Weaponizing The Trivium: The Greatest Fallacy

When I was first introduced to the concept of the liberal arts and its revival called the Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy), I thought to myself – at last, the keys to understanding the spelling and illicit word magic that so continuously are used against us.

I have not altered my opinion or understanding of this fact. For the attorney class relies on the use of master techniques of classic logical fallacy and coercion through word trickery for its profit in suit. The advertising industry relies on the public’s mass hypnosis through the lack of knowledge of the liberal arts and the inability to form logical thought processes to instantaneously recognize how advertising techniques rely on purely fallacious rhetoric without adherence to formal logic or correct grammar in order to sell concepts and products that no one actually needs (or sometimes really even wants).

Uncovering the Trivium means uncovering the nature of the logical fallacy and recognizing this word magic for what it truly is – an attack on reason.

Once applied in everyday dealings with the various corporate industries and government offices of devilishly puritan wordsmiths, the individual develops what can only be called a mental super-power against such tyranny and oppression. For the English language is naught but a mixture of Latin, Greek, and other such variations of language as law, altered into the psycho-Babel that the Bible speaks of in its Book of Genesis.

The story of Babel is an etiology (a narrative story) that explains the origin of why on Earth we have such an incredible variation of different languages and cultures on this planet. In the story (a warning of things to come), God saw that with one global language, not unlike today, humanity began to rule in God’s stead. They began to ignore the laws of nature, and to supplant God’s laws with their own statutory rules (Godlessness). In short, God saw that without adherence or respect to the laws of nature, and with overwhelming respect instead to legal fictions and person-hood (inequitable status above nature, God, and natural man himself), man began to destroy nature and attempt to replace God’s creation with his own. Thus, God was angered and scattered the people, forcing different languages across the Earth so that this plan against nature could not succeed; yet another allegory that so explains what is happening today in modern world with virtually 100% accuracy. For the English language is simply the fictional description and noun/name (artificial person, titled real estate place, or chattel property thing) of all things in nature today. It places all of nature into an artificial legal status by assigning false title (name/noun – see etymology) to be claimed and controlled by church and government – the self-anointed Vicar of God on Earth.

Perhaps most frightening to this narrative lesson from the Bible, is this depiction of the United Nations as that “Tower” of Babel:


File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg
Original painting, “Construction of the Tower of Babel“, Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526)

A poster produced by the European Union.
It combines the 12 (inverted) stars of the EU flag
with the rebuilding (note the crane) of the tower of Babel.
It’s motto – Europe: Many Tongues One Voice.

An EU coin showing the sacred geometry
of the Pentagonal star symbol as infinitude.
The union of new Babylon.


And this brings us to the point of this writing… in the form of a question to all who read and enjoy the power of the Trivium:

Are you using it with responsibility, or abusing it for personal gain?

You see, amongst the men and women who have laid claim as the users and guru’s of the Trivium and Quadrivium has developed a most disturbing trend… the use of the Trivium as a weapon. This tool of free thought and expression without fallacy has instead been turned inside out as a defensive shield and offensive weapon that more and more is becoming a crutch rather than a useful contemplation and study of even ones own rhetoric.  Indeed, the Trivium is more often being used as a weapon; a fallacy of unbreakable proportions.

Even more troubling, the more one is vested into an otherwise unconscionable thing, the more the Trivium is attempted to be used to justify that thing. Almost unimaginably the Trivium method is creating a new form of cognitive dissonance – and the ego seems to be winning every time.

For instance, I often hear in an otherwise useful discussion or debate  the phrase: “I use the Trivium, therefore you are wrong (or I am right).”

In the mind of the one offering this fallacy, this may seem like a perfectly rational or logical argument. But in fact this is the ultimate fallacy. For it relies on the thought that all of the grammar one has accomplished is 1) correct, 2) not purposeful legal Babel, and 3) the only possible conclusion from all possible knowledge. In short, this is the anti-Trivium, for this is a doctrine. And yet the entire English language is based on a re-scrambled vocabulary, of which a vast majority of it has hidden legal dualistic meanings unknown to many purveyors of the steps in that Trivium. In the end, this creates a sort of arrogance that can only be blamed on the misuse of the very Trivium that is supposed to stop such doctrinal belief and ego.

And to this I declare the newest of modern logical fallacies – the Trivium Superiority Fallacy.

It combines many aspects of other well-used logical fallacies, such as the

ad homenim (you don’t have or use the Trivium, thus you must be wrong),

poisoning the well and the hasty generalization (you made a “guess”  without using the Trivium here and where incorrect, therefore nothing you say hence forth is of the Trivium),

appeal to authority (I use the Trivium, I was right before, therefore I’m right most or all of the time),

red herring (using unrelated topics or discussions about a subject you were right about previously to prove you are right in this one because the Trivium worked then, thus it must be correct now).

This ultimate fallacy of Trivium Superiority could probably be utilized as a method to espouse in some fashion most of the known logical fallacies while hiding behind the Trivium method, which is why it is in my opinion the most dangerous of them all.

Another example of the misuse of the trivium is the concept of burden of proof.

Sometimes one may challenge another to prove a negative, which is an impossibility even within the Maxim’s of law. Other times the demand (not request) for the burden of proof is used as a character assassination because the proof may be unavailable at the time of discussion. Thus, a sense of “winning” the argument due to the simple unavailable (but elsewhere existing) evidence may lead to the misuser of the Trivium fallaciously believing in his or her false superiority and knowledge of something that is patently false. And thus the well is poisoned for all future debates or discussions due to the simple lack of evidence demanded at that moment. And even when that evidence is presented later, the newly developed hyper-ego caused by Trivium misuse will not allow the “winner” to change his mind about a fact that is in fact provable later.

What I’ve witnessed is shocking with regards to the abuses leveraged in the name of the Trivium – enough to put an attorney to shame.

In the end, without offense intended to anyone, I would simply put out the request for those teaching and using the Trivium method to consider your responsibilities as a teacher. Such a powerful tool of enlightenment can and is being turned into something quite opposite of its intent. Remember that as a holder of great knowledge comes the duty to be responsible with that knowledge, lest those you teach and even yourself may devolve into that despicable “Lord Of The Rings” creature “Gollum”, who coveted the very thing that would make all men free from the fate of Babel and the attorney class.

Remember that your rhetoric is only as good as your comprehension of your source of grammar, and that your logic will be as false as the false dialectic and word magic and trickery that you base it upon. Language, it turns out, is often the greatest deceiver and creator of false prophets of all!

Never stop learning, for you can never learn everything…

Never believe you’ve obtained all there is to know on any subject, for knowledge hides around every corner, especially the uncomfortable places…

Never believe you are absolutely correct about anything, for a year from now you’ll regret it…

Never believe you have all the pieces of the puzzle, for the puzzle pieces are hidden in a million different places…

Never forget that a kindergartener has the Trivium too, and holds the truth about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny…

Never give up on imagination of what could be, for without it, the fiction will never become science and the Trivium is all but worthless…

And never become a religion of one; based on false belief in your own perceived doctrinal Trivium Superiority.


–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Monday, March 10th, 2014

Leave a comment


  1. Björn Halliger

     /  March 10, 2014

    …wise words – thank you for this article !


  2. Hello Clint, check out the ThunderBoltsProject youtube channel and ThunderBolts.info. They are breaking paradigms like no others in the realm of space and plasma science while being ostracized from the scientific community. They are daily exposing NASA to be quite willing to accept theories as fact simply because they cannot explain what they are now finding. They made predictions as far back as 2006 that are now being proven true. And those that built their wealth upon such fictions like Stephen Hawking will be shown to be exactly what they are, fiction writers. Black Holes, LOL!


  3. Ted

     /  March 14, 2014

    Ah, the religion of reason, aka the trivium. Blest be the ties that bind…or not. Thank you for the well reasoned article.


  4. Clint, an article on the overuse of the word ‘believe’ or belief’, especially the “respect my beliefs” narrative so prevalent in religions would be a good project, in my honest opinion. We are what we habe become because of beliefs, whether our own or someone else’s. F**king word majik and the sorcerers who wield it. If only we had known.


  5. A

     /  March 28, 2014

    Hi Clint,
    This may not be the best place but I wanted to tell you that I’ve been listening to your lecture about genealogy and I find it absolutely amazing. I appreciate and greatly respect the research you have done and when you promised you would never lie to us I almost felt tears.
    You come across as a sincere person and it seems not many are. Anyway, I am a Muslim and I wanted to tell you that for us we have known many of these things about rulers from the get-go. In fact, our Prophet Muhammad was the final Prophet who was spoken about by Jesus and Moses and Jews and Christians of the time were actually waiting for him. But when it turned out that he was from the Arabs, and not from the Jews as most others had been, the (many) Jews did everything in their power to destroy him and his image. This included changing previous scriptures, propaganda, witchcraft, anything else wicked. I personally believe that because God had chosen them, Satan specifically targeted them. We learn a lot from studying the Quran because it has been preserved in its entirely and original language since that time (1400 years ago), along with all the historical context and knowledge. It’s not readily available but it’s not hard to find and learn about either. It’s called Tafsir. Reading the Quran is a start because it gives so much insight and tells a lot of truth about past, present and future. Many of the verses are actually addressing Jews (mostly) and Christians for the the deceit they have done to the masses and the way they corrupted scriptures and the original messages and images of the likes of Noah, Moses, Jacob, Jesus, etc. I liked how you mentioned the fact about the Trinity being created and Jesus being made as God for personal benefits to the church in the heirarchy. I would really encourage someone like you to look into Islam as well because you will certainly discover a lot of interesting information. Vlad the Impaler was actually in a war with the Muslims and was defeated by them. Dracula meaning Devil. Of course, history has been edited so you may not believe it but this is what Muslims retell. We have prophecies for the End Times as well and they go far deeper than the ones of Christianity. Because you consider yourself an honest truth-seeker I feel like conveying this message to you. I have always considered myself a truth-seeker as well and Alhamdulillah I feel like I was guided to the right way. Of course, everything happens by God’s will so I will leave it to that.
    God bless you and keep up the good work,


    • No, it is NOT the best place. Your religious beliefs have no place on a site that is dedicated to achieving/uncovering the highest form of thinking, rational and logic thought, bereft of superstition, propaganda and religiosity.

      “Prophet Muhammad was the final Prophet who was spoken about by Jesus and Moses and Jews and Christians of the time were actually waiting for him. But when it turned out that he was from the Arabs, and not from the Jews as most others had been, the (many) Jews did everything in their power to destroy him and his image. This included changing previous scriptures, propaganda, witchcraft, anything else wicked.”

      But, now that we’re here, I will not allow your deceit to go unaddressed.

      I’m sorry, but you are delusional! It is the books wherein you have been raised and brainwashed that have twisted the previous “Book” and put in particular the person of Jesus in an unfavorable light. And I assume you think all of your Scholars have specific knowledge of these changes that NO ONE in Judaism or Christianity is aware of. Shame on you. It is just as impossible that the Mormon book is that final word, as it is what you claim. Do you actually read your books? Have you actually read the New Testament? If what you claim is true I would reject God in less than a second. I have seen nothing of value come from your beliefs, and see only wickedness and lies from those who claim Mohammad as their Profit. Lets not even begin to list the disparage for all other members of this belief system who are not me, e.g., children and women. This faith only seems to favour Will to Power, Destruction and Death.

      Finally, it is for the very reason that you suggest what you do, that there is no place for reconciliation, or even kindness between You and ALL the rest of the Human Race.

      And I doubt very much that you have the ability to pursue: truth, justice and peace. For, you have no capacity to see the lies right in front of you. Not only can you not see them, you embrace them blindly.

      Good day, Sir.


  6. Steve

     /  August 7, 2014

    “For the attorney class relies on the use of master techniques of classic logical fallacy and coercion through word trickery for its profit in suit.”

    Our chemically driven impulses don’t subscribe to a higher calling either… the legal class and life in general – all subscribe to the same motivating forces based on trivial pursuits of self serving desires.

    We can blame the lawyers for this self induced illusion… Or we can own up to the realities embracing our own entanglement and seek a way out one knot at a time. The spice must flow as they say. To go cold turkey may be an extreme worse than the illusion. I would not be so quick to discard the whole lot until you have a viable alternative to 8 billion+ currently feeding at the nip of commercial excess.

    Logical fallacy aside – Hope you are well
    Hope Tim L. is well too
    Steve 😉


  7. Tana

     /  October 11, 2014

    If you’re speaking of who I think you are, I couldn’t agree more. Glad someone said it.


  8. Great post, bringing to mind my recent ‘conflict’ with Mr Trivium himself, Jan Irvin. Here’s a post on my blog you may find amusing:
    Jan took wild-eyed exception to my ramblings, in his last email he only needed three short paragraphs to twice label me a ‘psychopath,’ and wind up declaring that I should be ‘in a hospital bed.’
    You’ve summed it up perfectly, though. ‘Weaponizing the Trivium.’ Yes, that’s it… Gracias..

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Bob

     /  November 3, 2014

    Hey Richardson,
    Will you admit to your error and grievous mistake in attempting to impune Allan Weissbecker solely upon YOUR mistaken assumption of him being a Jew? Are ALL Jews evil Clint?
    For the record, I am done with Jan Irvin and you over this terrible and atrocious attack.WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE?


    • I asked an unassuming question, which was, “Are you a Jew?”

      Nothing more, nothing less.

      As I told your friend Allan, who sent an unsolicited comment and question, if you don’t like my answers go away.

      If you’d like to read about my research into “Jews”, and more importantly Zionism, then I’d be happy to send you my research that is housed on this blog. My stance on the subject is actually quite well-known, so take your fallacious attempts to use an unambiguous question against me somewhere that is ignorant of the subject matter, you’ll have a better response.

      Troll dismissed…

      We’ll miss you…


      Liked by 1 person

    • Ah… now I see why you have come here with this misinformation. Your friend, Mr. Weissbecker posted a small blurb from a much longer email message, that of course completely misrepresents me and my statements. After spending valuable time to answer his questions, answers he apparently did not like, he now seems to wish to not only connect me to his conversation with Jan Irvin due to our friendship, which has nothing to do with me, but to cut and paste an out of context piece of the email exchange (unsolicited) so as to lamely attempt to harm my character.

      Here is the entire exchange, unedited, including my shitty spelling, so that you may see what was actually stated and in what context:


      Hi Clint,

      Rich Grove forwarded me your Trivium post, which I suspect had something to do with Jan Irvin. I left a comment, along with a link to my Open Letter To Jan Irvin, on my blog. Really liked your post – I say similar things but with… Jan’s emailed response to me was both hilarious and sad. A great example of ‘Weapnized Trivium’ that at best misfired.

      When you have a moment, maybe see what you think.

      (Link) An Open Letter to Jan Irvin…
      This essay refers to Jan Irvin’s podcast interviews with physicist David Harriman, Part One of which can be found at: Part Two: Misleading as they were, I neverth…

      “There’s nothing like it on the web!”


      (In response to his “open letter”):

      To Allan Weisbecker
      Oct 31 at 5:23 PM

      Jan is a friend of mine, to be clear. I call him a friend because as much as we agree or disagree, we still respect each other. That said, my post was directed to many people that are misusing fallacy (a problem that all people on Earth, including you and me, are guilty of). Mostly though, you are correct, this post was a constructive criticism to fellow colleagues, especially those who influence others in a position of teacher or professor.

      As for the subject matter of your criticism, in my opinion you are both in error. Religion permeates throughout all arts, from science to government. The Big Bang theory is no more provable than the God creation theory, and both rely on fallacy to exist. Big Bang is nothing more than the creation story of science. It cannot be proven nor will it ever be… kinda like the God as creator story. So arguments between creation and evolution, while they used to enthrall me, are now just foolish amusements. Listening to a bunch of debt-slaves contemplate the universe while they ignore their chains is disturbing to say the least.

      On the other hand, the concept of God as a governing force (a higher power) is the basis of law. Without it, as we see today, men are governed not by God’s natural law but by men acting as gods (magistrates). Belief in God as the foundation of law has nothing to do with religion. It is just a foundation from which all law and authority emanates. With this comprehension we then can understand that the word “belief” does not mean the vulgar (common) vernacular meaning, but instead it means “to live” under a lifestyle of God’s laws of nature – basically do no harm and protect each others life, liberty, and property.

      If I have a foundation of the Big Bang as an improvable “science” as my “God”, which in essence is intended to be the institution of a lack of a belief in a higher power than man with regards to law, then society has no foundation to protect man or nature from man’s inequitable laws, which ultimately destroy nature only to discover what it is. The truth of the matter is that science is best served under the laws of nature (under God’s law), not to dissect nature but to better understand and protect it. When science becomes an institution of belief instead of a tool of practice, and when the creation model of the “Big Bang” becomes the central religion of that institution, then science as a useful and just tool in its true capacity no longer exists except in name only (simulacrum), for if must create fallacies and stories like Big Bang and quantum physics so as to replace the law of God doctrine (do no harm) and destroy ethics and morals regarding the treatment of nature (harm with no limit). The Big Bang is proof that science no longer searches for truth, it declares the truth as institutionalized fact-based theory even when unprovable, which makes it much worse than religion. Quantum physics is an institution of belief, using a few provable (scientific) facts and many unprovable theories as proof of the whole institution of the doctrine of quantum physics. QP is merely a name, nothing else. Trivium is merely a name, nothing else. Law and religion are merely names, nothing else. A rose by any other name…

      Science is supposed to be a method, very much like the trivium. It is when the trivium as an institution is used as the truth as opposed to a method to find the truth that it becomes a weapon. The same can be said of science. Thus they both become doctrines of religion rather than tools of usefulness and neutrality. They do harm instead of preventing harm.

      So I say to you that the premise of your argument is based not on science itself, but on the doctrine that men have created and called “science” in name only. I can say the same thing about Jan and many others who have used the trivium as truth rather than a tool of finding truth, creating a fallacy of superiority of argument where none actually exists. We all have these faults in our processing of information, and so arguments of doctrine don’t impress me much anymore.

      I hope you appreciate the candidness of my response here. I choose to concentrate on how to fix us and our society first, and worry about the universe later. For without proper ethics in society, scientists (in title only) are now committing the worst of all crimes against nature in the name of science. The truth is, there is no such thing as a scientist, for a man cannot be a method. And there is no such thing as a triviumist either. Scientists are titled that way by a “Godless” government in order to give them legal permission to do harm against man and nature. As I said, they will kill nature into oblivion just to understand how it lives. That’s not science. That’s credentialed psychosis.



      To Clint Richardson
      Nov 1 at 3:19 PM

      Well, Clint, I don’t know how to respond to your message.

      You keep repeating that theories like big bang and evolution can never be ‘proven’ and of course that’s correct, as any actual ‘scientist’ (like physicists and biologists) will tell you.

      Evidence for and against theories go toward their viability, but no theory is ever labeled ‘proven’. I assumed you knew this, but apparently I was wrong. The observation that the universe is expanding plus the CMB – cosmic microwave background – are two observations that tend to verify the bb theory. But as i say, a theory is never considered ‘proven.’)

      If you have no interest in how we humans (and all life) came to be here, well, we probably don’t have much to say to each other then. Ditto re cosmology.

      I might repeat – it’s said a couple times in my post – that the purpose of my ‘letter’ to Irvin was to demonstrate his lack of real critical thinking, in his interview with Harriman, and in his tirade of emails to me. I was not theorizing on how the world works, re the BB or anything else.

      I guess I misinterpreted your blog post.

      “There’s nothing like it on the web!”


      To Allan Weisbecker
      Nov 2 at 5:24 PM

      There is no misunderstanding here. The doctines of the institution of the industry called science are today generally not scientific. I am simply pointing out the difference between what is scientific and what is the PRACTICE of a false dicotomy called science.

      Sometime this week I’ll be posting a long entry about this on my blog, which will address all this. It’s there for you if you like. If not,that’s ok too.

      Here is an excerpt of the definition of practice. As in medicine, law, education (teaching), and science, practice always stems from a doctrine of what is, not from the method of learining what is or could be. Practicing in the name of science is not necesarily science. And your “interest in the cosmos” as some holy trait is rediculous considering “science” has no idea what lies even below the surface of land or sea. If you focus on the stars you miss everything right in front of you. And in case you haven’t noticed, psychopaths are killing us in the name of science as they practice all matters of genocide and environmental engineering.

      Nothing to see here…

      PRAC’TICE, noun [Gr. to act, to do, to make; Eng. to brook, and broker; Latin fruor, for frugor or frucor, whence fructus, contracted into fruit; frequens.] 1. Frequent or customary actions; a succession of acts of a similar kind or in a like employment; as the practice of rising early or of dining late; the practice of reading a portion of Scripture morning and evening; the practice of making regular entries of accounts; the practice of virtue or vice. Habit is the effect of practice 2. Use; customary use. Obsolete words may be revived when they are more sounding or significant than those in practice 3. Dexterity acquired by use. [Unusual.] 4. Actual performance; distinguished from theory. There are two functions of the soul, contemplation and practice according to the general division of objects, some of which only entertain our speculations, others employ our actions. 5. Application of remedies; medical treatment of diseases. Two physicians may differ widely in their practice 6. Exercise of any profession; as the practice of law or of medicine; the practice of arms. 7. Frequent use; exercise for instruction or discipline. The troops are daily called out for practice 8. Skillful or artful management; dexterity in contrivance or the use of means; art; stratagem; artifice; usually in a bad sense. He sought to have that by practice which he could not by prayer. [This use of the word is genuine; from Latin experior. It is not a mistake as Johnson supposes. See the Verb.] 9. A rule in arithmetic, by which the operations of the general rules are abridged in use.

      PRAC’TICE, verb transitive [From the noun. The orthography of the verb ought to be the same as of the noun; as in notice and to notice.] 1. To do or perform frequently, customarily or habitually; to perform by a succession of acts; as, to practice gaming; to practice fraud or deception; to practice the virtues of charity and beneficence; to practice hypocrisy. Isaiah 32:1. Many praise virtue who do not practice it. 2. To use or exercise any profession or art; as, to practice law or medicine; to practice gunnery or surveying. 3. To use or exercise for instruction, discipline or dexterity. [In this sense, the verb is usually intransitive.] 4. To commit; to perpetrate; as the horrors practiced at Wyoming. 5. To use; as a practiced road. [Unusual.]

      PRAC’TICE, verb intransitive To perform certain acts frequently or customarily, either for instruction, profit, or amusement; as, to practice with the broad sword; to practice with the rifle. 1. To form a habit of acting in any manner. They shall practice how to live secure… 3. To try artifices. Others, by guilty artifice and arts – Of promis’d kindness, practic’d on our hearts. 4. To use evil arts or stratagems… 5. To use medical methods or experiments. I am little inclined to practice on others, and as little that others should practice on me. 6. To exercise any employment or profession. A physician has practiced many years with success.

      ARTIFICE – noun [Latin artificium, from ars, art, and facio, to make.] 1. Stratagem; an artful or ingenious device, in a good or bad sense. In a bad sense, it corresponds with trick, or fraud. 2. Art; trade; skill acquired by science or practice.



      To Clint Richardson
      Nov 2 at 9:10 PM

      Are you going to ‘moderate’ my comment on your blog, or will it remain in limbo, not being fit for your readers?

      “There’s nothing like it on the web!”


      To Allan Weisbecker
      Nov 3 at 8:33 AM

      I can see why Jan doesn’t like you. I don’t generally “moderate” anything on weekends. Nice appeal to cencorship. where none exists.

      Are you a Jew?



      To Clint Richardson
      Nov 3 at 10:24 AM

      Dear Clint,

      I was not implying censorship, Clint. I was merely asking about it, as anyone might, given that the comment was in limbo for three days, and given that you took the time to write a lengthy and didactic email in response to my ‘essay’ but didn’t simply hit a single key to have my comment go live. Your stated friendship with Irvin was on my mind also. (In the practical sense, my question had the desired effect: To avoid the dreaded label of ‘censor,’ you had to publish it.)

      Had my question been in the context of a lengthier response perhaps you wouldn’t have taken offense. What I’ve found is that it is unproductive to carry on a serious back-and-forth with someone – Jan Irvin is of this type – who ignores the important points of what you say and uses a response to spout only peripherally related philosophy.

      My email message was an attempt to correct you on two important points:

      1. That even in mainstream science (with which I have huge issues, by the way), a theory is never ‘proven,’ but is always in a sort of ‘belief limbo,’ awaiting new data that will either tend to confirm it or refute it. This is a vital point in ‘the philosophy of science.’ In fact, it’s the most vital. Your repetition of how this or that theory is not ‘proven’ or ‘provable’ clearly meant that you are not aware of this. You ignored this in your response.

      2. As my essay pointed out at least twice and as I again stated in my email (and as I wrote to Irvin about six times), I was not spouting my own ‘beliefs’ (as you define the word, i.e., ‘dogma’), but only pointing out what Irvin (and Harriman) left out of their nearly four hours of conversation. (As an aside, yes I tend to think some version of the Big Bang occurred, and some version of evolution almost certainly led to life as we know it, but these beliefs-in-limbo of mine are irrelevant to my essay’s purpose. You ignored this important point also.

      Perhaps my slight crankiness (the terseness of my email) was also related to this passage of yours:

      ‘And your “interest in the cosmos” as some holy trait is rediculous [sic] considering “science” has no idea what lies even below the surface of land or sea. If you focus on the stars you miss everything right in front of you. And in case you haven’t noticed, psychopaths are killing us in the name of science as they practice all matters of genocide and environmental engineering.’

      .This has the ring of an insult, Clint, aside from implying that all science and all scientists are involved in genocide and the destruction of the planet. And indeed, your tendency to generalize, to lump all scientists (etc.) and all of science (etc.) into your narrow-minded view finally revealed itself – and you – fully, with your question:

      ‘Are you a Jew?’

      How about if I answer the question factually – if with a bit of a slant – and you figure out the subtext?

      I’m as Aryan as they come, Clint, on both sides of the family. (My last name is German for ‘Baker of white bread,’ which sort of says it all.) I’ve looked back at my ancestry for five generations and have come across not a single nigger, spic, gypsy, gook, slope, mick… or, god forbid, a Jew.


      P.S. The reason Jan Irvin ‘doesn’t like (me)’ is best summed up by an aphorism I myself came up with (feel free to quote me): ‘Lie about someone and they’ll get angry. Tell the truth about them and they’ll get outraged.’

      “There’s nothing like it on the web!”


      To Allan Weisbecker
      Nov 3 at 11:12 AM

      Let me make this clear. I’m not interested in a continued dialogue with you. I was generous with my time to attempt to answer your unsolicited email and questions directed to me. The fact that you don’t like the answers you fished from me is not of my concern. I’m very busy and am not interested in more time-wasting with you. I’ve enough people trolling me, thanks. Contrarians galore!

      But I do want you to realize that you are looking for a fight, and so you will generally stir one up. You search for insult where there is none. You ask for knowledge while really desiring to spread your own version of it. And thus you are not at all scientific in your dialogue. You push others to drop their own standards and go on a defensive where none is otherwise required. I’ve seen it time after time, email after email. And I’ve learned to nip it in the butt.

      Again, I answered you honestly and from the heart based on my research and knowledge. Do with it what you will.

      Take care…



      To Clint Richardson
      Nov 3 at 11:52 AM

      To wind this up, all the knowledge I want from you is why you saw fit to ask if I’m a Jew. Under the circumstances of our emails, this is a question from a flaming bigot. Perhaps you wish to rectify that.

      “There’s nothing like it on the web!”


      To Allan Weisbecker
      Nov 3 at 1:26 PM

      Not interested. Think what you will so as to satiate your world-view. See previous email.



      Now, “BOB”, why don’t you post that onto Allan’s site so that all is cleared up? It is convenient to misquote someone. I don’t know who Allan is, and at this point am not interested to.

      Please reconsider your respect of his utilization of lies to accomplish talking shit about me and others. I cannot fathom a reason why he is attacking me, other than the fact that I did not agree with his view of things. And the fact that you are here just because he asked you to insult me on his blog is pretty petty indeed.

      I leave the facts to you to do with what you will…



  10. I knew Jan Irvin via online before he got really caught up in the trivium cult. He was VERY vociferous then, but when he started getting into this elitist stuff noone could say half a sentence without being assailed with highfaluting accusations in Greek and Latin they were being this or that.
    As IF one cannot understand the mindcontrol being does to us IF we do not know their freakin trivium. No doubt there maybe something in it, but the Tragedy&Hope forum I joined failed miserably in my eyes. You see, to me, what is FAR FAR more important than old deal lingo is questioning, and the people there did not like that. Especially if you questioned the Trivium. because of that, as soon I rightfully called them a cult I was immediately banned for life, and was not even allowed to retrieve my efforts
    What has happened to them, and what I had warned Irvin about, is that in the learning OF it they become elitist like the ones who also abuse it, and use it as part of their secret knowledge against others
    Native American had no use of the Trivium. Their languages were utterly connected with the land and alive, and they saw through the BODY language of the two faced whites who invaded their lands, and their lying words. That is all we need. Not pretentiously using old Latic and Greek terms to feel superior to the ‘poor peasants we are twying to protect’…yeahhh surrre. Now that Jan Irvin thinks the whole of the 60s psychedelic counterculture was a massive psy op and even Alan Watts was in on it, and ‘wild dancing’ is evil. The DANGER of worshiping the ‘Logos’ huh…?


  11. I think your Trivium Fallacy could also be summed up as the Fallacy Fallacy, where it is a fallacy to assume that a conclusion is wrong simply because there may be some fallacies in it. With that being said, there are often times I do not wish to discuss a claim because there are far too many fallacies in it to warrant further research, or because I feel a discussion would be unproductive with the person giving the argument. It’s not our responsibility to dispute every fallacious argument, but to just notice them when they arise, and then discern if it is worth discussing further. We’ve taken the Trivium into the realm of emotional intelligence, where we feel into each emotional trigger as the what, process it with why, and then synthesize it into a new thought pattern so that we do not have such triggers in the future. So rather than using the Trivium to win arguments, we use it to do Jungian shadow work, where we integrate our susceptibility and attachments to the logical fallacies, thus allowing us to better embody wisdom in our every day lives. xo


    • I figured out that it’s quite simple. People are placing logic before grammar. Also, the grammar that is utilized to form the logic is religiously considered, as if incontrovertible. Be it useful innocence or controlled opposition, the weapon that is the trivium can be used by both the ignorant and the skilled. In the end, it is a tool only, not a finality. It should not be used ever as a final argument, but a means to that end. Thanks for the input. -Clint-

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Claude Robichaux

     /  September 17, 2016

    Reblogged this on LitterBoxing.


  13. Chris in Outback Queensland

     /  February 16, 2019

    I figured out Jan is wrong because he treats Fallacies as Axioms, and truth as absolutely provable.
    The fact that a known lair with something to gain told you something, is in it’s self, circumstantial evidence of it’s falsehood, it’s just not definitive.
    When you have all the proof something is true, the Universe likes to send proof you have misinterpreted everything you have seen.
    I’m glad I’m not the only one to have figured it out.
    Jan thinks he is God and thus can know absolutely.

    More shows please


  1. Weaponizing The Trivium: The Greatest Fallacy | Grumpy Opinions
  2. Weaponizing The Trivium and Quadrivium | Ronmamita's Blog
  3. Weaponizing The Trivium: The Greatest Fallacy | More from Ab Irato
  4. Logical Fallacies - Flaws in Reason - (Your Argument is Invalid)
  5. An Open Letter To Jan Irvin and his “Gnostic” Media | REALITY BLOG
  6. Jan Irvin and his “Gnostic” MediaAlt-Right Nazi themed ‘Trivium”Nazi Bull Shit | homelessholocaust

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: