therefore exist.

The court has nothing to do with what is not before it.


A man cannot appear (have artificial life/existence) in fiction, just as a cartoon cannot appear (have artificial life/existence) anywhere but in the fictional cartoon realm. A legal persona (status) only “exists” in legal fiction. Thus, a man must pretend to appear in fiction (the artificial, legal jurisdiction of any court) by pretending to be a person (fictional character) in that legal (anti-Real/anti-Nature) realm. Without this fictional (legal) appearance by the puppet master, the puppet (person) is said to have not appeared.


This is accomplished by attaching a legal surname (last name) to the first (christian) name, the word “last” carrying the meaning of last intention, or last will and testament (declared law). In law, the first name is considered as a God-given gift, a part of Nature, while the last name (Latin agnomen) is property of the state. This admixture of names, of fiction and Nature, is strictly forbidden by the Bible (Natural Law). Without this admixture of names, being registered (taxable) property of government, then the man (by first name only) is too ambiguous to be identified as a legal entity making an appearance. Appearance of a legal person requires the full, legal name to be answered to in volunteerism.

AGENCY – Includes every relation in which one person acts for or represents another by latter’s authority, where one person acts for another, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant, or employer or proprietor and independent contractor… Properly speaking, agency relates to commercial or business transactions. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

RELATION – …The connection of two persons, or their situation with respect to each other, who are associated, whether by the law, by their own agreement, or by kinship, in some social status or union for the purposes of domestic life; as the relation of guardian and ward, husband and wife, master and servant, parent and child; so in the phrase “domestic relations.” The doctrine of “relation” is that principle by which an act done at one time is considered by an fiction of law to have been done at some antecedect period… A recital, account, narrative of facts; information given. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

CONTROLnoun – Power or authority to manage, direct, superintend, restrict, regulate, direct, GOVERN, administer, or oversee. The “control” involved in determining ‘whether “principal and agent relationship” or “master and servant relationship” is involved must be accompanied by power or right to order or direct. – verb – …To control a thing is to have the rlght to exercise a directing or GOVERNING influence over it. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

GOVERNTo direct and CONTROL the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority. To be a rule, precedent, law or deciding principle for.

MASTER AND SERVANT – The relation of master and servant exists where one person, for pay or other valuable consideration, enters into the service of another and devotes to him his personal labor for an agreed period… It usually contemplates employer’s right to prescribe end and direct means and methods of doing work. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

VOLUNTEER – One who receives a voluntary conveyance, that is, a conveyance made without a good or valuable consideration. (–William C Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

VOLUNTEERA person who gives his services without any express or implied promise of remuneration. One who intrudes himself into a matter which does not concern him, or one who pays the debt of another without request, when he is not legally or morally bound to do so, and when he has no interest to protect in making such payment… One who, acting on his own initiative, pays debt of another without invitation, compulsion, or the necessity of self-protection. One who merely offers his service on his own free will, as opposed to one who is conscripted. Also AN ATTORNEY (AGENT), as to any persons other than those by whom he was retained. (Under the) Law of Master and Servant – The term “Volunteer” includes one who, without the assent of the master and without justification arising from a legitimate personal interest, unnecessarily assists a servant in the performance of the master’s business.

WILLFUL – Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary. Intractable; having a headstrong disposition to act by the rule of contradiction. Obstinate; perverse. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

INVOLUNTARYWithout will or power of choice; opposed to volition or desire. An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint (q. v.) or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An action is involuntary, then, which is performed under duress. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSONA – Latin. In the civil law. Character, in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him. Thus one man may unite many characters, (personæ) as, for example, the characters of father and son, of master and servant. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSONA CONJUNCTA ÆQUIPARATUR INTERESSE PROPRIOA personal connection [literally, a united person, union with a personis equivalent to one’s own interest; nearness of blood is as good a consideration as one’s own interest.(–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSONA EST HOMO CUM STATU QUODAM CONSIDERATUSA person is a man considered with reference to a certain STATUS. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSON VICE FUNGITUR MUNICIPIUM ET DECURIATowns and boroughs act AS IF PERSONS. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

NATIONALITYThat QUALITY or CHARACTER which arises from the fact of a person’s BELONGING to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political STATUS of the individualespecially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil STATUS. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization(–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)


Remember that government also acts as a person (corporation) too, and that your relation to it can only be identified by the person (individual) you accept willfully under the doctrine of master and servant (volunteerism) and as agent for service of process to it as the person’s principal. Your relation to government exists only as a legal persona (status) or not at all. And you may only appear to government as its proprietary person (legal status) or as that of a foreign person (legal status), which is merely the person (property) of another legal nation, country, state, etc. (corporations). The difference? An employee is paid for his service, while a citizenship is exacted (extorted) and taxed for his service and reciprocal receipt of legal benefits and protections. But the term employee is merely a title placed upon a person, not a man. All legal titles can only be attached to legal persons, places, and things, but nothing in the Reality of Nature is ever actually its legally prescribed name or title. However, in Nature, it is only man that may choose his path, to follow the Law of God or to follow the anti-God, anti-Nature legal law of men.


Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

—Isaiah 45:20, KJB


On that note, it is important to note that by default all men are considered to be “christian” in the Biblical sense, not as a standing, corporate religion or denomination, but as free men assumed by default to follow the Law of God, also called the True Natural Law. After all, man is of Nature, thus his Highest Law (Source) is thus considered to stem from the Creator (God) of Nature. Thus we may understand the notion that “all men are created equal.” However, once a man gives up his God-given rights and accepts the person (property) of another false god (nation), the man looses such Natural Rights, for nothing of Nature (God) exists in or respects anything in fiction. Keep in mind that only a man can be a follower of christ, as a True christian. A person is a fiction, a puppet, and cannot do anything without being driven by a man. This is why religions are, every one of them, as legally created corporations of the state, false. For they are attended by men acting in person (legal fiction), and over and over we are told that God respects no persons (fictions). Religions teach what they are required to teach as corporations of the state, which is to, above all else, follow the “law of the land,” meaning the law of man. This is, of course, absolutely opposed to the Law of God (Natural Law).

All men are indeed Created equal in Nature (under God), for no man is born with a status (persona) in Reality. But persons are legal creations of men, and are created specifically to be unequal, and to place upon them flattering titles of false (legal) authority and license (anarchy/lawlessness toward the Natural Law). To be clear, the fallacious term “equal rights” merely means that all persons (statuses) of (belonging to) the United States shall be EQUALLY PUNISHED UNDER THE LAW.


“The only right a Christian has is to give up his rights.

–Oswald Chambers


“No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people,
than to have God’s word taken away from them, or falsified,
so that they no longer have it pure and clear.”

–Martin Luther


For all the gods of the nations are idols…

—Psalms 96:5, KJB


Volunteerism is performance without coercion. Citizenship is a performance debt (tacit contract of use) entered into voluntarily, just as an employee (servant) is a hired volunteer by the employer (master), for the employee is submissive (servant) to the will of the employer (master). The difference between the laws (doctrines) of “master and servant” and of “principal and agent” is that an agent is a representation of the principal. Indeed, an employee acts as an agent of its employer (principal) when the employee does business (commerce) in his master’s (employer’s/principal’s) name. In interstate commerce, a citizenship of the United States is an agent in all commercial affairs, and the 50 state governments are considered as foreign, third parties to any and all commercial activity. Government considers us to be in agency at all times, 24/7, as a default and without exception. This is, of course, a prima facie (surface) presumption, which is rebuttable.

An Act of God cannot “appear” in court (fictional jurisdiction). Only a fictional entity (legal status/person) may “appear” in the fiction (jurisdiction) of that court. If the man in surety does not answer to a legal name called out by the court, which identifies the man as surety to that person (property) of government, then the court cannot administrate its own property (person). The case cannot go forward without the agent in surety to the person being present by making an appearance (pretending to be the person). The only exception to this rule is the an attorney (agent) may appear in representation (simulation) of the person without the man in surety being present in the court.

The term injury, or in-jury, simply means that the “act” in question cannot be pulled into a court of law infant of a judge or jury, that one cannot take “God” or Nature to court. Silly as this sounds, we must acknowledge this system as it stands, not as we wish it to be. To injure means to bring into or under legal law. Thus what is an act of God (Nature) can do no wrong and can injure nothing fictional, for what is Real, what is of Nature, is always considered a “Creation” or Act of God. To support this notion, we find that nothing in Nature, nothing in its Natural state of Life or Existence can be patented. To work around this aspect, which comes from the Natural Law — that God’s Creation is God’s (sovereign) property higher than man’s authority to claim it, meaning that property does not exist in Nature, only in man’s legal fiction — the government issues license to “scientific” corporations and persons with the legal flattering title of “scientists” to re-create by genetic alteration, causing the Source of what Exists to be considered by the legal realm of artificial law as “manmade,” and no longer an act of God. And this is why our entire surface world, the Creation of God, from plants to animals to man, is being genetically altered to the point of being unrecognizable as a Creation or Act of God, and thus patentable as government property. This includes our genes.

While no legal (artificial) law applies to any man or to anything of God’s Creation in Nature (Reality), any man acting voluntarily (contractually) in the agency of and appearing as a registered legal persona (proprietary individual or corporation, etc.) of government is bound to all legal laws that apply to that person (strawman), just as one would be bound to the rules and laws encapsulating a rental car (rented commercial vessel). The courts address only persons, not men, and men may only address the courts in persona or in agency (as attorney) of the person, never as one’s True Self.

And so the strawman argument of the legitimacy of legal law by government in all its institutions, agencies, and departments is directed not at anything Real or of Nature, but only ever at the strawman persona (mask) that each man pretends and appears to be. For all legal persons, places, and things are property of (creations of) government. When we appear in court, in persona, we are misrepresenting ourselves as that which we are not — as that which we physically cannot be — as that which is artificial (legal). And so all proceedings against us will also be based upon this personified mis-representation of us, which is legally defined as a straw man.

The legal system simply has no power over any man unless that man acts in the property (person) of that legal system and its government. Without this contractual volunteerism (also known as the doctrine of master and servent) the true colors of each government would shine through, revealing the only avenue of control over men (Reality) left to it, which is strictly violent, military oppression and thus forced suppression. Dictatorship, as a direct and obvious force over men, not persons.

The court never addresses any man unless he stands in agency (attorney) for a person, as only a strawman that is created and thus bound by the creators (courts) law. A strawman is not of Nature, and so has no “God-given rights” referred to as the Natural Law. A strawman is bound to the law of persons, not the Law of Nature, for a strawman is never Created in Nature (by God). A strawman (person) is not “God-given,” and no law of Nature (Reality) can protect anything artificial (manmade), as that which is not a Creation of the Source of Nature.

He who controls the fiction controls the Real it re-presents.

He who dictates history controls what is the false (legal) truth (history) about the Real.

Thus, he who’s history is dictated by the information (form without substance) of the artificial creation of a legal entity created and registered by a legal birth certificate is the Real misrepresented and so controlled by the fiction (person) and its law.

Happy legal birth-day, strawman…


While we will get to the aforementioned IRS publication spoken of soon enough, we must have this further foundation in law to understand why it is fallacious. And so let us now equate just what a “taxpayer” is in conjunction to a “strawman.” Is a taxpayer Real, or is it a creation of the legal system and its government? Obviously a “taxpayer” is a title, and is certainly not part of what is self-evident and self-existent in Nature (Reality). And of course, what is a creation of the artifice must be defined by that artifice as its false creator god, giving it existence only by the words used to describe and bind it into legal word magic. In the end, a title is useless unless it can be placed upon and bound to in surety that which it is intended to subject or modify. No man holds any title, for titles don’t exist in Nature. No man is ever a “taxpayer.” Only a strawman (person) may hold such a title of flattery.


“The taxpayer — that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”

-President Ronald W. Reagan


“…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent (prior) to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.” 

–Terry  v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)


“A precedent condition, in law, is a condition which must happen or be performed before an estate or some right can vest, and on failure of which the estate or right is defeated.

–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828


“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

—UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302


“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar (#G2541) Augustus, that all the world should be taxed (Strong’s #G583).”

—Luke 2:1, KJB


And all went to be taxed (#G583), every one into his own city.”

—Luke 2:3, KJB


“The way to crush the bourgeoisie (i.e., middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Jewish Russian leader of the Bolshevik Revolution


Just what does it mean to be taxed? What is a “taxpayer?” And are you or I one of them?

Remember, no man is ever a “taxpayer,” for no man is ever a person. Man must respect persons and flattering titles (property of government) before they can be assigned to him in the legal realm. Of course the foundational, Natural Law in scripture is very clear:


Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person:
neither let me give flattering titles unto any man.

—Job 32:21


That’s right, in one tiny verse the Bible just told us exactly why we are enslaved, because we respect persons (including corporations and governments) and flattering titles (including citizen and taxpayer). For only through the artificial persona and title may the good man be overcome.


It is not good to accept the person of the wicked,
to overthrow the righteous in judgement.

—Proverbs 18:5


For there is no respect of persons with God.

—Romans 2:11


Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person:
neither let me give flattering titles unto any man.

—Job 32:21


All positions of power, of godship in magistracy, be it that of kings to presidents to congressmen to judges to mayors to police officers, comes strictly from the flattery of legal status (persona/mask) and of artificial flattery (titles, entitlements). But do not be fooled, for the flattery of titles extends to the “middle class,” the “common folk,” and “the poor” as well. These states of being do not Exist in Nature, unless Nature is made unavailable to those lower classes by the higher classes, causing dependence upon money instead of upon Nature (Source) Itself.


And his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries (titles).

—Daniel 11:21, KJV


“For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work inequity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

—Isaiah 32:6


It is to be in error to call oneself as something one is not. In the Bible, we are taught to be content with merely being, as I AM. I AM part of God, and God alone is my Sovereign Master and Lawmaker. I stress again that this is recognized as the Highest Law by government. Only a fool would dismiss the Bible when all roads lead to it, when it is used to swear oath upon, and when the word God is mentioned so many times in both constitutions and in law, especially as “Acts of God.” What fool would not seek the definition and deeper meaning of the word God when his government states that God exists and is responsible for such inevitable and helpless “Acts?”

I can answer that, for we have all been made the fool by the organized, corporate church and state. I was the fool. But now I see…

When in the scripture stories Caesar stated that “all the world should be taxed,” this translation into English (dog-Latin) was left purposefully incomplete to say the least by the kings scribes, causing a purposeful mis-transliteration of the intent of that word. When we seek the True intent of this verse, we find in Strong’s Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon the difference between the Bible’s (Higher) language and the common, vulgar tongue of the mass of illiterates speaking dog-Latin (English), or what Mark Twain called as a “mongrel language” that borrowed its form from all others while extricating away the substance of poetic, metaphoric, and beautiful meaning for a more modern and cold literalism. Ask any speaker of the Greek language, for instance, and they will tell you that Greek is impossible to be Truly understood or communicated into the low form of English.

To be “taxed” (as it is translated) is not merely the exaction and extortion of money as we politically consider it. For as we just read above, to be taxed as a “taxpayer” one must first be identified as a “taxpayer,” and into this flattering title no man is ever merely born in Nature. It applies only to persons. One must first be militarily conquered, defeated, or purchased (as a volunteer) before one can be liable for such a tax. In other words, everything must be legally named (placed into noun form) so that the name (property) may be thus extorted. The precedent must exist before the tax can be applied.

Let us read again from above:


“…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent (prior) to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.” 

–Terry  v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)


It is not the man, but the persona (mask) governed (controlled) as property that it is liable for taxation. Taxation is a fee for the use of government property, namely for the use of its unique money system and fiat paper (credit). And so it was then in the day of Caesar as it is today in the United Nations and its Agenda 2030, a plan specifically purposed with the intention to tax (register as a legal identity) the entire planet, all the billions that even now Exist in Reality (Nature) without legal (government registered) name and title. In other words, the whole population of the world has been declared by the UN just as it was by Caesar — that it must be taxed!

But first, the precedent of proprietary global citizenship must be set worldwide, that all men may be extorted through taxation.


World Bank:

“Overview: Providing legal identity for all (including birth registration) by 2030 is a target shared by the international community as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (target 16.9). The World Bank Group (WBG) has launched the Identification for Development (ID4D) cross-practice initiative to help our client countries achieve this goal and with the vision of making everyone count: ensure a unique legal identity and enable digital ID-based services to all.

—United Nations 2030 Agenda, from a World Bank publication entitled, “Identification for Development”


Target 16.9:

“By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.

—United Nations Sustainable Development 2030 Target Goal 16.9


No community should be considered to be outside the span of this new agenda. Whatever your ethnicity, whatever your livelihood, whatever your lifestyle or location, all of you are inside the agenda. We need to inform everyone that these goals are the heart of a plan for the future of the worlds people, as well as for the planet itself… PEACE AND SECURITY, human rights and justice, and sustainable development, brought together within this 2030 agenda.”

—David Nabarro, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General of the United Nations, from a speech on April 15th, 2016


“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

—Benjamin Franklin, for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755), later used as a motto upon the title page of ‘An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania’ (1759), published by Benjamin Franklin, authored by Richard Jackson


“As distrust, in some sense, is the mother of safety, so security is the gate of danger. A man had need to fear this most of all, that he fears not at all.

—Thomas Brooks, citation in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert’s, ‘Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers,’ p. 532 (1895).


Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

—Matthew 7: 15, KJB


“International Day of Peace, 21 September 2017: Together for Peace, Respect, Safety, and Dignity for all.”

–United Nations document, from: (UN.org/peaceday)


For when they shall say, PEACE AND SAFETY; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape… Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

—1 Thessalonians 5: 3 & 5-6, KJB


“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, AND BY PEACE SHALL DESTROY MANY; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

—Daniel 8: 23-25, KJB


“The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.

—Proverbs 21:31, KJB



To make sure or secure, to guarantee, as, to insure safety to any one.
To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils.
To act as an insurer.” (Black4)


“He who is SURETY to a stranger will smart (be put in pain) for it.” 

–Proverbs 11:15



put forward as
bail or SURETY.

—Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, definition of Steaminess Homo


To tax all the men of the world, first the world must be reimagined (made into a legal realm as an international jurisdiction) — and all men must be re-created into legal persons (property) of every nation united. All men must be given Social Security through the United Nations, which is already present in over 140 nations through the International Social Security Association (ISSA) of the United Nations. One must be given a benefit before one can be voluntarily controlled (governed) and thus taxed for use of another’s property. And to receive any benefit from government, one must first assume the persona (subjection) of fiction it is attached to. And so the goal of registration (taxing) of all men in to fictional personhood is scheduled to happen by 2030 — the date that a global debtor’s prison is thus established, as hell on earth.

HELLThe name formerly given to a place under the exchequer (treasury) chamber, where the king’s debtors were confined. (Black4)


One need not confine men in prisons when they are bound to a performance debt wishing the jurisdictions (invisible walls) of nations.

But what does this word taxed actually mean when used by both Caesar in the Bible and by the United Nations? What was its intention in the scriptural texts?

Firstly, let’s break the fallacious notion that taxes are definitely not just the way it is nor as certain as death. Only public-minded, non compos mentis slaves think in this defeatist way, that what is artificial is a certainty (Reality), which is why most common citizenships pay their taxes on a regular basis. But to be taxed implies much, much more…

Strong’s #G583 – “Taxed” – apographō

From ἀπό (#G575), meaning: from, of, out of, for, off, by, at, in, since, on, etc…

And γράφω (#G1125), meaning: write, writing, describe.

1. To write off, copy (from some pattern)
2. To enter in a register or records

1. Specifically, to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2. To enroll


Quoting further from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

apographō (taxed)… To have one’s self registered, to enroll one’s self
those whose names are inscribed in the heavenly register, Hebrews 12:23
(the reference is to the dead already received into the heavenly city,
the figure being drawn from civil communities on earth,
whose citizens are enrolled in a register


To copy, to simulate man into personhood… this is taxation. The registration of men into fictional, taxable (extort-able) characters in the legal fiction realm. It is a design to steal men away from their very Nature (God) and Law and to replace It with the false gods (idols) of the nations.

Here, as in most references in the Bible, the word dead or death is metaphorical, referring to a spiritual death of the soul while taxed (registered) in the person of the legal state and following its dead law in dead hands (mortmain) as dead pledges (mortgages). This state of spiritual death is caused by the following of the legal law over that of the Law of God (Nature). This is called, again, as personhood — to live a fictional (spiritually dead) life in pursuit of mammon (money and valuation) as a strawman.

And so we can see that no man owes any tax except he that agrees to be registered to any legal district (Caesar) voluntarily or is forced by other violent means. The term “taxpayer” is a title, representing a legal status, and is not of Nature (Reality). It is a creation of the state. It is not part of the Higher, moral Law of Nature. It is the result of coveting that which is artificial, namely what is referred to as the god of mammon, as the credit, debt, and valuation (love/belief) of and in money and its usage. For what is priceless (without or beyond artificial monetary value) cannot be taxed. And the maxims of law is clear that:


“The human body does not admit of valuation.



“The body of a freeman does not admit of valuation.

—Liberum corpus aestimationem non recipit. (BouvMaxim)


“That which is granted or reserved under a certain form, is not to be drawn into a valuation.

—Quod sub certa forma concessum vel reservatum est, non trahitur advalorem vel compensationem. Bacon’s Max. Reg. 4. (BouvMaxim)


The value of a thing is estimated by its worth in money, and the value of money is not estimated by reference to one thing.

—Res per pecuniam aestimatur, et non pecunia per res. 9 Co. 76; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 922. (Black4)


“The wisdom of law cannot be valued by money.

—Sapientia legis nummario pretio non est aestemanda. (BouvMaxim)


“He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour:
he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him.
He that trusteth in his riches shall fall

—Proverbs 11: 27-28, KJB


Let us be clear, the flattering title of “taxpayer” is the placing of valuation upon a man through his strawman (persona/legal status), causing legal extortion of that human capital under governmental management (administrational law of persons). Once anything of Nature is so valued in mammon, it can never be Truly Free again in Nature until that value is discharged, for all that is Real is born (Created) priceless (without valuation). Only its name (noun – as a man-made, fictional person, place, or thing) and the artificial status that name creates can be controlled and thus validated as property of its creator. And only a name belonging to a corporate nation can be flatteringly titled as a “taxpayer,” never a Real man. Again, it is only man’s respect of persons and flattering titles that allows him to be taken in surety for the artificial crimes of the fictional strawman (person).

In other words, without respect of persons, no man may be voluntarily taxed under the burden and sanction (punishment) of the law of persons (contract).

Before we move on, let me put any fallacious arguments about just what volunteerism is to rest. To do this, let us just consider our so-called all-volunteer military. Yes, it is at this point in history a voluntary choice to join the armed (heraldic) services of the United States. But what happens to the volunteer once he has contracted to that military service? Does he walk around disobeying law and the orders of his superior officers just because he is a volunteer? No. And neither does a citizenship of any nation. The soldier has agreed to be under the doctrine of master and servant (volunteerism). To receive and use the flattering title and licenses (lawlessness) of “soldier” or “officer” one must follow the requirements and law of the granter of those titles, no matter how tyranical, for no Natural rights or protections may apply to fictional characters.

To be clear, to be a volunteer is not to have a magic word that allows one to break the law, even when that law is overtly immoral and outrageous to ones religious or True beliefs. Citizenship to the United States is a voluntary status (persona), and this point is not deferrable at bar. No force or gun is pointed at your head to be a citizen, only to follow the law that you voluntarily submitted to by becoming a citizen (a contractual relationship based on use of the person). See the difference?

For those begging the question of who exactly he or she “became a citizenship” of the United States, I urge you to read the confirmation and ratification sections of my book, Strawman: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person, so that you may comprehend the process. (See pages 581-586, free to download at StrawmanStory.info)

Certainly the actions we do or do not do under law as citizen-ships of the United States cause what is called presumption of law. If we use the property of another and gain benefits from that use then we are bound to the obligations as well of that usage, which implies a contractual relation-ship and system of law governing that obligatory debt. Debt is either monetary or performance-based, meaning that one must perform the duty (obligation) of the right and status granted, to follow a legal course in pursuit of disharmony in mammon instead of a Natural one in pursuit of harmony with God’s Nature. Thus what is prima facie (avoidable) is made legitimate (unavoidable) by use of these legal statuses (strawmen) assigned in a blanket fashion over the general population.

One example of the presumption of fact that verifies the common, public citizenship to be bound by and under this trust act comes from the New York Second Class Cities Law, §22:


Officers, trustees of public property:

The common council and the several members thereof, and all officers and employees of the city are hereby declared trustees of the property, funds and effects of said city respectively, so far as such property, funds and effects are or may be committed to their management or control, and every taxpayer residing in said city is hereby declared to be a cestui que trust in respect to the said property, funds and effects respectively;  and any co-trustee or any cestui que trust shall be entitled as against said trustees and in regard to said property, funds and effects to all the rules, remedies and privileges provided by law for any co-trustee or cestui que trust; to prosecute and maintain an action to prevent waste and injury to any property, funds and estate held in trust; and such trustees are hereby made subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed by law on trustees, and such duties and responsibilities may be enforced by the city or by any co-trustee or cestui que trust aforesaid. The remedies herein provided shall be in addition to those now provided by law.”

—New York Second Class Cities Law, sub-Section 22, New York Code


So what does it mean to be considered on the face as part of a cestui qui trust?

It means you are considered as a consort of that which is dead (legal fiction) — not a man in legal consideration, but a registered person sometimes called as a straw man. It means you have been granted artificial life within a legal matrix system and its code; one created not by God but by Caesar (a false god/district).


“For all the gods of the nations are idols…”

—Psalms 96:5, KJB


The word god is merely a generic term that can mean many different things unless specifically qualified. A god is a magistrate. Caesar was a god. Obama and Trump are/were gods. The pope and queen and the legislators are gods. Remember, this is the realm of the legal (anti-Nature) law, a devolution of Reality into fictional characters played by men under flattering titles and statuses. It is a realm built entirely of straw. Thus, the cestui qui trust of dead persons (defective statuses) called citizen-ships of the United States (district/Caesar) are the followers of false gods, idolators, worshiping what is not the Reality of Nature (Creation), and instead embracing the fictional creations of men acting as and in the perpetual (immortal) legal office, title, and in the capacity of gods.

The reason that the King’s translators used the word “god” for all positions (flattering titles) of men in authority is simply because the word god implies sovereignty, the power of ruling over other men. This is a requirement of sovereignty, which is why no man is ever sovereign unless he respects persons and bears the flattering title of some corporation (nation/state).

DEVOLUTIONnoun – [Latin] 1. The act of rolling down; as the devolution of earth into a valley. 2. Removal from one person to another; a passing or falling upon a successor. (Webs1828)

GODnoun – …2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. Fear not the gods of the Amorites. Judges 6:10. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. Exodus 22:28. Psalms 97:7… 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. Whose god is their belly. Philippians 3:19. – verb transitiveTo deify(Webs1828)

CREATORnoun – [Latin] 1. The being or person that creates. Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth. Ecclesiastes 12:1. 2. The thing that creates, produces or causes. (Webs1828)

SUPREMEadjective – [Latin supremus, from supra.] 1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme and binding on all his creatures. 2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. 3. It is sometimes used in a bad sense; as supreme folly or baseness, folly or baseness carried to the utmost extent. [A bad use of the word.] (Webs1828)

SOVEREIGNadjective – suv’eran. [We retain this barbarous orthography from the Norman sovereign. The true spelling would be suveran from the Latin supernes, superus.] 1. Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe. 2. Supreme; superior to all others; chief. God is the sovereign good of all who love and obey him. 3. Supremely efficacious; superior to all others; predominant; effectual; as a sovereign remedy. 4. Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation; as sovereign authority.noun – suv’eran. 1. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control. Some earthly princes, kings and emperors are sovereigns in their dominions. 2. A supreme magistrate; a king. 3. A gold coin of England, value (of) $4.44. (Webs1828)

MAGISTERIALadjective – [See Magistrate.] Pertaining to a master; such as suits a master; authoritative. 1. Proud; lofty; arrogant; imperious; domineering. Pretenses go a great way with men that take fair words and magisterial looks for current payment. (Webs1828)

MAGISTRATEnoun – [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 or 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. (Webs1828)

CESTUI QUE VIEHe whose life is the measure of the duration of an estate. The person for whose life any lands, tenements, or hereditaments are held. (Black4)

CESTUI QUE USEHe for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession (as well as the duty of defending the same) reside in the other. (Black4)

CESTUl QUE TRUSTHe who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another. The person who possesses the equitable right to property and receives the rents, issues, and profits thereof, the legal estate of which is vested in a trustee. Beneficiary of trust. (Black4)

CESTUl QUE TRUSTHe for whose benefit another person is seised of lands or tenements or is possessed of personal property. He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another. He may be said to be the equitable owner, (and) is entitled therefore, to the rents and profits; may transfer his interest, subject to the provisions of the instrument creating the trust; may defend his title in the name of his trustee; but has no legal title to the estate, as he is merely a tenant at will if he occupies the estate; and may be removed from possession in an action of ejectment by his own trustee. See Trust. (Bouv1892)


This state of existence or being (legal status) in the legal realm is called spiritual death. It is to exist not under the God of Nature (Creation) but under men acting as gods, sovereigns, and supreme rulers, who claim dominion over all names and titles and statuses. They are the legal (artificial) gods and creators of straw men. This metaphoric term of being dead is of course severely mistranslated from the Bible, when in fact the scriptures (Law)  is referring only to men following the legal law over the Law of God (Law and Laws of Nature). This spiritual death of citizenship to the nations and their gods is what must be shed to be “re-born” into Nature’s Realm and Law. There is nothing religious or strange about this act, being merely the shedding of any respect for all persons, places and things (names/nouns) assigned to Nature and thus placed over Reality to cause all men to follow false gods in the artifice (false creation). We seem to have no problem with the idea of coming out of The Matrix, because its a cool science fiction movie. But when it comes to the Real deal, the very action of coming out of this modern legal system of Babylon, well that’s just religious fiction, right?

Oh, how wrong we have been…

Turns out it’s the Natural Law, the foundation. And the metaphor of The Matrix is exactly what the scriptural Law teaches one to avoid, revealing all traps and inducements thereof. For strawmen and taxpayers only have artificial life in the legal realm, the legal matrix of words in coded legalese. And it is no irony whatsoever the the legal definition for the word hell is as a debtor’s prison. For what is a nation but an open-air prison for performance debtors (legal persons)?

And so just what is a “taxpayer?”

Firstly, it is important to recognize that without money and its valuation upon all persons, places and things (names/nouns), there could be no tax. Thus, as with all evils, the love of money is the root of all taxation. Let us be clear that the word love is just another word meaning belief in and respect of. Respect of money (valuation in money) is the root of all evil. Belief in the value of money is the root of all evil. For what law in the United States is not based on money, its use, its users, or its rules — money (valuation) being the one and only product that each nation has a monopoly upon?

And yet what in Nature is Created or Born with a price? What needs money to Exist in Reality? Why nothing, of course. Only fiction and legality survives on money — the lifeblood of evil (artifice). So simple, yet so seemingly impossible to conceive, is a Reality without money (fiction). Strange days indeed…

Ok, so obviously a taxpayer is a registered user (legal person) of another’s property, namely the money and credit of the United States. That’s simple enough. But is that all it takes to also be a taxpayer? Of course not.

One owes no obligational “tax” to anyone but his master, his god, the sovereign creator of his pretended, fictional legal status in society. Pay to play. Of course, the creator (false god) of the status of “citizenship” and of “taxpayer” is certainly the legal state (district/Caesar), and modernly all the nations united under the World Bank, International Social Security Association, and other United Nations entities working to register (tax) every man on earth into a legal persona (strawman) by their “Agenda 2030” goal.

But what does this term “taxpayer” have to do with the term “strawman?”

Let’s find out…

An adversarial commenter (troll) on my blog was good enough to leave a link to a wonderfully deceitful information hit-piece on the use of the term “straw man” in a lame attempt to discredit my life’s work and research. Here’s the link:

Link–> https://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

In short, this laughable piece of sophistry is not ironically the IRS merely using a straw man argument (logical fallacy) to attempt to debunk the very legally recognized notion of just what a strawman actually is as defined in law. Essentially, when government calls any of us a “taxpayer” it is not only evoking but legally personifying a straw man argument, or more specifically an alternative flattering legal (artificial) title attached to the person (strawman) in law (as their own created fiction). In other words, the IRS is declaring us as surety to a dead entity under the doctrine of cestui due use and trust discussed above — as an already registered (taxed) entity (persona/property) of the state containing no substance (no blood) and thus no actual Life. It is styling us as dead (fictionally named and registered) persons that are its property, and doing so because we are the registered agents (actors) for service of process, or “he who is in surety to another.” Legal entities are of course always considered by law as dead, for the legal realm is the realm of dead persons, places, and things (property) of the legal fiction, or hell — as one existing without spiritual Life (without moral Law and choice) and thus outside of Nature (God) and It’s (God’s) Law. And this is of course why so many, including christ, were metaphorically risen from the dead in those moral scriptures, as those who rose above this legal, spiritual death back into Nature and It’s Highest Law, being re-born into their original intent and innocence (unblemished name) without persona (mask). To follow the legal law of men over the Highest Law of God, the Law of Nature, is to live a spiritually dead life in the person (property) of another.

Let us be clear that the Law of God and the law of man are whole recognized concepts in the legal realm, and that one is certainly higher in authority than the other. The word legal, in its Truest sense as man’s “positive law,” literally means not of Nature and in opposition to God, as the undoing of God’s Law. While this is explained in detail in my book, it is important to note that what is positive in law is that which is an addition by man. In other words, positive or legal law is wholly unnatural and always against the “negative” or self-existent and self-evident Law of Nature (God). Its whole purpose and intent is to bend the rules of Nature (of God).

POSITIVE LAWLaw proper, as opposed to moral laws, or to natural orGod-madelaw. An enforceable legal rule which prohibits or requires certain conduct. Often contrasted with moral law. Lawyers speak of positive law to distinguish it from other rules similarly expected to be followed but not conduct-related. For example, many of the provisions of the Laws of Manu deal with morality or hygiene. This made it hard for jurists and legal historians to later sort out what was intended to be enforceable by the state, or which ought to influence the court on disputes over contracts or inter-personal relationships, and the moral or religious rules, which serve as guidance to the citizens but do not attract the attention of law enforcement. (–Lloyd Duhaime Legal Dictionary, online at duhaime.org)


In other words, the legal law is the law of the dead, of legal, artificial, fictional existence.

But more importantly, it outlaws the Law of Nature, causing men to act not according to the moral law or even to their religious beliefs, but instead dictating the conduct of their persona (status in society) to which men must oblige in surety for the performance debt to their strawman (government property). The benefits of citizenship require us to act in evil (artifice) and respect fictional persons and fake, flattering titles against the foundational Law of Nature (Source). One simply cannot have two gods, which is just code for the fact that man cannot have two conflicting and opposing systems of law.

One does not choose ones God.

One chooses one’s Law, which thus proves the sovereignty of one’s God in all matters Real and legal. And so one may only declare the rights of whatever Law they have chosen, in the name of that Law’s Creator. And God respects no fiction!

The whole point is to cause spiritual death to all men by causing all men to abandon their very own Nature (God) so as to place them under the retention and distraint of the legal law of the district (Caesar).


“[I.] Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were DEAD… in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as NATURALLY DEAD, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were DEAD

“[IV.] If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.

—Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, 1666 c. 11 (Regnal. 18_and_19_Cha_2), from the U.K. Legislature Archives


It is very important to note that one may instantly know one’s status (persona/mask) in legal society by the “term” of one’s proprietary estate (property holdings) there in. To be clear, if property is held for any term of definable time, including that which is called the “life of the man” in persona, then this is property held by a dead, legal person, a strawman (a fictional man of no substance) under a limited contract. And so we must know the difference between the Life of a man and the pretended, spiritually dead, fictional life of a person. The dead (Cestui Que Vie) strawman simply cannot hold property, and may only use and enjoy (but not dispose of) another’s property.



“26. The state of being in force, or the term for which an instrument has legal operation; as the life of an execution.”

—Definition for ‘life’ from: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language (Webs1828)


Land or property that is held on one’s own right is passed by blood to one’s heirs, and so is not dependent upon any time constraints, for blood is an immortal (inheritable) natural right in law. It’s really that simple. For a person (strawman) has no blood! A person (proprietary granted status) may only have legal (artificial) life (operation) as long as some man (with actual, Natural Life) is there to steer and be surety for that persona (mask/legal status/title). The death of the man represents the figurative death of the being or fictional life-force of the person, which is called an execution of contract (of legal life). This is legal death, not Natural death. Those who “rose from the dead” became spiritual alive under the Law of God. But they did not ever actually die in Real Life, just lifted themselves out of the spiritual death of Caesar’s taxation (registration of personhood) and that legal system of false law and fiction. This is the metaphor of spiritual awakening (going from spiritual death in fictional civil life to spiritual Life), the choice to follow only God’s Law of Nature and no other god (law).

And so finally, obviously, a “taxpayer” is thus a contractual flattering title of any qualified person (property of the district), and so the “taxpayer” dies (is executed) with the person, for no more obligations exist to pay tax upon being registered property of Caesar (the district). With the death of the man comes the end of his or her pledged and contracted surety to act and be responsible for the debts and obligations of the legal person (property of the district). To be clear, all citizen-ships (commercial vessels) are persons (legal statuses/property) of the United States, which is a district (where all persons, places, and things [legally registered names] are held in seizure, distress, distraint) — another word for the realm and rendition of Caesar. Thus to be born again so-to-speak back into Nature (Gods Realm and Law) the user (agent/actor) must render back to Caesar (the district) what is Caesar’s property (status) as the scripture (Natural Law) states.


“Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in Truth. Is it lawful to give tribute (tax) to Cesar, or not?”

“…And Jesus answering said to them, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s (give back the legal person, relinquish flattering titles and privileges), and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him.”

—Mark 12: 14 and 17, KJV


And here again we see that Reality, God, Nature and Its Law have no respect for persons, or of course for any legal fiction whatsoever. This is the very foundation of the Bible’s teachings, as the avoidance of all things legal, artificial, fictional, etc. To render or return the property (persona) of the state (Caesar) is to quit claiming to be anything but an Act of God.

No wonder we are conditioned from birth to hate the Bible, to keep it away from public (legal) learning institutions, and to follow the doctrines of false (legalized) religions and governments rather than the Bible!

Rendition is another word for performance, and the legal term execution (death) is of course the end of a contract requiring some performance and abeyance to law — not the death of an actual man, but of the man’s voluntary persona. Citizenship is a performance debt (contract). This legal death (execution of bond and surety to person) back into a spiritual Life and Law can happen at any time, not just at the recorded death certificate indication of the “Natural death” of the actual man. We seek the death of any and all legal existence (artificial life) of the person, not the man. We must render back the registered property of Caesar (the state/district) that is its person (status) and flattering titles so as to stop being its user and registered agents in surety, so that we may be free of the state (district) and its positive (anti-God) law, and so that we may act upon our moral standards restricted by legal law. In other words, we stop being performance actors (citizenships) in the legal matrix of fiction and become again men of God under the Law of God’s Nature.

And so we must understand the metaphor of nailing our selfish ways (the flesh) to the cross (i.e. hang or post public notice). A cross (stauros) is a post, or pike. Thus, we nail paper to a post.


It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a bible-reading people. The PRINCIPLES of the bible are the groundwork of human freedom.

—Horace Greeley, founding editor of ‘The New-Yorker’ and ‘New York Tribune’ newspapers


And you, being DEAD in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the HANDWRITING OF REQUIREMENTS that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, HAVING NAILED IT TO THE CROSS.

—Colossians 2: 13-14, NKJV


And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”

—Galatians 5:24, KJB


Those who belong to Christ Jesus have NAILED the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there.”

—Galatians 5:24, NLT (New Living Translation)


Remember, this is not religion. It is the story of Law. Every aspect of this is the Source Law, the Law of retaining one’s Source of Existence and priceless place in Nature, and nothing else. Public notice is as old as the law itself, and so is the hanging (nailing) of public notices in the public square to a post (pike).

The word cross as used here, translated and taken from the same word (stauros) translates figuratively as exposure to spiritual death, another term for self-denial, the denial of True Self.

The figurative meaning of the word crucify, from Strong’s G4717 (stauroō) is to crucify the flesh, and to figuratively extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness.

And finally, this metaphor that Jesus Christ “is come in the flesh” causes the literalist to close down immediately towards any spiritual knowledge that might be garnered by the metaphor. The “flesh,” or Strong’s G4561 – sarx, (σάρξ), is defined as carnal or simply carnal minded. The termto follow after the flesh’ is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they may gratify their lust.”

A person is he that does not act as his True Self, as one not self-responsible and not acting under the Highest Law, which requires proper choice at all times. Legalism is the opposite of choice, being based purely on causality. Thus legalism is called as spiritual (without choice) death.

And so we are to nail the flesh to the cross and instead follow the Law (Son) of God. It’s just a metaphor, and obviously a damn powerful one, meaning we must become (be re-born into) our True Selves again.

To love thy True Self as thy neighbor is the law. Self Love is, of course, part of the Natural Law, for one cannot love thy neighbor as thy True Self (without legal name and title) unless first one loves thy True Self. Instead, in the artifice of the legal realm, we take the name of and act as legal persons (fictions) under false legal gods in denial of the True Self and Its Nature. In other words, person-hood is denial of one’s own highest self-existence in Nature, which happens to also be very the definition of Jehovah (YHWH), as all that is self-Existent and self-evident. God (Jehovah) is nothing more and nothing less than all that is Truth (Reality) — as a monotheistic conception of the God of Reality (Nature/Source) and Sovereign of the Universe.

But legal truth is not Real, and neither is the truths debated by the “truth movement.” Truth in Its Self is not debatable. It has no alternatives or versions. And if it does, it must therefore be a creation of man, not God, being not self-evident, and therefore must be believed in (loved) as a lie confirmed and ratified as a false but accepted legal truth. It must be therefore enforced and given standing under legal law for it to be accepted as false (confirmed and ratified) truth. A perfect example of this, of course, is the legalized (forced) truth of the value of money, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Money comes from nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing. To debate over the false propped up corporate valuation of money (mammon) is like debating over the location of a drop of water in the ever-morphing ocean.


“Nothing can come of nothing: speak again.”

–Shakespeare’s ‘King Lear’ (I, i, 92)


“Out of nothing can come, and nothing can become nothing.”

—Aulus Persius Flaccus on creativity


“From nothing, nothing comes.” 

–Latin Maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit.


It is important to note here that if government calls what happens in Nature without man’s control as an “act of God” in insurance policies, then you better damn well believe that government believes in a Higher Power. Only a fool would be a subject to a false god that acknowledges a Real God of Nature, when the Highest Natural Law of that Real God of Nature admitted to by government states take no false gods! Like it or not, if you are a citizenship of the United States, you are by default a believer in God (Jehovah), and you are also an admitted adulterer against God by following the doctrines (laws) of the state (false god). Apply your reason and logic and you will find this to be Truth, not because it is religion, but because it is the foundation of the Law of both realms. I cannot stress how important this realization is.

ATTAINTverb transitive – [See Attainder.] 1. To taint or corrupt; to extinguish the pure or inheritable blood of a person found guilty of treason or felony, by confession, battle, or verdict, and consequent sentence of death, or by special act of Parliament… 3. To disgrace; to cloud with infamy; to stain. 4. To taint or corrupt. – noun – 1. A stain, spot or taint. [See taint.] 2. Any thing injurious; that which impairs (Webster’s 1828)

TAINTA conviction of felony, or the person so convicted. (Black’s 4rth)

ATTAINDER – English criminal law. Attinctura, the stain or corruption of blood which arises from being condemned for any crime (Bouvier’s 1856)

STRAW – …3. Any thing proverbially worthless. I care not a straw for the play. I will not abate a straw. (–Webster’s 1828)

STRAW MAN – 1. A fictitious person, especially one that is weak or flawed. 2. A tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it. — Also termed straw-man argument. 3. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible. 4. A person hired to post a worthless bail bond for the release of an accused. — Also termed stramineus homo. (Black’s 7th)

STEAMINESS HOMO – Latin. A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. (—Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.)


The problem is that most people think of citizenship as an honor instead of a condemnation; a charge of felony in attainder. In such a large, open-air prison, it is sometimes hard to remember we are all convict fellons by birth, abandoned to the state. The word condemnation is defined as “the process by which property of a private owner is taken for public use” in Black’s 4th Edition, with the word condemned meaning “worthless.” This describes the birth certification or “delivery” (abandonment) process, and is ho w we become public persons from that false legal birth event and registration. It is the persona (legal mask/status), not the actual man that is feloniously created. For government is only god over its own creation, which is the person and never the man. The man volunteers to become surety for that status in adulthood (legalized adultery against God’s Law), and thus has standing through it, being bound for both its monetary and performance debts. By this voluntary action and false existence in bond and surety, one is considered to be in attainder, for persons (fictions) have no blood to be considered.

As fictional, legal (anti-Nature) persons (citizens/subjects) of a false god (the legal state/national district), all men suffer by their suretyship in this legally pretended attainder, or pretended corruption of blood — when one receives a legal status (person) of citizenship (subjection) to the district of New Columbia (the seat of the United States) through birth certification (nativity). To have standing in blood corruption by law is to destroy the lawful line in heirship of one’s progeny, of one’s children and of one’s parents, for citizenship is a choice to call the fictional state as god (father), though obviously no blood relations actually exists. A user and surety for another’s property is never an heir to that property or land. What exists only legally is always dead, which can be stated as to be made of straw (without value or consideration).


“Man (homo) is a term of nature; Person (persona) of civil law.”

—Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910). Page 577


 “Son is a name of nature, but heir is a name of law.”



“One may relinquish for himself and his heirs a right which was introduced for his own benefit.”



In other words, a right can only be introduced to that which is a creation of man’s law. Persons. Strawmen.

Remember, the son is named by the first (christian) name of Nature, but the heir at law comes from the last or surname of legal genealogical history.

SURNAMEThe family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism; the last namethe name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents; the name common to all members of a family. A patronymic. (–Black’s 4rth)

PATRONYMIC – noun – 1. A name derived from the name of a father or ancestor, typically by the addition of a prefix or suffix, e.g., Johnson, O’Brien, Ivanovich. adjective – 1. Denoting or relating to a name derived from the name of a father or male ancestor.“the patronymic naming of children.” (–Oxford Dictionary online)



Citizenship, or rather the act of birth registration (taxation) to Caesar’s district, the nation, where the state becomes father of the person we act as surety to (creator of person/status in society), is the act of one relinquishing the blood-rights of himself and his heirs. The boy or girl is still a son in Nature (outside of the legal realm), but in the legal realm of Caesar’s jurisdiction the legal persona (strawman) attached to the child in bond and surety at adulthood (legalized, state-licensed adultery) is no longer an heir by law.

ADULTERYnoun – [Latin adulterium. See Adulterate.] 1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspringIn common usage, adultery means the unfaithfulness of any married person to the marriage bed… 2. In a scriptural sense, all manner of lewdness or unchastity, as in the seventh commandment. 3. In scripture, idolatry, or apostasy from the true God. Jeremiah 3:8. 4. In old laws, the fine and penalty imposed for the offense of adultery. 5. In ecclesiastical affairs, the intrusion of a person into a bishopric, during the life of the bishop. 6. Among ancient naturalists, the grafting of trees was called adultery being considered as an unnatural union. (Webs1828)

ADULTERATEverb transitive – [Latin adultero, from adulter, mixed, or an adulterer; ad and alter, other.] To corrupt, debase, or make impure by an admixture of baser materials; as, to adulterate liquors, or the coin of a country. – verb intransitiveTo commit adultery. – adjectiveTainted with adultery; debased by foreign mixture. (Webs1828)


The etymology of the word adultery comes from the Old French avoutrie, aoulterie, a noun of condition from avoutre/aoutre, and from the Latin adulterareto corrupt,” meaning, “debauch; falsify, debase.” The term adulterate is used correctly when describing a lie or a corruption of something that was pure. Broadly speaking, an act of Adultery is an act that makes purity into impurity. (–etymonline.com)

The action of attaching and thus registering (taxing) the legal state surname (last name) to the first or pure and God-given “christian” first name is an act of legalized adultery (adult-hood), and is the only way that any man may be so taxed (registered) to Caesar’s district and realm, being re-rendered as a person, no longer recognized as a man (Creation of God). A person is a creation of the state. This admixing of names is called as a blemish or mark upon the soul and True Nature of man in the Bible. It is a corruption of the connection man has to Source, for it carries the anti-Source (fictional) law, the law of persons.

Indeed, all ancient religions in their base foundation concur on this point. Only man’s recreation of false doctrines in incorporation obfuscates the True intent of most religions and the meanings of their words. Self-evident, self-existent Truth is of course universal, requiring no man for its self-evident, self-existent Truth and Nature.


Three evil deeds [that create suffering]
depending upon the body are:
killing, stealing, and committing

—Buddha, from The Practice of Dhyâna


Have nought to do with adultery;
for it is
a foul thing and an evil way.”

—Mohammed, from the Qu’ran, Sura XVII, The Night Journey, Mecca


While in modern legal cases and in our dumbed down society, the word adultery is of course used for sexual relations simply because sex sells and occupies the mind. But the root of the word is the admixture of anything to cause the pureness of another to vanish or to become unseen. This is the nature of national citizenship, a figurative (artificial) corruption of blood.

Fortunately, the actions of this arrogant commenter and believer of these deceivers did not somehow magically erase every legal dictionary and history of the word straw man and man of straw in all languages. Nope, it was just troll-poop scatted carelessly by one unwilling to verify facts.

It is one of the small pleasures in life to be able to now completely demolish these types of misinformation pieces printed by the organized criminal revenue collection agency of government. In older days, these farmers of revenue (fishers of men) were agents of the king/treasury, and were known by the title of “escheats,” or “cheaters.” They were the henchmen for the head pirates of the pirate cove. Of course the escheat laws are alive and well in the United States, a modern feudal system lost to the changing language arts.

I wish to walk the reader through this hilariously deceiving bulletin and pick apart the glaringly obvious trickery in its wording, which to anyone without familiarity of legal law, would cause fear and loathing of what some call legally as the “straw man.”

My comments from herein will be in blue below after each false and misleading statement by both the “truth” movement and by the Internal Revenue Agency.

Let’s begin…


Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2005-14

Frivolous tax returns; use of “straw man” to avoid tax. This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that a taxpayer cannot avoid income tax on the erroneous theory that the government has created a separate and distinct entity or “straw man,” in place of the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the “straw man.” This argument has no merit and is frivolous.


Silly rabbit, tricks are for attorneys and scribes! The “taxpayer” is a title assigned to the already created strawman (property)! A “taxpayer” is the personification of the fallacious strawman argument. Only persons (strawmen) are “taxpayers” as so defined.

To be clear, the above statement is accurate as a fallacious statement. However, it has no foundation in law. Remember, the taxpayer is a flattering title attached to the strawman (person), not in place of it. A taxpayer has no standing without being attached to a legal person (status).

This Latin term that has been translated into the English (dog-Latin) “strawman” stems from the term stramineus homo, to which Black’s Law 4th Edition defines as “a man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety.” To be clear, this refers to the bond of surety that each man stands in when operating in a commercial persona (public citizenship status) of the corporate United States. To be of no substance is to be formal, a fictional personification of the Real; a simulation (representation). All aspects of legal identity, including all names, numbers, marks, signs, signatures, flattering titles, marriages, contracts, and licenses are all connected to this “straw man.” It is merely a word for a legal person, with the understanding that anything designated as “legal” is artificial, or “art” for short. Of course, a man built of straw is the simulation (personification) of an Real man. What is not of nature is of the artifice (i.e. man-made). Thus, the colloquialism that a fictional persona is made of straw actually makes a whole lot of sense at the figurative level, like the scarecrow (man of straw) searching for a brain from the evil Wizard of Oz. And it is very important to understand that all things of government origin are made of straw. Fiction is not reality. The legal language is almost exclusively a figurative language defining fictional persons, places, and things (nouns), the word noun meaning merely name. The words or terms of art of government are property of government. Thus, so is the name of every national citizenship, registered at birth and used by each man (agent) in public, commercial franchise. And so it is true, one would certainly not use the strawman as an excuse to not pay the taxes of the taxpayer, because they are one in the same. Taxpayer is a title, and titles can only be granted or forced upon government property, which is the legal person (strawman). To separate the two as different legal entities is disingenuous at best, outright trickery at the worst in regards to this first paragraph.

With this knowledge of the true intent and meaning of the term straw man, a quite legitimate term of art dating to the Roman law, let us examine the IRS’s first statement above. Notice that this government “agency” is trying to distinguish a difference between what a “taxpayer” is and what a “straw man” is. Funny that the IRS doesn’t define the word “taxpayer” so that we can be certain that a “taxpayer” is not indeed merely another fictional form without substance, a flattering title assigned to the strawman.

And so we must ask, where in Nature, where in Reality can we find a “taxpayer?” Is any man, animal, insect, or plant born a taxpayer? Was I a “taxpayer” when I fell out of my mother’s womb? Is a “taxpayer” a Creation of God, or a creation of government? Is the title of “taxpayer” a legal status or does it course through my veins as some inescapable genetic dis-ease? Just where, oh where do “taxpayers” come from?

Anyone in their right mind knows the answer to these questions. Even the most patriotic of subjects to the sovereign tyranny and piracy of these United States cheaters can’t possibly think that being a “taxpayer” is somehow Natural or has anything to do with the True Nature of Life. After all, there is no money in Reality, in Nature, so how can there be a tax on money in Nature? Ironically, if money grew on trees, it would be all but worthless. But let us consult the foundational maxims (principles ) of law for verification:

MAXIM: An act of God does wrong to no one.

MAXIM: The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents.

MAXIM: No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force, or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed.

MAXIM: All men know God. [Hebrews 8:11]

MAXIM: That is the highest law which favors religion.

MAXIM: God, and not man, make the heir. [Romans 8:16]

MAXIM: The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals.

A citizen-ship (commercial vessel) of the United States is called an individual person, whereas a corporation is called an artificial person. Both are, according to the maxims of law, governed by the same law. For a person is never of God (Nature), and so cannot be protected by the Law of Nature’s God. An Act of God is under God’s Natural Law, while all legally created persons and titles are under man’s legally created law. And this is why, while all men are said to be created equal under God, all persons are certainly not created equal. In fact, the whole purpose of persons is artifical inequality — the destruction of God’s Law of Creation, or Law of Nature. This was simply word trickery by the “founding fathers” of the United States, to fool the illiterate masses into believing that the fathers (gods) and their bloodlines (Posterity) were equal in status (persona) to themselves, the creators of the legal realm and artifice.

And so we can see here, at the beginning, that this disinformation piece is designed to separate these two terms into separate or unattached legal entities, dismissing outright the “straw man argument” as it calls it. And indeed, anyone foolish enough to use such an argument would lose, for these are not separate things. A taxpayer is a part of the straw man (person/citizenship), and cannot exist without it. Corporations are “taxpayers” too, for corporations are persons too! “Taxpayer” is merely a fictional title without substance placed upon any man acting in surety and agency to a United States proprietary persona (citizen-ship/legal status) that agrees to contract and conduct commerce therein.

Let us look at the source, the US Code for our definitions:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person – The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation

(14) Taxpayer – The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

And of course we have court record to guide us as to the interpretational definitions of that master-class of devilmasters in their devilry:

From: PDFLong v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922):

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws…

[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]


You see, we forget that there is also a legal entity called as a “nontaxpayer.”

From: PDFBotta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961):

“A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized…”

[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]


So the status of taxpayer must be bestowed upon a person (strawman) before that person is a taxpayer, or he is by default considered as a nontaxpayer. So taxpayer is a legal status, not a natural disease.

But how does this fact relate to the person, the strawman?


“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [IN APPEARANCE ONLY] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the STATUS or CONDITION with which he is invested. Not an individual or physical person, but the STATUS, CONDITION or CHARACTER borne (carried) by physical persons.” 

The law of persons is the law of STATUS or CONDITION.

—American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910


And so how is a “taxpayer” then defined both statutorily and as deliberated by the courts?


“And by statutory definition, ‘taxpayerincludes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.  …Since the statutory definition of ‘taxpayer’ is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts…”

–C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass’n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939)


Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory judgment against the United States of America with respect to “whether or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).” (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment “with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” a code section that is not at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under §2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.

–Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)


In other words, a “taxpayer” is a legal person that artificially exists (appears) only in a certain fictional, legal jurisdiction, and only when certain conditions exist. Remember, to be taxed is to be registered as a person of the state/district (Caesar). This is not a man, for no man is bound to any jurisdiction, only the persons of men may legally appear. Men Live in blood and Spirit, they don’t appear. To show up in court, the person (legal admixed name) must be found to be in that court, and jurisdiction over that legal persona must be proven, lest the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see above). The question above is not whether a taxpayer exists, but whether that title can be attached to the person (strawman) of the defendant in surety to it.


“And by statutory definition the term “taxpayer” includes any persontrust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. …Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts…”

–C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass’n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)


It is clear that a “taxpayer” is thus a creation of the state, not of Nature. A taxpayer is any person (legal status) subject to tax. Thus it is clear that a taxpayer is no man, but can indeed only be a straw man (fictional entity/persona) that some man is in surety to.


“He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.

–Proverbs 11:15, KJB

“A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.”

–Proverbs 17:18, KJB

“I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever…

–Genesis 43:9, KJB


To be considered as a “taxpayer” is to be in surety first for a legal persona (status), and then also for the flattering legal title of taxpayer. The taxpayer is required to pay tax, and the man in surety will surely follow, for the surety insures payment of the persona and title he uses.

When a trust or estate can be given the title of “taxpayer” then we know that a taxpayer is not a Real man. A person is also not a man, but the legal status of a man bound in surety to another. It’s just a word. Form without substance. This must be understood here so that we may certainly state that a “taxpayer” is indeed merely a fictionally created straw man of (belonging to) government.

Go through the following definitions very slowly and meticulously, connecting all the dots:

BONDSMAN One who by a SEALED INSTRUMENT engages that: if another person (the principal) fails to do a specified thing he will pay a certain sum of money; a surety(–W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

BONDSMANnoun – [bond and man.] A SLAVE. 1. A SURETY; one who is BOUND, or who gives security, for another. (–Webster’s 1828)

SECURITY – (1)An instrument which guarantees the certainty of some specific thing, as, payment or PERFORMANCE. (2) A SURETY. Written after the name of one who signs a promissory note, means ” surety.” See Surety. (3) Individual safety. See Personal Security… evidences of indebtedness. (–W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

SURETY – Contracts. A person who binds himself for the payment of a sum of money or for the performance of something else, for another, who is already bound for the same. A surety differs from a guarantor, and the latter (guarantor) cannot be sued until after a suit against the principal. 2. The surety differs from bail in this, that the latter (bail) actually has, or is by law presumed to have, the custody of his principal, while the former (surety) has no control over him. The bail may surrender his principal in discharge of his obligation; the surety cannot be discharged by such surrender. 3. In Pennsylvania it has been decided that the creditor is bound to sue the principal when requested by the surety, and the debt is due; and that when proper notice is given by the surety that unless the principal be sued, he will consider himself discharged, he will be so considered, unless the principal be sued. But in general a creditor may resort to the surety for the payment of his debt in the first place, without applying to the principal. (See) Contribution; Contracts; Suretyship. (–Bouvier’s 1856)

SURETYSHIP – The contract of suretyship is that whereby one obligates himself to pay the debt of another in consideration of creditor indulgence, or other benefit given to his principal, the principal remaining bound therefor. It differs from a guaranty is this: that the consideration of the latter is a benefit flowing to the guarantor. Suretyship is an accessory promise by which a person binds himself for another already bound, and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the obligation, if the debtor does not. A contract of suretyship is a contract whereby one person engages to be answerable for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another. For the distinctions between “suretyship” and “guaranty,” see GUARANTY. (–Black’s Law 1st)

STRAWMAN – 1. Draft or outline copy ready for suggestions and comments. 2. Third party used as a cover in illegal or shady deals. 3. Nominee director. 4. A weak or flawed person with no standing. Also called man of straw. (–Black’s Law 2nd)

STRAWMAN – 1. A weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted. 2. A person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. (–Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

DUMMYnoun – One who holds legal title for another; a straw man. (–Black’s Law 4th Edition)

DUMMYadjective –Sham; make-believe; pretended; imitation. As respects basis for predicating liability on parent corporation for acts of subsidiary, “agency,” “adjunct,” “branch,” “instrumentality,” “dummy,” “buffer,” and “toolall mean very much the same thing. (–Black’s Law 4th Edition)

AGENCYA relation, created either by express or implied contract or by law, whereby one party (called the principal or constituent) delegates the transaction of some lawful business or the authority to do certain acts for him or in relation to his rights or property, with more or less discretionary power, to another person (called the agent, attorney, proxy, or delegate) who undertakes to manage the affair and render him an account thereof. The contract of agency may be defined to be a contract by which one of the contracting parties confides the management of some affair, to be transacted on his account, to the other party, who undertakes to do the business and render an account of it. A contract by which one person, with greater or less discretionary power, undertakes to represent another in certain business relations. A relation between two or more persons, by which one party, usually called the agent or attorney, is authorized to do certain acts for, or in relation to (lie rights or property) of the other, who is denominated the principal, constituent, or employer. (–Black’s Law 2nd Edition)


In case you missed that, a surety is the same as a slave, as involuntary subjection; a performance debtor in an open-air prison (district).

Obviously, this opening statement by the IRS was one of obfuscation and very well-known inaccuracy, not in reference to law but to a vast range of misconceptions brought forth by the mythology of the generally misinformed patriot/truth/liberty/sovereignty movements. In other words, the IRS is not refuting the fact or legal existence of the “straw man,” for without it there would be no entity to charge any tax to. Instead, the IRS has address the strawman argument created by fallacious defendants against the IRS and has chosen merely to address that existential, external strawman argument, without explaining the actual facts about what the word strawman stands in reference to in law, as the actual persona that the title of “Taxpayer” is attached to. One (the taxpayer) cannot exist and have standing without the other (the person) being precedent.

Continuing with the IRS document…



The Service is aware that some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal tax liability by taking the incorrect position that their incomes are not subject to tax based on a theory that the government has created a separate and distinct entity, or “straw man,” in place of the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the “straw man.” Some promoters market a package, kit, or other materials that claim to show taxpayers how they can avoid paying income taxes based on these and other meritless arguments.

This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that a taxpayer cannot avoid income tax on the erroneous theory that the government has created a “straw man.” This argument has no merit and is frivolous.

The Service is committed to IDENTIFYING taxpayers who attempt to avoid their tax obligations by taking frivolous positions, including frivolous positions based on meritless “straw man” or similar arguments. The Service will take vigorous enforcement action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions. Frivolous returns and other similar documents submitted to the Service are processed through its Frivolous Return Program. As part of this program, the Service confirms whether taxpayers who take frivolous positions have filed all of their required tax returns, computes the correct amount of tax and interest due, and determines whether civil and criminal penalties should apply. The Service also determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply to return preparers, promoters, and others who assist taxpayers in taking frivolous positions, and recommends whether a court injunction should be sought to halt these activities. Other information about frivolous tax positions is available on the Service website at IRS (website).

This, again, is a truth told based on the logical fallacy of the foolish theroist, but not because the Truth is told to counteract or correct the “truther” that submitted the theory — that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the strawman. Inversely though, it is correct to say that the strawman is responsible for the tax obligations of the taxpayer. This simple reversal of terms is again a way for the IRS to trick us into confusion based on the fallacious, ill-conceived “theories” of the patriot/truth movement and its false gurus. The surety is responsible for the strawman, and the strawman is responsible for the taxpayer, in that order. Again, no effort to educate or correct these fallacies is present herein, for if we were made to understand the way this all works, no one in their right (informed) mind would fall for the trap of being a taxpayer. The IRS would have to close its doors, with no persons dumb enough left to place its false, flattering legal titles upon. Thus it would have no precedent to tax (extort) from any person.

Note that each year, around 50% of all US citizens do not pay federal income taxes. By this accounting, 50% of us should be in jail, since most people believe that all persons are taxpayer by default! Unless that is, that most of that 50% just don’t qualify under the flattering title of “taxpayers.”

Notice that only the word “taxpayer” is used above, as what is against the taxpayer or as the process of “identifying taxpayers.” This is because a “taxpayer” is a specific title created by the IRS under US CODE, and of course it makes the rules over what its own creation (property) must do. At no time does it mention any man or person that is not a taxpayer, because it only has jurisdiction over fools who allow themselves to become and be flatteringly titled as “taxpayers.” In other words, an identified, titled “taxpayer” cannot avoid taxes, because this is the purpose and law of over a title of “taxpayer.” But first the “taxpayer” must be identified, which obviously means that while all taxpayers are persons, not all persons are taxpayers. No man in their right mind would first identify himself as a person that is a “taxpayer” and then argue that he is not a “taxpayer.” This is where gurus and false teachers come into play, steering the truth and patriot movement wrong for many decades with what the courts label as “paper terrorism” and fallacious theories at outrageous prices.

Again we can see above that the IRS is merely arguing against what it knows is a fallacious theory, a strawman argument that is easily disputed, but not offering any corrective facts to prove that argument, of which these gurus have convinced their marks that the taxpayer and the strawman are not the same thing, when in fact the straw man is the “taxpayer” (person liable to tax) when so qualified as such, not the man. For while all persons are men, not all men are attached to persons.

Continuing with the IRS document…



Whether the government’s use of different forms of a taxpayer’s name (e.g., different capitalization formats, spellings) creates a “straw man,” which is a separate and distinct legal entity from the taxpayer to allow the taxpayer to avoid federal tax obligations?

Here we see again the obfuscating idea being put forward that the “taxpayer” is separate from the straw man (person) or citizenship status again. But this is not any argument I’ve made, and certainly the above definitions show that the “taxpayer” is “any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” And so yes, if this is the claim being made, then certainly one would loose this case, having only partial knowledge and understanding of the legal law and tax code regarding personhood (citizenship) in the subjection of bond and surety. In other words, this whitewashing document is designed for the very idiot that posted it to my website, so that he may cease in doing any due diligence or further research to defeat this strawman argument and feel more comfortable with his own voluntary servitude in persona and “taxpayer” status. In other words, this IRS document is a lie designed to appear as truth to the truth movement, and is put forward as official “truth” therein. Unfortunately, this type of false positive truth are what the truth movement is founded upon — the truth of lies.

To be clear, there is no requirement or set way to write names or other titles. Style manuals are not law, merely suggestions and standards. More to the point, if one writes one’s name without ALL-CAPS or even misspells their own name, as soon as that man (agent in surety to the name) answers in legal appearance for that name, the error is considered remedied and corrected. For the intent of the agent is clear as soon as he appears in that name. This ALL-CAPS argument is perhaps the most worthless of the many patriot mythologies surrounding the strawman system. 




The “straw man” claim is premised on the erroneous theory that most government documents do not actually refer to individuals.

Note: Remember that a person (status) is defined as “an individual.” All citizenships are individuals (persons) as opposed to corporations (artificial persons) made up of many individuals. Only a fool would claim that a strawman is not the same as a person (individual). Again, this is just obfuscating language designed to throw us off the scent. No claim I have made states that I believe a straw man is not an individual person, nor that the “taxpayer” is not defined as an individual liable for tax under this IRS Code. That would be downright stupid — which unfortunately is the basis of the realm of false guru-based nonsense and advertising in the truth movement and radio circuit.



Users of the “straw man” theory falsely claim that only documents using an individual’s name with “standard” capitalizationi.e., lower-case with only the beginning letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the individual’s name in all upper-case letters, which is common in some government documents, refers to a separate legal entity, called a “straw man.”

To be clear, government can only communicate with persons, with straw men. In other words, every letter that comes to a citizenship of the United States from government is addressed to the person (sttrawman), which was sent to the man acting in agency and surety for that person at the registered federal mailing address on file. Again, government cannot commune with the Living, only the dead. As registered agent for service of process, your home address is also your interstate commercial address.

To even mention this notion that nothing but capital letters are being used or that the so-called “ALL-CAPS” name has anything to do with whether the straw man exists legally (artificially) is again purposefully misleading and fallacious. And the error is again not corrected by legal facts, as I have provided here. Style manuals again are not law, any more than proper manners and morals are law, and no law states that any name must be capitalized or even spelled correctly for legal identity of the person (strawman) as a “taxpayer” to be established. Those who are again foolish enough to use this argument have been tricked by false gurus that parrot other false gurus and shock-jock radio hosts. This argument by the IRS does not apply to myself nor to anyone else that understands what a straw man is. Again, this is just misleading rhetoric designed to confuse the subject and cause tax (commerce) to flow. ALL-CAPS are used for ease of reference to determine corporations from individuals and fictions from Reality, etc. But both are persons (strawmen) as we have defined and as defined by the courts, and so the point is mute. There is no law that applies here, only stylization suggestions for organization and ease of use, the same as any other corporation out there has.

Moving on…


These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation of a “straw man,” they are not liable for the debts, including the tax debts, of their “straw man,” that taxing the “straw man” is illegal because the “straw man” is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or that no tax is owed by the real individual because it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a “Treasury Direct Account” held in the name of the “straw man.”

Firstly, an individual is a person (strawman), so this argument is again mute. Of course the tax is charged not to the strawman, but to the “taxpayer,” which again is a title put upon the strawman (person). Obviously an agent in surety to the person (strawman) that is identified as a “taxpayer” is liable to pay the tax. You cannot argue the tax, only whether the title of “taxpayer” applies to the person (strawman). The precedent must exist to lay the tax. Once the title is linked, one cannot claim one’s person (status) to not be a “nontaxpayer.” We again see the IRS trying its best to keep the separation going, as if the strawman doesn’t exist in the first place. Yet it says here that “these individuals” are doing the arguing, which means that they are already considered to be persons (strawmen) doing the arguing in surety (strawman form). And so the IRS is claiming that the “strawman” and thus the surety for that person is not liable for the debts of the “taxpayer.” That’s ridiculous, unless that strawman (person) can show the IRS to be of its other created title/status, which used to be called a “non taxpayer.” Remember, the person (strawman) is property of government. We have no choice in the matter.

We read above that surety is a synonym for slavery, and we see above that the IRS does not dismiss this statement, but only uses it to further the ridiculousness of the argument. A bit of truth mixed with lies and obfuscations is always more effective.

There is no such thing as a “Real” person, for man creates nothing Real, and nothing legal is ever Reality. The term “real person” is an oxymoron, meaning a real artifice, a real lie, or a real fiction. What is Real is of God, never of the government. This again is self-evident. But it helps promote the strawman argument well, pretending that the strawman and the title of “taxpayer” and the person are somehow separate entities. Men do labor in the name of a person. Persons do no labor, anymore than a pair of leather work gloves lays bricks without a force moving them.

As to the rest of it, this is a big one. Many people have been tricked into the permanent delusion of seeking rewards, reparations, payoffs, and non-existent pots of gold at the end of non-existent rainbows, believing that for some reason there is some magical account that they can access such as the aforementioned “Treasury Direct Account,” as if that account was specifically set up with the design to remedy by some reward the “truther” that finds it. The gurus have created their own treasure hunt built on these mystery accounts that, if only we could prove their existence, we can somehow rape them of all their money. After all, these are trust accounts for the persons we dwell in, and therefor they must be created for us to find and take, right? Does that make sense to you, considering the person (strawman/legal status) is government property and not your own, and that your actions in surety to that persona are strictly voluntary? What possible remedy does one who is a voluntary slave seek, since no wrong can come to a volunteer? A man benefiting from fraud, after all, cannot suddenly claim it to be fraud while still continuing to act in and benefit from the fraud! It seems the whole truth/patriot/freedom/liberty movement has gone from seeking True Freedom and Liberty under God to wanting money for damages instead, seeking some magic account that doesn’t exist for that purpose. They have simply forgotten or chose to ignore God and It’s Law and chosen mammon (valuation) in It’s stead.

And yes, before I realized the scam, I too was like a jackass lead by a carrot (of gold) to seek this never to be found straw man account. But eventually, one realizes that these otherwise good-intentioned people were displaced from seeking Natural Freedom and Liberty in Nature and under Its Law only to be sidetracked into seeking money in mammon under the law of persons and begin to love their state and status within this master and servant game of volunteerism. It is a shameful turn that many or most have succumbed to, some even accepting money for the stolen lands of their family posterity (bloodline inheritance). And this monetary reward bait-trap keeps us in the system instead of rejecting it outright as fraud, leaving us stuck in the legal law matrix and its commercially coded sub-structure instead of causing us to leave this obvious simulacrum of Babylon. It causes us to remain in legal persona until we find the hidden treasure that can never be found, for it is nothingness, and from nothing comes nothing. And again, just as Huxley predicted, we have been made to love our servitude simply through this endless pursuit of mammon.

As for taxing the strawman as a “taxpayer,” they are only taxing their own property (legal entity/vessel) that we choose voluntarily to use in commerce. A user and surety of another’s property will always smart for it and pay for that use. This idea of labor being a man’s property comes from the one part of the tax code that they do everything to avoid, which is Title 83.



All individuals are subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 1 imposes a tax on all taxable income. Section 61 provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. Adjustments to income, deductions, and credits must be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the accompanying Treasury regulations, and other applicable federal law. Section 6011 provides that any person liable for any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code shall make a return when required by Treasury regulations, and that returns must be filed in accordance with Treasury regulations and IRS forms. Section 6012 identifies the persons who are required to file income tax returns. Section 6151 requires that taxpayers pay their tax when the return is due. Section 6311 requires payment of taxes by commercially acceptable means as prescribed by Treasury regulations.

There is no authority under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable law that supports the claim that taxpayers may avoid their federal tax obligations based on “straw man” arguments, as described in this revenue ruling, or on similar arguments. The formatting of a taxpayer’s name in all upper-case letters on government documents or elsewhere has no significance whatsoever for federal tax purposes. Courts have rejected as frivolous “straw man” arguments. United States v. Furman, 168 F.Supp.2d 609 (E.D. La. 2001) (rejecting criminal defendant’s contention that he was not properly identified in federal government documents that misspelled his name or used his properly spelled name in all capital letters). In addition, courts repeatedly have rejected similar arguments based on frivolous claims that purport to provide a basis for avoiding taxes, and have penalized taxpayers who have made these arguments.  Seee.g.Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984) (“[A]ll individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages . . ..”); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[I]n our system of government, one is free to speak out in open opposition to the provisions of the tax laws, but such opposition does not relieve a citizen of his obligation to pay taxes.”).

All of these demands and statements are very specific. The term “wages,” for instance, is a very limited term that is defined in the tax code. And yes, income tax certainly applies to “wages.” To argue otherwise is foolish. But the IRS must prove what is a “wage” and what is not, just as it must prover identity of persona before it may prove “taxpayer” status. Again, it must establish precedent.

It is also certainly true that courts will joyfully reject such claims presented at bar, for they are erroneously presented in the first place, backed nowhere by the law. A person cannot deny personhood, only a man can. And a person’s actions in and under law decides whether that person is a taxpayer, whether natural (individual) or unnatural (corporation). Remember, the creator controls. This maxim applies to persons (legal identity and status) and to the words (terms of art) in legal language used to create and govern them. You cannot change or alter the definitions of government, but you can learn them and use them properly.

Note too that the IRS refers to these fallacious notions as being a way for “avoiding” taxation. Avoidance is not illegal in any way, and is the very definition of being a “nontaxpayer.” Once what is avoidable becomes unavoidable due to one’s actions and contracts in commerce, only then is avoidance illegal. In other words, once the “taxpayer” status is attached to the strawman (person) it cannot any longer be avoided. Avoidance is what happens before these obligations are made. Thus the IRS and the courts will always deny claims made for avoidance of taxation after the intent and liability is established (confirmed by actions). The only thing one can do is to not become a “taxpayer” by not using the person (strawman) in any way that would creates such a title (status) as “taxpayer.”

To be clear, if a person (strawman) is called into court amor being a taxpayer, and the agent for service of process appear in court as that person so declared to be a “taxpayer,” then the agent has already all but lost his case. All such denials and objections to the title of “taxpayer” should have been addressed through the U.S. Mail system before any appearance is made. To appear as a taxpayer and argue that you are not a taxpayer is certainly a sign of ignorance, illiteracy of legal law, and foolishness.




The Service will challenge the claims of individuals who attempt to avoid or evade their federal tax liability by refusing to file returns and pay tax, and will disallow deductions or other claimed tax benefits, including the exclusion of income, based on frivolous “straw man” arguments. In addition to liability for the tax due plus statutory interest, individuals who claim tax benefits on their returns, or fail to file returns, based on these and other frivolous arguments face substantial civil and criminal penalties. Potentially applicable civil penalties include: (1) the section 6651 additions to tax for failure to file a return, failure to pay the tax owed, and fraudulent failure to file a return; (2) the section 6662 accuracy-related penalty, which is equal to 20 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have paid; (3) the section 6663 penalty for civil fraud, which is equal to 75 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have paid; (4) a $500 penalty under section 6702 for filing a frivolous return; and (5) a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in the United States Tax Court.

Taxpayers relying on these theories also may face criminal prosecution for: (1) attempting to evade or defeat tax under section 7201, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years; (2) willful failure to file a return under section 7203, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to one year; or (3) making false statements on a return, statement, or other document under section 7206, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years.

Persons, including return preparers, who promote these theories and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on these frivolous arguments may face penalties and also may be enjoined by courts pursuant to sections 7407 and 7408. Potential penalties include: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each return or claim for refund prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have known that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return or claim for refund if the return preparer’s actions were willful, intentional or reckless); (2) a penalty under section 6700 for promoting abusive tax shelters; (3) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax; and (4) criminal prosecution under section 7206, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return, statement or other document under the internal revenue laws.


The use of different forms of a taxpayer’s name (different spellings, capitalization, etc.) does not CREATE a “straw man” that allows taxpayers to avoid their federal tax obligations. Claims based on “straw man” arguments or on similar arguments, to avoid federal tax obligations, are frivolous and have no merit.


The author of this ruling is the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. For further information regarding this ruling, contact that office at (202) 622-7950 (not a toll-free call).


This notion that the misspelling or different spelling or ALL-CAPS spelling “CREATES” a straw man is again not corrected by the IRS, but merely left to stand as a strawman argument to be easily refuted and defeated. It is easy to call bullshit without providing facts to support the call. And in the IRS’s case, it is necessary to keep the public dumbed down as to the backbone of their criminal racket.

The strawman is created by the birth certificate as a legal entity (person/status).

The taxpayer is a title placed upon the already existent strawman (person).

Notice that all penalties listed have to do with an already identified by precedent “taxpayer” arguing against that title and status. None of this applies to persons that cannot be identified as “taxpayers.”

In the end, this whole whitewashing treatment of the subject of the straw man has been just one ridiculously and painfully obvious strawman argument, the taking of another’s logical fallacy and arguing against the known fallacy without providing facts or proves that would correct the fallacy, but instead defeating the already known-to-be-incorrect assumptions of the positions taken by fools.





I sincerely hope that this treatment of the strawman topic has clarified its methodology. Again, this is but a precursor, a summary if you will of my book “Strawman: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person”, which is free to download at (StrawmanStory.info), and where you will find the above information sourced and explained in triplicate.

And this knowledge guide you and keep you free…


–clint > richard-son (RealityBloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, September 21, 2017


A Brief History Of The Flat Earth Society

Of all the areas of the liberal arts that need to have the Trivium method applied, this is certainly the one.

I have been fascinated by the willingness of acceptance towards unprovable “facts” used by this group of modern “flat-earther’s.” And so I knew that if I searched a bit I would come to discover the origin of such unscientific thought processes toward the fallaciously standing conclusions put forward therein. And so I’d like to share what I found. This is not meant to be offensive or spark a debate, merely to show the roots of this prima facie (on the face/appearance only) type of belief system and its spread as a subversive culture.

In a nutshell, the origins of the Flat Earth Society come from the Zetetic Society, philosophy, and method. From its modern website we can read:

The ‘Universal Zetetic Society‘ (UZS) was the precursor to the Flat Earth Society. It was founded shortly after the death of Samuel Rowbotham (aka Parallax) by Rowbotham’s adherents. The UZS was active well into the early part of the 20th century, publishing many issues of a magazine titled, The Earth Not a Globe Review?. In 1971, the UZS was renamed The Flat Earth Society when Samuel Shenton became its leader.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham (AKA Parallax) (1816 – 1884), was an English inventor and writer who wrote Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe, based on his decade-long scientific studies of the earth, published a 16-page pamphlet (1849), which he later expanded into a 430 page book (1881) expounding his views. According to Rowbotham’s scientific method, which he called Zetetic Astronomy, the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole? and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars only a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth.

Rowbotham and his followers gained notoriety by engaging in raucous public debates with leading scientists of the day. One such clash, involving the prominent naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, led to several lawsuits for fraud and libel.

After Rowbotham’s death, his thousands of followers established the Universal Zetetic Society, published a magazine entitled The Earth Not a Globe Review? and remained active well into the early part of the 20th century.

‘Zeteticism‘ is a system of scientific inquiry. The word is derived from the Greek verb zeteo, which means “to search or examine; to proceed only by inquiry.

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.

For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it  removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed. Samuel Rowbotham was the first to use the term in reference to Flat Earth? research. He devised the Bedford Level Experiment to determine whether the surface of water is convex, reasoning that if the water is not convex the earth cannot be a sphere. This is how he came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat. The method has been a cornerstone of Flat Earth Theory? ever since.

Link–> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Universal+Zetetic+Society
Link–> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Samuel+Rowbotham
Link–> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Zeteticism


Here we should stop to define a couple of terms, which not ironically have much to do with each other. The Parallax view of convection. Let us use a dictionary from those times:

CONVEX – adjective – [Latin] Rising or swelling on the exterior surface into a spherical or round form; gibbous; opposed to concave, which expresses a round form of the interior surface; as a convex mirror or lens. – noun – A convex body; as heavens convex. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

CONVEXITY – noun – [Latin] The exterior surface of a convex body; a gibbous or globular form; roundness(–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

PARALLAX – noun – [Gr. to vary, to decline or wander; beyond, and to change.] In astronomy, the change of place in a heavenly body in consequence of being viewed from different points. Diurnal parallax the difference between the place of a celestial body, as seen from the surface, and from the center of the earth, at the same instant. Annual parallax the change of place in a heavenly body, in consequence of being viewed at opposite extremities of the earth’s orbit. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)


This notion of Zetetic methodology of science is not distinct from the blind leading the blind. Information without postulate or goal. While Mr. “Parallax” Rowbotham may have been sincere and attempting to be legitimized in his time, it appears that even up to today his followers are merely bad-mannered, browbeating Zetetics hell bent on “engaging in raucous public debates with leading scientists of the day,” and for that matter anyone that seeks rational debate. A simple perusal through the comments section of any “Flat Earth” video or website is evidence of the fallacious ad hominem and other personal, non-scientific attacks towards anyone that disagrees with their strange breed of “science.”

One begins to see similar patterns of this type of harassment in certain elements of the “truth movement” and its infamous shock jocks, and within groups like We Are Change and the various 9/11 truth movements, of which I was once very much involved. This is certainly not to say that no science backs their (and my) claims about 9/11. It is to say that the approach towards dissemination of this information, which is prima facie evidence at best, is to gather in places and have arguments similar to those of the flat-earther’s, usually ending in statements like “if you can’t see what is happening in this video you must be an idiot.” And I believe this is why such movements are so transient and ineffective, for the confidence of absolute observational correctness becomes an overwhelming force that allows no further debate and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

Now remember, I am referring to myself here, as one of the guys that used to get out in the streets and in parks and other public places in people’s faces without solicitation to spread “9/11 truth.” And honestly, I hate the thought that I might have been so belligerent and unreasonably argumentative that I turned people away from actually examining the evidence I had just by my attitudinal prejudices. And so as one with experience in this gang-up and insult methodology, I know this is a mental trap we must all grow from if we are to have any effect.

One of the most outspoken and somehow respected “flat-earther’s” is Eric Dubay.

In the following video debunking most tenets of this movement, we find that many of Dubay’s sources for flat-earth cosmology is from just where we would expect, the Zetetic Society. I recommend this entire video:

Note too in this video that “Freemasons formed Zetetic Societies to engage in anti-Christian and scientific debate.” In other words, counter-culture.

We can also find much of this sort of fallacious reasoning in Theosophical writings and movements. From the Theosophical.org website we can read some of these esoteric writings that seem to support such Zetetic methodologies and beliefs:


Earth Mind: Starting where we are in the world of appearances, we see the myriad of forms, from our time and place of seeing, from our point of view and perspective. We are the subject registering objects.

This is my world, my life, my things, my roles. Fear and desire. The mask of persona. The consumer. Habits. The everyday world. The world of natural living. This is the flatworld; the sun revolves around us. This is the data storage mind. Calculating mind. Taking care of business. This is the earth world. The outer world. The subject-object awareness dominates

Esoteric Initiations: In addition to meditation, ancient myths, and near-death research, we have a similar process described in the psychological initiations of consciousness familiar to esoteric groups. There are notable similarities between the process of natural life and death and the ending of an old value system and a rebirth into a new perspective.

Transpersonal psychologists love to look at this process of death and rebirth in consciousness. One of (the) first of these was the Romanian scholar Mircea Eliade, who observed: “Initiatory death provides the clean state on which will be written the successive revelations whose end is the formation of a new man…This new life is conceived as the true human existence, for it is open to the values of spirit” (Eliade, xiii-xiv). The process of initiatory death wipes the slate clean so that a new chapter in the book of life may begin fresh, open, and unprejudiced by old cultural and social values and viewsInitiation breaks down old patterns of behavior. It allows people to begin again and to see with new perception. The new values become the principal values of the new life.

At each initiatory death and rebirth we begin with a new view from a higher elevation. We see more, know more, and can relate to whole systems more readily. Seeing and accepting life as a process of birth/death instead of regarding life as the opposite of death is an initiation into reality

Link–> https://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine?id=2810
Sources–> Alice Bailey (Theosophy), Madamn H.P. Blavatsky (Theosophy), The Dali Lama, etc…


With its hand inside and its (formally “Lucifer”) Lucis Publishing company officially recognized and integrated into the United Nations and the Common Core agenda for world education, let us again understand the basics of Theosophy for our purposes:

THEOSOPHY – noun – Divine wisdomgodliness. 1. Knowledge of God. (Webs1828)

THEOSOPHIST – noun – One who pretends to divine illuminationone who pretends to derive his knowledge from divine revelation. (Webs1828)

THEOSOPHIST – noun – [Gr. God, and comment; wise.] Pretension to divine illumination; enthusiasm(Webs1828)

SOPHIST – noun – [Latin sophista.] 1. A professor of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece. 2. A captious or fallacious reasoner. (Webs1828)

SOPHISTRY – (repeated) – noun – 1. Fallacious reasoningreasoning sound in appearance only. These men have obscured and confounded the nature of things by their false principles and wretched sophistry2. Exercise in logic(Webs1828)


Logic without grammar — this is the epitome of the Flat-Earth Society. Perspective-based information without True knowledge.

Let us be clear… I have maintained throughout my research and writings that I simply don’t know the shape of the earth, nor do I fool myself that this type of knowledge is for such mortals as myself. I remain neutral. This is, if anything, a sort of divine wisdom whose vantage point is only with God, if you will. I don’t know. I will continue to answer I don’t know. But so far, the evidence lands almost exclusively in the “globular” earth model. But I still do not know.

The typical flat-earther, however, has already decided, claiming God-like knowledge as divine wisdom without proofs and without actually realizing this cultish disposition. Such confidence is reminiscent to the historical accounts of the church’s resolve in justifying the witch-burnings. Fact built upon fallacious reasoning… or no reasoning or questioning at all! Belief based purely on physical observation and perspective is obviously a very dangerous thing, and is how the masses are controlled in many areas of thought. It is not dissimilar to ignoring the camouflage of many species that allows them to hide in plain site by subterfuge so as to catch its prey unsuspecting.

But what happens when one’s perspective is changed?

What happens to the mountainous ant hill when the ant climbs a tree and observes it from directly above as seemingly flat?

In fairness, we must acknowledge that the world and those who run it is full of controlled oppositional forces. It was Vladimir Lennon who is quoted as suggesting that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” And so as we find Eric Dubay outing almost all other prominent flat-earth researchers but himself as shills and controlled oppositions, we may also find otherwise legitimate inquiries and scientific researchers seeking the Truth of the matter. And so I leave this short essay with the following link that you may read at your leisure, which discusses the history of the Flat Earth Society, its leaders, and the fact that they may have been controlled opposition to counter any good information from being taken seriously.

Link–> http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html

Again, I remind the reader that I remain neutral on the subject, so no need to bully me or attempt to belittle my character in the comments below. I simply ask that you consider the origins of this movement, a movement without really anywhere to move, and that you beware of any belief without supportive data. Use your grammar, logic, and rhetoric, in that order only.

Where does your grammar come from? Is it to teach or to deceive? Is it of the Nature of the Universe or is it sourced in the adverse?

ADVERSARIA – (From Latin adversa, things remarked or ready at hand.) Rough memoranda, common-place books. (Black4)

ADVERSARIA – noun – [Latin from adversus. See Adverse.] Among the ancients, a book of accounts, so named from the placing of debt and credit in opposition to each other. A commonplace book. (Webs1828)

ADVERSE adjective – [Latin adversus, opposite; of ad and versus, turned; from verto, to turn. See Advert. This word was formerly accented, by some authors, on the last syllable; but the accent is now settled on the first.] 1. Opposite; opposing; acting in a contrary direction; conflicting; counteracting; as, adverse winds; an adverse party. 2. Figuratively, opposing desire; contrary to the wishes, or to supposed good; hence, unfortunate; calamitous; afflictive; pernicious, unprosperous; as, adverse fate or circumstances. – verb transitive – advers’. To oppose. [Not used.] (Webs1828)

SATANnoun – [Hebrew. an adversary.] The grand adversary of man; the devil or prince of darkness; the chief of the fallen angels. (Webs1828)


Are the books (grammar) on your shelf and in your digital browser a gift of the light of knowledge or of the adverse of darkness as form without substance?

The world, be it flat or round, square or artificial, is abound in false dialectic (logic), in adversarial forces intent on counter-cultural confusion. Perhaps it is time to abandon such impossible pursuits and focus on the ever-deteriorating and legally (licensed) anarchistic society we find ourselves in today? No matter what side of this debate you fall on, perhaps it is time to come back to earth and treat it as home, whatever its unknown shape, and to start treating each other as we wish others to treat us. Oh, what a wonderful world (round or flat) that would be.


–clint richard-son (realityblogger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, September 17th, 2017

New Radio Show — Sunday’s At 5pm

Note: url not active yet. Special thanks to Jules for taking me on board the UCY.TV platform, and for all her hard work.

What’s to be found under the rose?

This show will be loosely designed around the recent release of my book, STRAWMAN, in order to learn and unlearn so many of the false truths we have been masterfully mislead with, in movements that never actually move, and with occasional guests to delight the palette.

It’s all in the name.

Tune in, because you’re already dead,
and what you don’t know is keeping you that way.

Archives to be stored at UCY.TV and Youtube, and at: CorporationNationRadioArchives.wordpress.com.

Pass it on!


–Clint (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

An Open Letter To “Flat Earthers”

I am not here today in an attempt to debate on the subject of this post, and I’m not here to declare what “shape” the earth is. The most honest answer is invariable always that one which best describes one’s best disposition, which is that I simply don’t know. I cannot know. I have no vantage point to utter such a confident declaration and build a faith-based counter-cultural movement around it. I would never claim to know without seeing for myself, which I cannot.

This is, by the way, a great example of where the Trivium method (grammar, logic, rhetoric) works wonders. The trick with applying the Trivium method is to know when it is applicable and when it is not. The Truth, when told, needs not the Trivium to show it to be Truth. Only the lie, no matter how well-intentioned or ill-conceived it stands, can be defeated by the Trivium. For more on this method of distinction, this bullshit meter, visit:

Link–> http://www.triviumeducation.com

On that note, the group mentality shared between those styling themselves as “flat-earthers” has become wholeheartedly the opposite of honesty, which is to blindly state that the earth must be and therefore is indeed flat, while providing absolutely non-corelative “facts” to prove it. Though the word “flat” is wholly undefined and without any actual primary evidence whatsoever, this model of the flat earth has the same amount of primary photographs as the apparent globe model has, which is absolutely zero. Yet somehow this lack of somehow real photographic evidence (an oxymoron on its surface) only applies to what “flat-earthers” now call insultingly as “round-earthers,” a reference to how foolish everyone must be for not believing in the undefined and totally unproven in every way “flat” planet model. And so immediately and without trying, we utterly crush one of the mainstay arguments for a flat earth, which is that there is no Real picture or image of it — the same reason used to anecdotally disprove a round earth. But we must recognize and respect the maxims of law and science here, which is to say that one cannot prove a negative. In other words, a lack of evidence is not somehow positive evidence of a fact. Within the artistry and either purposeful or accidental irrationality of perfecting the use of logical fallacy, we find here that it is seemingly perfectly logical to utilize a self-damning argument (lack of photo evidence) against that which one wishes to disprove.

But the arrogant demands for real photos of the planet continue from these flat-earthers, who believe that the lack of (negative) photo evidence is positively proof that they are hiding flatness from us all.

When logic comes before or even absent of any grammar, you end up sounding like this guy:

This “flat-earther” will be our study case today.

Now, I don’t wish to talk down to or disparage this man, only to show that the fallaciously ill-conceived and unfounded confidence in what he is stating as “proof” is without anything to back it up. It is not rational, it is not scientific, and it is not reasonable. It is, however, a perfectly logical set of fallacious rhetoric. And so the intention of utilizing this video is purely to show evidence of what happens when logical fallacy becomes so out of control that it approaches the ridiculous, surpassing even religion in its vulgarity to what is self-evident Truth, simply because one’s foundation is unproven or incorrectly perceived. This arrogance of positively, rightously declared ignorance permeates throughout such stylized groups, but more so from “flat-earthers” than any other I’ve ever seen. We must ultimately call it for what it is, a strictly faith-based religious cult.

I will go point by point here, taking each topic mentioned by this self-proclaimed “flat-earther,” whatever that means, and let reason and obvious evidential proofs take their course.

Firstly, and before we even press play on the video, please take notice of the design on his shirt. This is a common model used to show an almost impenetrable, apparently highly guarded ice-wall that surrounds the entirety of the border of the flat earth. Treaties between nations are in place and the continent of Antarctica is thus off limits without international governmental permissions and permits. And this is therefore said to be a secretive conspiracy to hide the flat earth, simply because no one may thus walk to the edge of the earth and… do whatever it is one would do if one were to reach the end of the earth. Take a picture maybe? Throw a stone into space?

On the other side, the side of research and reason, we simply find this notion of an ice wall around the earth comes from the efforts of early global mappers to map a round globe onto a flat piece of paper, which is way harder than one might think. Trying to draw what is round (i.e. 3-dimensional model) onto what is a flat (i.e. 2-dimensional model) in actual simulation (representation) and scale is very difficult, of course, and involves much we need not get into here for this discussion.

Today, we have the fortunate example of computer world and background modeling to show us how such maps might appear as we warp them from round (3D) to flat (2D), though below it is opposite, going from flat (2D) to round (3D). The point is, one can easily see how Antactica would be skewed to appear to stretch around the globe if it were to be drawn on a flat map, when looking at the world from above Antarctica. In other words, what appears to be a wall of ice surrounding the oceans on all sides of the 2D map resets its original form when the map is caused to be shown in its 3D model again. The outside of the 2D map would be folded together and the continent of Antarctica would be clear. The same would be true if it was the North Pole that was the bottom of the model, if the photo was taken from the south pole. And so Antarctica is stretched out to appear as a circle around the entire map, just as illustrated below in this computer model, giving it the appearance of exactly what is pictured on our “flat-earther’s” t-shirt above.

And so this “displacement effect” upon a 2D rendered map is what a “flat-earther” tries to show as “proof” that Antarctica is a ring around our other continents on a flat surface. Again, no photo evidence, just the drawings of old mappers and mariners.

One theory is that because the flag of the “United Nations” has no pictorial image of Antarctica upon its armorial, that therefore the logical conclusion is that it’s laurels must be in actually a wall of ice spreading all around the flat earth from the south pole. But again the simplest answer is usually the correct one… For we must remember or learn the foundational fact that ANTARCTICA IS A CONTINENT and NOT A NATION. There is no independent nation in or around the geographical area known as Antarctica, which is the very reason for the afore mentioned international treaties upon it. It is wholly owned by no nation, and so it is not a party to nor is it represented in the United Nations as a nation. It is not, after all, the “United Continents.” Likewise, if all of the nations in North America dropped out of the United Nations, the flag would likely not include the continent of North America upon it. So would this lack of inclusion of a known continent somehow prove that the world is triangular, and indeed not round or flat?

A simple glance at the United Nations website gives a pretty good reason why we wouldn’t see Antarctica as well… because the very middle of the flag is a vantage point from the North Pole down!

The Design

The original UN logo was created by a team of designers during the United Nations Conference on International Organization in 1945.  The design team was led by Oliver Lincoln Lundquist.

The United Nations Emblem

The design is “a map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole, inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree, in gold on a field of smoke-blue with all water areas in white. The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles” (original description of the emblem).

Link–> http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/un-logo-and-flag/index.html


Gee… I hope I didn’t just create a new flat-earth meme, that because the olive laurels on the UN flag are gold, they must be keeping Antarctica all for them-selves so as to hoard all the gold! Or perhaps this is where all those pesky, greedy leprechauns go with all of their damned elusive pot’s o’ gold, riding the rainbow train to Antarctic happiness…


The point here is that even without applying science, mathematics, or any other “proofs” to the equation, we can immediately see that just reasoning, mixed with a tiny bit of due diligence, defeats this entire ridiculous theory of “the ice-wall.” Antarctica is simply not a nation. How simple and funny is that?

But I digress, for I do not know if there is an ice-wall around us. I have no way of knowing and have never been there, if it actually exists. I am only here to disprove what is said to be proofs, and have a bit of sarcastic fun along the way. More to the point though, this should scare you, that people may be lead to believe in such easily defeated nonsense. For all of us non-flat-earthers are essentially heretics worthy of death by little round balls. Ok, that’s an exaggeration, of course. But we are being metaphorically stoned by these styled “flat-earthers” convinced not only that everything is a lie, but that a different set of lies are a convincing model of everything.

As for this freezing ice shelved continent, though several nations have claimed as sovereign certain overlapping sections (sectors) of the continent to conduct scientific research, it is simply not a new or unique nation in and of itself. It has no representation therefore in the United Nations and so one would not expect to see it upon any United Nations map or flag. This is quite reasonable. You can read more about the international Antarctic treaties here:

Link–> https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm

Oh, and by the way, in case you “flat-earthers” decide to shift your focus to the north pole, let me nip that idea right in the butt. It sits over water, not any legally or internationally recognized land. So it really isn’t by law able to be considered a nation either. I hope I don’t need to remind you here that ice is also water as well, and that even a continent-sized ice cube still cannot technically be a nation either, since water is considered as a moveable in law. Look at the flag above. The North pole is portrayed as water and not continental land.

One down, so many to go…

Let’s go back to the first example video of our rather confident “flat-earther” and his fallacious rhetoric and continue with our analysis.

In the beginning monologue our “flat-earther” states that the biggest argument against “flat-earthers” such as himself is of course the fact that they have no actual evidence to back up their claims, though our flat-earth champion seems here not to apply himself to that generalization, and seeks in this video to rebuke the fact of no facts exist. He then states that this claim of lack of evidence comes from that dismissive majority of “heliocentric enthusiasts” as a title for what I assume is another way of disparaging anyone that believes the earth is round and revolves around the sun.

To be clear, I am not writing this critique as a helio-centrist or under any other religious and/or scientific titles or belief systems. Remember, I clearly stated that “I don’t know” in the beginning of this post, and that my only goal is to disprove what is labeled as “100% proof” of a flat earth, as if there is a such thing as 90% or 17.8% proof? Maybe their proof system is the same as alcohol is based on? I don’t know. One can hold many theories yet hold zero proofs. That’s religion. But the most important facet about this clandestine name-calling is the link made by this “flat-earther” that anyone who does not believe in a flat-earth model must therefore logically believe in a heliocentric model. Why? This is unclear, since the shape of the earth itself does not prove or disprove in any way that the earth revolves around the sun or is stationary. So what about geocentrism? Can I not be a believer in geocentrism and also believe in the general roundness of the planets and of Earth? Again, this is but a fallacious, false connection created to make the flat-earth model more appealing and factual by association or lack thereof, when in fact it makes no difference at all to the shape of the earth.

He goes on to state that the distance of the sun from the earth is a heliocentric model-based factoid, when in fact shape has nothing to do with any heliocentric theory or any other. But how could the shape of the earth be a correlation to the distance of the earth to the sun? Answer: It doesn’t. Whether these measurements are accurate or not, at best, fall under the knowledge category of I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY AND NEVER WILL. And yes, this is the best scientific answer possible! This is just more false-association and fallacious logic without reasonable grammar.

And here we see the immediate development of an us against them, or us against everyone else in the universe mentality, even as his rhetoric takes upon itself an almost religious quality of belief over reason, as if he is one of a new persecuted society of true believers.

The name of this video, by the way, is “The Sun Is The Smoking Gun.”

His first specific argument is that all drawings of the universe are CGI computer models.

Now, I hate to even feel the need to state this, but what the hell else is there? What else could there even be? This statement is one of those beg the question fallacies that implies that there could or should be some other kind of image of the universe showing all the planets to scale that is kept somehow secret from us. Perhaps the aliens faxed it over last century? You know, when faxes were universally cool? But where could such a “real” image come from otherwise? Wouldn’t one need to float way outside of Pluto’s course to possibly obtain such an image of the entire solar system? And would the sun not just appear from that vantage point as merely another bright star in the far distance?

Yes, all the pictures you see of the sun and planets are art or computer images. Duh! And no, they are not nor can they be to scale, because the scale would require 10’s or 100’s of miles of paper to print out. Not to mention, that while portrayed at such a scale the planets would be unseen by the naked eye, making the map pointless for study. So yes, they are drawn in and over-exagurated. Surprise! If you think that is a conspiracy to hide flat earth, I don’t even know what to say to that. How can this possibly be related to anything about flat earth? There is absolutely no correlation of the shape of the earth to the distance of each planet to the sun. This is just another completely unrelated topic used as false proof, as compared to the question: Is the earth flat?

100% dud there…

Now, standing as what has to be the most ridiculous disassociation from known science, physics, and just downright common sense and perception, our “flat-earther” shows a “proof” of something that I honestly have never heard before. At around the 2:20 mark in the video above, he actually points to the suns reflection on the clouds (atmosphere) and calls it a “hot spot.” He is actually looking at the reflection of the sun from the camera’s vantage point and thinking that the bright reflection of the sun’s light is causing a “hot spot” to form over the earth. Now at first I thought for sure this had to be a joke. But he just kept on as if absolutely this was a reasonable conclusion.

He then shows footage of the sun shining in different directions through the clouds, claiming that this means that if you follow the rays of the sun, it is really much closer to earth than is officially stated. Again, this photographic evidence is not proof in any way that the earth is flat, just more rhetoric without proper grammar and logic applied. If he’s right though, the sun would appear to be hovering in this picture to be about 2 or 3 miles above the clouds according to the way the sun rays line up. So it’s really close! Therefore… the earth is flat. LOL!

I’m sorry, but it is very hard to control my sarcasm here, so bear with me.

What he didn’t bother to check with reference to these “crepuscular rays,” which have everything to do with the point of ones linear perspective, are something called anti-crepuscular rays or anti solar rays, which actually do the opposite of these crepuscular rays he shows in his video example. Anti solar rays appear (as an illusion) to converge away from the sun instead of at the sun. Both are illusions, just like a rainbow is an optical illusion (unless you are a leprechaun). And so here again, just a tad bit of due diligence would show our “flat-earthed” theorist that his theories are quite self-debunkable.

New “flat-earther” meme: if the anti solar rays of the sun don’t point to the sun, the sun must therefore not exist. Oh, wait, that’s why they are called ANTI solar. The point is that these rays, called crepuscular rays, are also not coming directly from the sun, but from the atmospheric reproduction of them. And so no, they are not a measurement of where the sun is in the sky.

Logic without grammar…

By all means, simply type in these terms into an image finder and marvel at what comes up — a beautiful and well known phenomenon that we have all witnessed personally at some point in our lives. But to say something is well known does not make it any less of a natural or optical illusion.

And yet amazingly, arrogantly, confident and absolutely sure of himself, he continues in his false proofs as if a prophet of the sun deity…

His next point is the Earth’s supposed distance from the sun, called colloquially as the “Goldilocks” position in reference to the fairy tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, where the earth is just right. But of course, it is the atmosphere of the earth that is just right, not the position of it. If we loose our atmosphere by any significant degree for any reason, little Goldilocks will suddenly find herself with a really bad sunburn and won’t be feeling just right. In fact, her little face will either melt off or become a popsicle.

The correct answer to this distance measurement?

I do not know. Nor shall I. Nor am I meant to.

In answer to his irrational question then I would say no, I would not expect anything in space to be ablaze that is outside of the ring of Earth’s positional field because I would also not know its atmospheric capabilities. This mixture of scientific referential and bold-faced sci-fi conjecture is enough to cause a rational man to bleed out of his anus in angst and incurable frustration. Maybe that’s the point. The joke? However, again I would answer that I don’t know, man, because I have no idea what space is or what it’s made of, what the sun is or what it’s made of, nor what the distance is between these things. And neither do you. I cannot reasonably have unwarranted confidence in one unknown only to use that unknown to prove or disprove another unknown entity. But, according to “flat-earthers,” since apparently we cannot believe anything NASA says, why use NASA information while at the same time trying to prove NASA is a fraud?

Seriously, if we get any less rational, we are going to end up disproving the existence of fire by splashing water on it!

For the next one, I’ll just quote this dude to save time and energy…

“So why is it that here, on earth, you see- you look up and you see the sun, and the sun, always has a blue background, but when you see these official images from the trusted scientific community and the good folks over at NASA who are raking in that $52 million dollars a day, you see the sun and it’s always a black background. Why does that– why does that happen, why does it look that way. Ask– Ask these questions to yourself.”


It is perhaps this last statement that answers the rest. Why would one ask a question to one’s self? Knowing that one’s self does not already know the answer, is it really reasonable to proceed then to asking one’s self for the answer?

Essentially, he is asking why is the sky is blue.

But what about at night, when we look out in space and see 1,000’s of stars that are supposedly suns? Why isn’t space blue at night time? When the sun is behind us, instead of shining directly in our atmosphere, then we see the same darkness he is questioning. There is (apparently) no atmosphere (like ours) around the sun, and therefore there are no rays bouncing through our sky giving off a blue tint. We would need to be looking at the sun from behind an atmosphere to see the color of the atmosphere. Yet he questions why it is black behind, not in front of the sun. This is another laugh out loud moment, being but more priceless logical fallacy.

But by all means, ask your self to make sure your self knows the answer.

Again, this is simply a matter of perspective. The sky is no more blue than a rainbow is the appearance of its colors. Our perception of what we label as the color “blue” is merely the available light allowed (filtered) through our own limited capacity to see.

This children-oriented science museum in Louisiana explains it thusly:

“…One of the main factors in determining a sunset’s color is the Earth’s atmosphere. The atmosphere is made up mostly of gases as well as some other molecules and particles thrown in for good measure. The most common gasses in our atmosphere are nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). The remaining single percent is made up of water vapor and lots of tiny solid particles like dust, soot & ash, pollen, and salt from the oceans. There are also trace gasses like argon present. Also, depending on where you live, you’ll have to factor in that volcanoes can put large amounts of dust particles high into the atmosphere and pollution can add different gases or dust and soot to the air as well.

The atmosphere of the Earth can be thought of like a filter on a camera lens.

Light from a light bulb or the Sun may look white, but it is actually a combination of many colors. When you see light filtered through a prism you’ll see this white light split up into its separate colors, i.e. wavelengths. White light is the colors of the spectrum blended into each other. And a rainbow that you see in the sky is actually a natural prism effect as rain drops split those different colors up.  The colors have different wavelengths, frequencies, and energies. Violet has the shortest wavelength. Red has the longest wavelength. The shorter the wavelength means the more powerful the frequency.”


In other words, when this guy says to “trust your own eyes,” every scientist in the world reacts in painful spasm, since our own eyes are naturally filtered from seeing most of the spectrum of available light. Our eyes are like a filter (camera lens) for the brain, which is a beautiful gift of Nature, letting us see only what we need to see for our environment and survival in Nature.

Let’s just put it this way… if the atmosphere wasn’t there to protect your sorry ass, you wouldn’t be asking why the sky (atmosphere) is blue in the first place, now would you. Why not wonder at its glory than question its visual and functional reality?

But let us pause here yet again to ask that ever so important and repetitive question: what in the hell does the blue sky have to do with the earth being flat?

Essentially, he answers his own question by stating the fact that in space, when looking at pictures of the sun, the background black, while from earth and within its atmosphere, it is blue.

And that leads us to the logical fallacy of the day: because NASA rakes in 52 million a day it cannot be trusted. NASA draws and creates CGI pictures of what it cannot otherwise take pictures of and fills in colors to see things in its published pictures (and always discloses to us it is doing so), therefore it again cannot be trusted.

By this logic, we cannot trust graphic engineers or structural architects unless their drawings match exactly to what the final constructed building will look like, including the color scheme picked out by the eccentric billionaires that will corporately dwell therein.

Again, let me remind the reader, I am not defending anyone or anything, including NASA. Please don’t shoot the messenger. I am only disposing what is labeled as 100% proof by someone who calls, identifies, and publicly displays himself culturally as a “flat-earther.”

Moving on…

Once again, at about 8:40 into this horrifyingly laughable video, I will need to quote our “flat-earther” just to show the idiocracy of what is being stated with no sign of apology or awareness of any of the sciences.

“If you actually just trust your senses — if you, you can pop on YouTube, or you can, you know, take a look at this video and find additional videos, you’re gonna find that there are time-lapses that people have taken of the sun moving across the sky. And while the sun’s moving across the sky, you’ll notice that the Earth seems to be stationary, like, the Earth isn’t moving; the buildings that you see aren’t moving. You see the sun drifting across the sky. So wha- what does that tell you? We’re told that the Earth is rotating around the sun, yet we feel no movement, we don’t see any motion, we don’t feel any motion out here, but we feel stillness when we go outside. And, in the time-lapse you see the sun moving across the sky, just like that (hand motion). So what does that tell you? I believe that tells you to trust your senses. And what does your senses tell you? Your senses tell you that the sun is the thing that is moving and that the Earth is flat and stationary. But let’s go on…”


Firstly, I love that he says trust your senses, and in the same sentence tells us to watch YouTube. In other words, trust the CGI. Trust digital technology. Just don’t trust NASA or government or any of them there round-earthers and their usage of YouTube.

So here he actually points to the fact that when we set up a STATIONARY camera pointed at the sky, the Earth for some reason does not seem to move. The buildings stay where they are. LOL! Only the sun seems to move across the sky.

Do I need to even comment on this?

If you don’t understand, then go buy a mountable camera and perhaps jump off a cliff. Afterwords, if you survive, you can marvel at how everything but the tip of your hat seems to move, but not what the camera is mounted upon. The mountains, the buildings, the sky… everything just seems to be flying by in utter chaos! Be careful though, because that large mass of land coming straight for the camera is actually the round earth about to smack the hell out of you.

As to the motion fallacy, I can merely direct the reader of this, and any flat-earther” for that matter, to go and drive your car at 90 miles an hour down the wrong side of the highway. Once you reach that speed, you’ll notice that if you drop a quarter, it falls straight down as if you are standing still. You will also notice that you cannot actually feel the motion of traveling at 90 miles an hour, since you are not accelerating or decelerating any more. But eventually you’ll cause a crash with an oncoming car or truck, and you will definitely feel that motion. May sting a little, but at least you’ll be able to rationalize how it is we don’t feel the turn or motion of the Earth.

Now again, I don’t claim to know anything about this. Are we turning? I don’t know. Are we spinning and darting through space with reckless abandon in a spiral with the sun and other planets like crumbs in the garbage disposal of space? I don’t know.

However, I will point out again that the notion that the earth is stationary or that it is spinning or that it is rocketing through space… has nothing to do with the Earth being flat or round. So please stop equating unreliable concepts together.

Seriously, this has to be a practical joke, right?

Trust your senses. But let me tell you what your senses tell you, because I’m a “flat-earther” and everyone else is round and heliocentric.

My favorite part of this video, starting at about the 10 minutes mark or so, is the ill-conceived story and experiment he tells about calling up his friends in England and in Australia to show that sunlight is in all three places at once, and that this is somehow impossible on a globe model earth. Now, he could have just gone to the time zone websites and pulled up this information himself, to see that when he called his friends internationally they would tell him exactly what would be expected at that moment. But instead, without checking any source or even having the conscious awareness to verify his claim, he arrogantly presents a completely ridiculous “story” of how the fact that his friends can see the sun rising and setting at the same time it is directly over his head in the western state of Washington proves the earth is flat.

So I pulled up what I believe any rational man would pull up, the time zone charts based on the round earth that everyone is familiar with and for which our entire time and travel infrastructure is based on. Now I have data to compare to an anecdotal phone call that presents absolutely no proof of anything except that the sun can be seen in three places at once. To our flat-earthed, this duel phone call is proof-positive that the earth must be flat. I have no idea what this is so, except again to point out the lack of grammar that his dialectic (logic) is built upon, leaving his rhetoric completely in the realm of the absurd.

Here is the data set I found after 5 minutes of reasonable research. I looked at the sunset charts for England and Australia today (August 23, 2017) which can be found and inquired of here:

Link–> (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2175819)


Australia (Biloela Queensland): Time was 6:17 am and the sun was at 78 degrees — Video shows 6:06 am, and sun is barely rising (not quite yet beginning to rise – to quote: “just coming up”) in that video, just as one would expect from the data set provided.

6:18 am  (78°) 5:43 pm  (282°)


England (West Yorkshire):  Video shows sun already quote: “over the hill” referring to a sun already set and out of site, and that it was apparently a quote: “nice sunset.” The website shows an equal dataset, predicting the sunset to happen at 8:17 pm, with a 290 degree angle, just as one would expect immediately after sunset at 9:06 pm (time of video).

5:59 am  (69°) 8:17 pm  (290°)


Note that these degree points are referencing the upward direction as well as either east or west. In other words, the sun that is being seen at sunset in Queensland Australia is also being seen as a sunset in West Yorkshire England, just was recorded on the globe model.

Next we simply plug in where our “flat-earther” happens to be standing while conducting this hilariously this botched experiment while making it sound logically as absolute proof. He is in Tacoma Washington, at what just happens to be the exact middle off the day, or what is officially called the “solar noon.” And we see that the degree of angle shows the sun to be in the middle of the sky, at 180 degrees (the middle point between sunset and sunrise).

1:12 pm (53.9°), heading (180°)

Link–> https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/tacoma


And so, this means that what England sees as a sunset and Australia sees as a sunrise is actually the middle of the day in the Western most United States (Pacific Time Zone). And this just happens to be exactly what the globe model predicts would happen. And yet this little “story” of our “flat-earther” calling other internationally unorganized “flat-earthers”  states this to be absolute 100% proof (the name of the video) that the earth is flat.

To be clear, when we look at the “globe” model map below, we can see that in order for this to have happened, the sun would be over the State of Washington, to which the eastern shore of Australia would see this solar noon as the eastern rising morning sun, while In Western Europe, specifically in England, we would also see the sun setting in the west. This can only happen on this round earth, for on flat earth maps we see Australia being east of both America and England. So how could Australia be seeing the solar noon in America by looking east at the same time England is looking west?

We know the answer, of course. Do I actually have to say it? That the map connects to the other side of the map…

And so even more hilarious to consider while listening to this “flat-earther” preach, this little experiment actually disproves the validity of any flat earth model, since if the sun was hovering over North America, it would be seen as a westward sunrise in both Europe and Australia, and nothing from the East. In other words, the sun would rise and set only in the west in Australia according to this flat-earth model.

Globe map

So what does this mean?

Between chuckles and outright bursts of uncontrollable laughter, it means that this self-proclaimed “flat-earther” just proved the exact readings one finds on sites such that NASA would run. He literally proved that the “globe” model does exactly what it says it does, and that a flat earth model does not jive with the suns placement in the skies!

But don’t be fooled by my research here… for this is actually, somehow, some way, proof that the Earth is flat, but satirically so, and only in a round sort of way.

Now at this point we must begin to speculate that this whole flat earth thing is just a very widely played joke, or that it is indeed merely just another counter-culture mind game with a goal towards total domination through controlled chaos of a completely irrational idiocracy… kinda like the movie version. Even the majority of comments left in this video ask if it is a joke, while most of the remainder of comments are insults hurled at “round-earthers” and “heliocentric enthusiasts” that offer no substance or proofs, very much like a religious argument should be.

But can we really compare the movie with today’s reality?



Perhaps the greatest and most appealing fallacies is the fact that when we look at the horizon, we see with our own eyes that it is flat. And so we again apply logic without grammar, and conclude that our perception must be correct. But please allow me to attempt to explain why it is that we do not see curvature on the horizons of our Earth, based on the globe model…

But how does one tell in words what would need to be experienced to comprehend? We can only try here to explain the only rational outcome of what it would be like to stand on a perfectly round (3-dimentional) ball or globe.

To start, we must realize that everywhere we look at the horizon, say if no mountains were in our way, that is forward, backward, right, left, and every point in between, would necessarily be at an equal vantage point wherever we may look. In other words, the horizon would be flat in appearance, and the curvature would not be perceptible, since every point on the horizon is at the same height from our perspective.

Remember, this is all about perspective. You’ll need to use your imagination for this one, keeping it bound to reason.

So let us pretend that while we are standing on a perfectly round globe model of anything, and therefore are standing automatically at its highest point, that we are then told to look for curvature on the horizon between the right and left points on opposite sides from one another, and then for the curvature from in back of us to the very front of our position.

Where would the perspective of such curvature begin and end, if everywhere you turned upon a perfect globe and therefore every horizontal point of the surface spread equally out in front of you? Answer: the horizon would appear flat (equidistant) because we are viewing the globe not in 3d but only two-dimensionally (length/hight).

If it started at the front and went left or right in its curvature, then there would be nothing left behind us when we turned around, since the curvature would not allow for that or any other equal point to exist, and this would actually, ironically, and mathematically prove it not to be a perfect globe. It is in fact the 2D perception of flatness that proves the actual 3D roundness. In other words, the horizon would need to curve back up in order to reach the level horizontal point behind us and on each side of us, and for that matter at every point we can see. If we saw a curve in front of us, curving left and right in a downward (fisheye) style, it would have curved in front of us to the point where nothing would be left to see when we turn around. But the point behind us is at the same horizontal plane as that which is in front, left, and right of us. So where could this supposed curve of the globe possibly manifest itself when the plane or horizon of it is equal on all sides (perspectives) from our two-dimensional vantage point? It cannot. It’s like a reverse optical illusion. And we are missing a whole dimension of perspective.

And so again we see here that the very answers to the questions posed by these self-proclaimed “flat-earthers” are actually the same answers as to why the earth is not flat. To apply one or two-dimensional logic to a three-dimensional equation will always cause confusion… and false religion.

I’m not sure what to conclude from this ridiculous collection of 100% proof of flat Earth, except that it is so unbelievable that someone could actually believe it. If anything, this “flat-earther” just proved that quite the opposite to be true. In any case, this whole counter-cultural meme and identity of false-persecution just needs to stop. To all my friends who have presented me with similar, easily refutable “evidence” of a flat Earth, I appeal to you to focus on what is Real and verifiable.

This is not dissimilar to the Mandela Effect hoax, to which I did a similar discourse on. The key to remember is that nothing in Nature, nothing in Reality is changing, only the artifice, entertainments, cartoons, timelines, and fictional histories of men. These are not Reality. And neither is the flat Earth model.

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/a-strong-delusion-the-mandela-effect/

However, I end this by stating again that I don’t know. I have not proven anything here today, only debunked what others are labeling as “truth” and “proof.”

If you would like me to go over other flat earth mysteries, false positive proofs, and fallacies, please let me know. I’ll tackle them one by one in the comments below. And if I don’t know, I will say I don’t know.

To be clear, for those who hurl insults instead of reasonable comments…

I do not love NASA. I do not side with any side, because Truth only has one side, and one either knows or does not know Truth. I do not love government. I despise doctors, scientists, and any other flattering titles bestowed by this syndicalist education, diplomacy, and licensing system. I am not any label, so don’t call me one. I don’t believe in the flat earth or the round earth or the square earth or the triangular earth or the trapezoidal earth. I don’t believe in the heliocentric or the geocentric or the egocentric position of the earth. And I will give no comment space for those who declare that by default I must be any or all of the above. Only rational statements of reason are asked for here. I don’t want to be dared to research anything and I won’t be amazed by what you present. I will only research it primarily and let you know what I find, with the caveat that I do not know.

In closing, it occurs to me that this would make a great script for a video. Please feel free to do so, without need of any permissions. I’d certainly love to hear this dude’s response!

Now, please focus on what is self-evident, self-existent, as that which needs no proof to establish its already clear existence. Smell the flowers and cherish what beauty and Realness is left here for your senses to enjoy, before this scientific community genetically modifies us and our environment into the internet of all things.


–Clint > richard-son (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, August 24th, 2017



The True Intent Behind Counter-Cultural Gender Neutralization


“To believe in God is impossible.
Not to believe in Him is absurd.”



This seemingly contradicting statement is in fact not at all a contradiction. But to rationalize its meaning, one must understand gender as it applies to grammar and language. Please allow me to extrapolate this French Enlightenment author’s apparent conflict as what is likely the same thought process as most rational people out there would likely agree upon.

Did you know that the word hell as used in the Bible is actually a feminine noun? (See: Strong’s #H7585 – shĕ’owl)

Inversely, then, it’s only reasonable to conclude, and correctly so, that heaven is of course a masculine noun. (See: Strong’s #H8064 – shamayim)

But then that makes the word satan, the king of hell (metaphorically of lies and artifice), a masculine noun, since a king is supposedly sovereign. (See: Strong’s #H7854 – satan)

We choose our God not by some vain belief or religious title, but by which law we follow. Under legal (Roman) law, the Natural Law (of God) becomes emasculated, and so is subjective to the contract. The contract makes the law, and the creator controls, as the foundational maxims of law go. And the author, maker, as the principal of that contract is now a god (masculinely speaking).

As we consider the strength of these concepts and words, whether we are conscious of it or not, we naturally consider them as either masculine or feminine in their nature or design. But again, this is not at all a reference to male and female. The difference here is exactly what this counter-cultural agenda is really about – neutering the English language, and thus the english speaking ethnicity of the world, like any other live-stocked animal.



Just what do you think would happen to these terms if their purely non-sexual (and non-humanistic), grammatical qualities of masculinity (rank, authority) and femininity (lowness in rank, subjection) were to be obliterated from the conscious thought processes of most people? What if suddenly you could make no choice because you could use no masculine force behind any word you speak? What if heaven and hell were made grammatically equal to each other in their grammatical definitions and thus neutral in their comparison and authority to one another, simply because political correctness overcame common sense? This is not a trick question… hell would then be equal to heaven in mens minds. Fiction would become equal to the reality it copies. Men (as legal, “natural” persons) would become equal to corporations (artificial persons). Lies would become equal to truth. What is adversarial would be made equal to what is Source. For there would be no gender-biased nouns or pronouns allowed in our language to differentiate what is the Light and what is the darkness, what is a right and what is slavery, and what is a living child and what is not. Life is a masculine word, a verb (action) given a name (noun).

Oh, and have you stopped to consider, what possible use will the Trivium Method be when its very root of good and proper grammar has been twisted and reseeded into a giant wall of nothingness? What would become of the art and power of debate if such gender specific terms were disallowed upon the debate stage?

You might expect the word darkness to be either feminine or masculine. But sadly, the dark is neither of these, being rather a state of pure ignorance and adversarial-ness to all things. In other words, the dark is merely gender neuter. And as this grammatical neutering (darkening) of modern English continues, the achievement of darkness (neuter) towards the inability to articulate language properly is the endgame — a total dumbing down of society through an organized campaign of venomous, anti-bias, legally enforced, “green” neutrality laws.

Apparently, Mother Nature just called in and requested no longer to be called Mother, but by the preferred non-gender specific pronoun and description, “Neutral Relative Nature.” For to suggest a feminine quality to Nature Itself would mean that creation is not equal to its Creator. God (Jehovah) is being feminized from every angle!

“And God said, tell them the I am neuter gender sent you…” Lol! You must fear the neutrality of God not so almighty!

Yeah… this just doesn’t quite seem to work, does it?

To call this gender movement as adversarial (satanic) is an understatement.

In this short statement of reason by Voltaire above, so much is said therein that a discourse in it’s meaning would be daunting. However, as a devout antagonist of the organized, corporate Catholic (universal) religion, we find that these statements can only be explained when linguistic gender is taken into consideration. For the religions of the world (standing as secular corporations of men) have indeed grammatically feminized the notion of what is the word “God” while the Truest intent of that word as written (in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) is as a Supreme Sovereignty, being a purely masculine term. And so to say that this feminized (emasculated) “god” of the corporate church and its various protesting denominations of religion around the world is impossible to believe in is and certainly should be the rational, compos mentis (of right mind) reaction as man’s first and last impression of the Bull of any false church. But the scriptural scholar, as he who seeks and understands the very definition of God (Jehovah) in the Bible and its lexicons and concordances without opinion, which is all that is self-existent and self-evident in oneness, in other words all that is not man-made, as the Oneness of the entirety of all that Exists in and of Itself — the Universe as a monotheistic, timeless, Living (Eternally Existing) wholeness called as the verb (Jehovah) and purposefully mis-transliterated by the agents of the Popes and kings as “God,” then certainly it would be an absurdity to lay claim to the self-evident error of believing religiously that Existence (God) does not Exist. For this is the emasculation (de-gendering) of the entirety of Nature, It’s Law, and of all Life therein. This non-belief in Reality (God) robs the Natural force and Law from all of Nature, including all men turned pusillanimous by such grammatical gender modification of the Supreme Being (verb).

Of course, grammatically, the word Him used above by Voltaire and in the Bible as a reference to the word “God” is not a True reference to a male persona or figure, but to the non-sexually oriented masculinity of the gender of words by their grammatical meaning. You see, these openly coordinated attacks happening today on assignment-sexuality and gender roles and names (pronouns) are not attacks on sexuality or even upon foundational science, but upon the power and authority of words to describe what is foundational (as the qualities of masculinity and femininity) and the ability to reasonably and without idiosyncrasy use them in common, correct, authoritative discourse. When we seek the definition of this word gender, very little is said about the sexual orientations of men, for in the language arts gender is a metaphoric tool to express either a dominance or subservience, objective or subjective quality or character. A female may therefore be assigned masculinity by her words just as easily as any male. The necessity for such differentiation is perhaps the most important aspect of our ability to communicate with reason. It’s all about which words are more authoritative (masculine) or more inferior (feminine) than and towards the others. Only the foolish, publicly educated and brutally entertained multitude would actually resent such ancient grammatical structure as somehow sexist or biased. And yet this current campaign of gender neutrality serves no other purpose than to completely remove the properness of language structure from the already dumbed-down slave-speak of dog-Latin (English) we already bark so poorly and ineloquently.

Imagine a world, as the one currently being shaped around us is incrementally showing, with a culture of neutral (non-gender biased) thought patterns and language crafting.

Just what is neutrality?

More importantly, what power can be gained over a common people when their ability to communicate has been thoroughly neutered like domesticated animals?

NEUTRAL – adjective – [Latin From neuter.] 1. Not engaged on either side; not taking an active part with either of contending parties. It is policy for a nation to be neutral when other nations are at war. Belligerents often obtain supplies from neutral states. 2. Indifferent; having no bias in favor of either side or party3. Indifferent; neither very good nor bad. Some things good, and some things ill do seem, And neutral some in her fantastic eye… – noun – A person or nation that takes no part in a contest between othersThe neutral as far as his commerce extends, becomes a party in the war(–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)

NEUTER – adjective – [Latin not either.] 1. Not adhering to either party; taking no part with either side, either when persons are contending, or questions are discussed. It may be synonymous with indifferent, or it may not. The United States remained neuter during the French Revolution, but very few of the people were indifferent as to the success of the parties engaged. A man may be neuter from feeling, and he is then indifferent; but he may be neuter in fact, when he is not in feeling or principle. A judge should be perfectly neuter in feeling, that he may decide with impartiality. 2. In grammar, of neither gender; an epithet given to nouns that are neither masculine nor feminine; primarily to nouns which express neither sex. – noun – 1. A person that takes no part in a contest between two or more individuals or nations; a person who is either indifferent to the cause, or forbears to interfere2. A animal of neither sex, or incapable of propagation. The working bees are neuters. – verbIn grammar, a verb which expresses an action or state limited to the subject, and which is not followed by an object; as, I go; I sit; I am; I run; I walk. It is better denominated intransitive. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language) 


While neutrality is certainly a skill one learns in the practice of the sciences and other arts as a means to an end, this type of cultural neutrality in language can only lead to causality instead of choice, and silence as consent instead of personal or public discourse. It means that the word “no” becomes useless and unacceptable, for all issues are pre-voted as “yes.” It means privacy and personal, self-determination is dead.

And so when Voltaire uses this address of Him (a capitonym) with regards to the word and meaning of “God,” it caries a specific meaning not of a male figure but of the masculine qualities of supremacy or sovereignty of God, as the masculine nature of strength, power, and authority.

So what happens if suddenly everything we discuss, every word we use both politically and socially, is suddenly made to be neuter in gender?

What happens to the meaning and power of our words if they are stripped of any masculine or famine qualities?

Have you taken a look at our society lately?



Will a book get upset if I don’t refer to it as Neuter Gender, meaning it is neither active or passive? Will a lamp refuse to illuminate my room because I put a femininely appealing lampshade upon its masculine body? Will an all girls college be so neutered so as to accept a student (a common gender title of legal/false persona) that only pretends to be a girl by pronoun? Nowadays, yes. Because the very foundation of gender in not only language but in True science (the study of Nature) and its deep importance is being abashedly lost to this extreme counter-culture society. Gender has somehow become politically incorrect! In fact, eventually there will be no “all-girl”or “all-boy” schools or clubs, simply because the words (pronouns) boy and girl will be illegal to use. They’ll be biased.

I wonder if Mother’s and Father’s day will be neutralized? Perhaps we can just call them as one parents day and bring them both gender neutral gifts. And that’s good news for guys, because it will then be illegal for  a woman to state that she can do something a man can’t do! Brilliant. No more nagging about labor pains when we agonize over a sprained ankle. Men can now claim neuter anti-bias and be done with that nagging old neuter neutral life partner whose breasts are somehow no longer able to be referred to in the gender feminine.

Ironically, it is the ability to think with clarity and specifically neutrality that is being obfuscated. Spock would not be able to speak logically ever again, for he would not be able by sanction of law to speak grammatical truth in gender. Even the great Vulcan would be cowed by so-called anti-biased, illogical education, a virtual ethnic cleansing of any reasonable discourse from society.

Voltaire, the Bible, and so many other sources use the intentionally masculine word He to describe “God.” Throughout the history of poetic, romantic language arts this type of metaphoric speech as a use of gender description was a perfectly executable and beautifully eloquated art of communication. These old languages, even today, would be useless without this built in engendering of role.

Today, it is becoming irrationally offensive to utilize such terms of gender in our grammar-based rhetoric and discourse, though there is absolutely no precedent or reasoning behind such foolishness. This boils down to a population standing in utter idiocracy, a reality show gone horribly wrong. That such an ancient, mature form of gender-biased terminology should be demonized merely because the general population cannot anymore comprehend the difference between the use of such words with utter neutrality and without some perceived personal attack on a whole race or sex is certainly the sign of any semblance of Natural or political liberty and justice.

And yet, in our very legalistic law we find…

HE – Properly a pronoun of the masculine gender, but commonly construed in statutes to include both sexes as well as corporations. May be read “they.” (Black’s Law 4th)

We also find in US Code, Title 1, Section 1, that:

“…WORDS importing the masculine GENDER include the feminine as well…”

And so what does this battle against meaning do to the notion of sovereignty? Obviously sovereignty is a masculine gender word in its proper grammatical use. It literally cannot be grammatically feminine. And yet the New Age worship of the sacred feminine (including the Catholic Mary as the occult worship of Fatima) is today at hand, not as the desire for the perfection of balance intended by the self-evident neutrality of gender specificity, but as a complete destruction and emasculation of all masculine concepts, both in males and females. True freedom is a masculine concept, requiring self-responsibility and purposeful adherence to God’s Law of Nature. One cannot be Truly free and also be in a feminine (subjective) position. This has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation or genetics, for indeed the female partakes in the masculine traits of most words as well, because they had nothing to do with her sexuality. What is an object and what is a subject to another object is self-evident in most cases. But to utterly mix up and destroy the ability to communicate in such obvious terms, which we call as political correctness, means that we can no longer express the very underlying tenets and ideals of True freedom and liberty under God.

In other words, our vigor, or at least the ability to express it civilly, is being taken away from us one word at a time.

VIGOROUSNESS – noun – The quality of being vigorous or possessed of active strength. [Vigor and all its derivatives imply active strength, or the power of action and exertion, in distinction from passive strength, or strength to endure.]

PASSIVE – adjective – [Latin passivus, from passus, patior, to suffer.] 1. Suffering; not acting, receiving or capable of receiving impressions from external agents. We were passive spectators, not actors in the scene. The mind is wholly passive in the reception of all its simple ideas. God is not in any respect passive2.Unresisting; not opposing; receiving or suffering without resistance; as passive obediencepassive submission to the laws. Passive verb, in grammar, is a verb which expresses passion, or the effect of an action of some agent; as in Latin doceor, I am taught; in English, she is loved and admired by her friends; he is assailed by slander. Passive obedience, as used by writers on government, denotes not only quiet unresting submission to power, but implies the denial of the right of resistance, or the recognition of the duty to submit in all cases to the existing government. Passive prayer, among mystic divines, is suspension of the activity of the soul or intellectual faculties, the soul remaining quiet and yielding only to the impulses of grace. Passive commerce, trade in which the productions of a country are carried by foreigners in their own (ship) bottoms. [See Active commerce.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)


In this sense, we can understand more clearly the role of being a patient to the medical industry, which is responsible for over one-third of deaths in the United States (see statistics on iatrogenic death by doctors). Yes, doctors kill one-third of those who die from disease, behind only cancer and heart disease, both of which being mainstream news to also be doctor and vaccine-related diseases. This vigorous death toll is a result of the patient/doctor or agent/principal relationship, the passive vs the vigorous.

We are becoming not active participants in government, but unwitting patients passively obeying the worst kind of bureaucracy in law.

PATIENT – adjective – pa’shent. [Latin patient.] 1. Having the quality of enduring evils without murmuring or fretfulness; sustaining afflictions of body or mind with fortitude, calmness or christian submission to the divine will; as a patient person, or a person of patient temper. It is followed by of before the evil endured; as patient of labor or pain; patient of heat or cold. 2. Not easily provoked; calm under the sufferance of injuries or offenses; not revengeful. Be patient towards all men. 1 Thessalonians 5:143. Persevering; constant in pursuit or exertion; calmly diligent. Whatever I have done is due to patient thought. 4. Not hasty; not over eager or impetuous; waiting or expecting with calmness or without discontent. Not patient to expect the turns of fate.  noun – A person or thing that received impressions from external agents; he or that which is passively affected. Malice is a passion so impetuous and precipitate, that it often involves the agent and the patient. 1. A person diseased or suffering bodily indisposition. It is used in relation to the physician; as, the physician visits his patient morning and evening. 2. It is sometimes used absolutely for a sick person. It is wonderful to observe how inapprehensive these patients are of their disease. – verb intransitive – To compose one’s self. [Not used.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)


The endurance shown today as the passive aggressiveness towards this browbeating of the masculinity of all things, of all the masculine qualities of men, male and female, both in health and in communication, is staggering to say the least. We are Truly entering into the Brave New World model.

For the purposes of keeping our whits about us as we enter into this adversarial age of deception and as otherwise strong men fall all around us into a state of passive ridiculousness, I have included here some lessons on gender and its correct use in grammar. While this may seem basic for some, for others it is a new exploration, and at least it might help us to recognize exactly what is being attempted to be stripped away from our collective cognizance in order to place us into a continuous state of dissonant, dissociative behavior towards one another and most importantly to the general authority figures of church and state. Do not take this for granted, my friends, for this is as evil as evil plans get.



Nature: Universal Grammar”

“Universal Grammar is a theory proposed by Chomsky that claims children have the ability to learn any language. This is due to what he calls Universal Grammar. He proposes that their is a natural ability in the mind of every human that allows them to learn, and that is how language is further developed. Being born with every linguistic tool that one would need, gives humans the ability to learn language essentially on their own.


“Nurture: Behaviorist Reinforcement”

“The behaviorist theory is when negative and positive reinforcements are used to gain a desired result. This is often used in classrooms in which teachers use consequences or rewards to motivate a student to succeed. Skinner believed that this nurture style behavior was the reason for language development in children. His claims were that children are rewarded for correct use of language, and either punished or no action at all for incorrect use of language. Children weren’t actually learning language, but instead they were learning about rewards and consequences through the behaviorists theory.

Link–> http://eng463ae2.weebly.com/nature-vs-nurture.html


In conclusion, it wasn’t so much that B.F. Skinner was correct by default, but that when reason, logic, God’s Nature and Law, and any Natural inclinations towards self-government and self-determination are stripped away from the equation, from the consciousness, then and only then may the engineering of social conditioning, association, imitation, and reinforcement destroy our mind’s natural, inherant tendencies through the introduction of what amounts to a giant, public, social experiment in a laboratory setting, a combination of the media, public education, and the entertainment industries all working hand in hand to adversarially nurture us all away from our very own nature. In other words, Nature will take its course unless something unnatural is purposefully introduced as a stumbling block so that we are re-purposed as human capital. We are like rats being experimented on in completely unnatural settings and thus producing completely unnatural results, and so it is impossible to fulfill our purpose according to our inherent nature. The state and its propaganda matrix has hold of us. And yet its only chains are the words (rhetoric) it causes us to speak against our very own interests and nature.

Note here that you will not hear such a discourse on gender neutralization in the mainstream media. Their job is not to solve the issue but to present what appears to be a hopeless battle against this onslaught of strangeness. By presenting interviews with perverted and demoralizing guests and commentators from various special interest organizations, we are not meant to be informed but utterly confused. We are meant to feel helpless, passive, and without hope. We are meant to stop participating, to stop being active (masculine) in our protests and oppositions. We are meant to become like putty in the hands of these social engineers, either trapped in our own homes in front of our televisions and radios hopelessly watching it all go to shit, or throwing away our televisions and other connections to all of this so as to become the ultimate in passive aggressive slaves, pretending it will all go away while suffering all the evils that result in such complacency and obedience to absurdity.

And on that note, I can only imagine that Voltaire must be rolling in his grave.

Author’s note: this is a great companion piece to the culmination of my life’s work — a discourse on the language arts, as the legal law vs. the Natural Law, which is free to download at StrawmanStory.info. Please spread this article and my book freely with all who may seek answers. Thank you…


–Clint > Richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, August 18, 2017



Strawman (Volume I) Now Shipping!

Greetings programs…

After fighting what can only be described as an extremely uphill battle, being such an inexperienced little fish in a pond of some very large and filthy corporate sharks, I am happy to announce that “STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person – Volume 1” is being printed and bound as I write this, and will officially begin shipping on Monday of next week (August 7th, 2017). I can’t possibly make any more rookie mistakes or trip over any more stumbling blocks! No more changes or corrections — of which there were a seemingly endless supply. What is written will not be undone — a scary thought — and thanks to all of your support and trust, I was able to get printed a total of 2,000 copies.

How ironic that this day falls but one day before my own strawman debtor’s birth event day (August 8th) — the day the informed upon Clint Richardson was legally berthed into this open-air debtor’s prison for so-called “natural persons.” And like every victim of this human capital management system of the district, I was at every turn tricked into voluntarily using (confirming) that false persona in agency as a legal vessel in commerce.

I am assured that Strawman will begin shipping free to all who have donated towards my efforts and requested a free copy as a gift, beginning this Monday. I hope that the receipt of this gift has been worth the wait, and I thank you all for your support and patience.

I have already sent out an email to each of you that I have confirmed for shipment on my mailing list, for those in the 50 States only. I am still working on international pricing and lists. If you did not receive an email but are expecting a printed copy to be sent to you domestically, please contact me to correct my records. Those in other countries should expect a confiramtion email shortly.


Warning: This work is not approved by church and state!

Inside Volume I:
Over 2,000 legal word-terms defined
Over 300 Bible texts/verses examined
Over 500 sourced quotes and citations

For all of the delays and seemingly purposeful obfuscations I have experienced in trying to get printed this private work in book-form without falling prey to the typical legalisms, big box print-on-demand mentality, and other corporate strangleholds, as well as doing so with the firm and unbroken insistence that it was printed without numbers, ISBN’s, barcodes, or any other “publishing” marks and government interventions and tracking devices, I could certainly tell you some amazing stories. I took the route less traveled, the hardest road, sticking with my demands of privacy and thus printing an unpublished work that is certainly not in any way registered or approved by church and state! Instead, I have chosen to learn from this series of unfortunate events some very valuable lessons, both legal and moral, to accept the things and persons I cannot change, and to be contented and happy that I finally found an honest printer.


“…I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”

–Robert Frost


Though I may be telling my own story from some future prison or camp for political and religious dissenters, I am happy to say that I will be telling it with the utmost dignity. And yes, this certainly makes all the difference.

Though presently exhausted by this ongoing work and by the mental obstical course I just suffered, I will continue to work on Volume II and other works until I physically die or am made a civilly dead prisoner of the corporate church’s state. I figure that my next-next project after the Strawman series will be the history of the CAFR and how it was used to take us clandestinely into the globalism we find ourselves in today, and how combined government (an artificial persona), through investments and proxy shareholder voting, owns and controls it all! You aren’t shopping at Chevron, Costco, Apple, or Time Warner, you are always a “customer” of and shopping at government (a singular incorporation of all corporations). No corporation is created without (outside of) government. We live our commercial (fictional/dead) existence (persona) in a national company store, where all corporations are majority-share held by government investments, and where each board of directors is elected by proxy shareholder bidding by the collective, majority shareholder, which again is collectively government. And, of course, you can only spend government’s patented script, money or credit, which are both merely debt instruments — IOU’s. And so you are always using the property of another.

Not ironically, this was one of the biggest complaints of the original American colonists, that they should be taxed and forced to sped the script of the King of England, a script they could not create and had to borrow or earn from the king itself. But then, at least the colonists knew their status, that a colony is literally a company store of the crown, and that the word colony merely means the farm or plantation of a master.

These facts answer just about every question you may ever have about why corporations literally get away with murder, and why government never regulates corporations, for they are their main beneficiary and shareholding profiteer. And the highest corporate law is that the shareholders must make profit and gain on their investment. But this is another story… the story of the ultimate in conflict of interests.

I wish again here to thank everyone over the years who has donated towards my full time, unpaid activism, movie-making, radio hosting and guesting, and writing, all of which are freely shared with all who seek and always will be.

I again remind you that my new work, “Strawman: The Real Story of Your Artificial Person: Volume 1” is and always will be FREE to download in digital form (pdf) at my website, and that the printed version is not ready to be given (see website for instructions):

LINK–> strawmanstory.info

I am today updating the final, free version as printed, after correcting many spelling and grammatical mistakes, which will look then exactly as it is now printed. Please feel free to download and enjoy this work, both as a walkthrough of the legal matrix and as a seriously huge and utilizable resource outlet.

What Now?

1st of all, I think it’s time to dust off this old blog and start using it again. So… I’m back!

2nd, of course, I will continue with future volumes of Strawman and other works.

3rd, I’d say it’s about time to make another vaccine documentary. The ultimate documentary. One that cannot be outdone. One that names names and destroys false reputations. One that exposes even the “anti-vaccine” circuit as frauds in controlled opposition, who call for “safe” vaccines as if there is such a thing. But most importantly, one that shows vaccines for exactly what they are  — a well laid plan, as a time-released, biological weapon.

4th, and this is where I could use a bit of help, I’d like to start a radio show again. But you see, like many of you, I don’t know where I “fit in” any more, or at least who would be brave (or dumb) enough to permit me to speak with free reign about how little truth is being spewed in the so-called truth-movement. Who wants to hear that patriotism is a psychopathy like Stockholm Syndrome while at the same time hearing advertisements within commercial airtime by so-called “patriot” corporations, as if Chinese junk and red, white, and blue stuff can ever feel patriotic? Who wants to hear that most of us are not one of “We, the People” or that these so-called “People” don’t actually even exist in Reality, that “the People” is just a corporation (artificial person) called as the States? Who wants to let me rant about The Corporation Nation we are all unwitting yet voluntary agents (employees) of?


“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.” It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.”

—Friedrich Nietzsche, from ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’


In short, it seems there is no place out there for the self-evident Truth! You see, the Truth doesn’t sell… only mythology sells. Empty hope without end sells. Fear sells. Lies sell. Sex sells. But undeniable Truth? There is simply no market for it. And so, I’ll just simply put it out there that I am looking for a new home for my new show. I already have a title…


TAGLINE: Buy the truth, and sell it not…” (Proverbs 32:32)

Want to hear me rant profusely and wax philosophical? Want to see the legal matrix (artificial womb) for what it is? Want to hear again from Patrick, Daniel, and other kindred spirits sharing this journey? Well then help me find an uncensored broadcasting home, if there is such an entity…

Or, maybe you fancy yourself organized, like a producer, and want to help me to organize and run a podcast? I’ll take a radio host spot from the highest bidder… which, of course, will be nothing, nada, zero, as it always is for those who will not — can not conform. Just let ’em know I am seeking a soapbox. And, of course, that I would love to do more radio, both interviews and hosting, now that this Strawman soft cover is finally finished and available.

On a final note, I wish to thank everyone that has helped me to finally get this work printed, and for trusting in me, both monetarily but especially with your time, care, and kind words. You know who you are, and you know I could not have done this project without you, from editing to spell-checking to donations to some much needed criticism.

A very special thanks to Craig Stuckless and his artistic hand, as the cover artist for this Strawman series. His brilliant work was given to the project freely, and the time and effort Craig put into this was incredible and incalculable to most. Thankfully, his professional experience with the print industry helped me in ways I cannot begin to relay or repay here.

Craig’s portfolio of artwork can be seen here: http://cargocollective.com/artofcraigs

For those who understand what it is to give your time freely as a professional, if anyone would like to help me raise some funds to offer to Craig as a gift for his many weeks of work on this art project, I’d be very appreciative. Like myself, like my now strange story, he is trying to escape the controlled corporate art world while at the same time attempting to use his professional skills for charitable and activist purposes. And that means sacrifice, both mentally and physically, socially and especially financially. Just let me know in an email or make a note that your donation should go to Craig And I’ll see to it. At this point, I am almost tapped out from printing and must still pay for the initial shipping of a few hundred copies of Strawman, so any help in gifting him is much appreciated. Craig has helped me out along the way in too many ways to even mention here. Other examples of his work on Strawman include these:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Just how much time and work did this take?

Check out Craig’s many layers of artistic expression on Strawman here:


With all of this said, I can only hope this work was worth the wait, and that it brings forward to each of you what you have been seeking — self evident Truth and knowledge.

The latest version, which is the same as the now printed version (without index), will be posted and the update noted at StrawmanStrory.info and always free to download, with many errors now corrected. This will always be free in its pdf form, so feel free to share it freely, never for profit, with good intent. You cannot possibly steal from he who gives freely, so give without concern.

Now, however, I need you all once again, your word of mouth. Spread the website or give away the pdf at will, and help me to get onto different radio shows to spread this work and more importantly the True and only Law.

Volume II, by the way, is well in the works.

Check back soon at StrawmanStory.info for an updated, final and always free pdf to download.

Be and stay well, for you may already be the remnant…


Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Friday, August 4th, 2017

Vote N.O.T.A. For President In 2016


A new film by Clint Richardson

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6G2XwmszYE&feature=youtu.be

What’s It About?

It seems that no matter how many times or different ways I try to express myself, I have never been able to quite explain why it is that voting is a pointless endeavor, and specifically that the popular vote for president literally doesn’t count. I believe most folks actually think that I am speaking metaphorically, as if I was being ironic or poetic about the fate of the presidential elections and each of our individual ballots. But I wish to be clear here that seriously, the popular vote is worthless. It means absolutely nothing. It counts for diddly-squat. And I mean here that there is no reason or excuse why any decent man or woman in America should be voting in the popular election process.

I’m not exaggerating here… Let’s go to the source:


“It is important to remember that the president of the United States is not chosen by nation-wide vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals.”

–National Archives and Records Administration, U.S Electoral College website (Link: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#ecpopulardiffer)


When the government tells you bold-faced that your vote will not be counted, it seems you should listen. When government tells you that you don’t vote for president in any way, shape, or form, it seems you should ask yourself why billions are spent each year to promote the popular vote, since the president is absolutely not elected by the common national citizenry.

Since this totally open secret of just how the electoral process for president of the United States works seems to be completely out of the perception of most people, I thought I would take up the challenge and make this short documentary about it. And so I give this to you as a gift. It took four full-time weeks to research and put it together (aside from a life-time of research). I would love to see this go viral, but that is up to you. I have not made this merely for your peers in the various movements to watch, but for all of your friends and family suffering from that familiar and seemingly contagious cognitive dissonance. I figure that if you can show them this, as indisputable, verifiable evidence of the biggest lie of all the other government lies they never try or wish to consider, and they suddenly realize they’ve been fooled their whole lives into voting for presidents when clearly the commonalty has nothing to do with that election, then perhaps they may start to be curious about some other government lies and laws and institutions that cause them to act like complete fools.

Perhaps they may finally question their sense of patriotism, and finally get the clue that it is the private “People” of the several States (as the posterity of legitimate, landholding heirs) that vote for president through the Electoral College, not the national slaves-citizens of the district. All elections of course are State elections, be it for the House, the Senate, or the President. The popular (national) vote means nothing, being just for show, a stop for the plebes on the monopoly board every 2-4 years that somehow makes the subjects feel better about having rulers.

But most importantly, this film is the ultimate wake-up call. It will surprise most people, even my readers. It will shock anyone that has gone through the motions in the past and is about to go through them this year with the Trump vs. Hillary contest that is no contest at all, merely a false choice – for to vote for either candidate is pointless and only serves to legitimize the Electoral Process. The more the common people pole (vote) their popular opinion and express their illiteracy towards the election process by giving away their choice to vote “no” (N.O.T.A.) and instead voting “yes” for either candidate (as there is no place to vote “NO” to any and every candidate), then the popular vote continues to justify and ratify the Electoral College.

But hey, I’ll let NOTA tell you in his own words…

Please help to spread this to all the websites and radio stations and hosts, and ask them why they are promoting the popular vote when it simply isn’t used? I’m happy to interview or debate, and share this epitome of waking up. Repost and share to all. Don’t argue, just tell them to prove it wrong… or explain why government tells us plainly that our vote is worthless except to keep them in power through control of political parties and thus the electoral process.

Now… back to that book…


–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, September 25th, 2016