Legalism: A Civil Life Without Moral Conscious

I am astonished daily at the devolution of man through legal formality. The wonder that is legalism, that ancient and failed Chinese system of law then adopted by the Roman Empire and still reigning over us today, has been used to re-create man into a false representation of self; actors in third person, as fictions of law that display the unimaginably lifeless properties of personification. So profound is this indoctrination that we have been conned into paying for our sins to the ministers of the state, which is our civil church, pretending that this tax-tithing will somehow satisfy the wrath of the gods of the volcano even as we toss our trash into its depths. We are no longer a solution-based society that solves its problems by eliminating their source, but have become a willfully ignorant zombie hoard that pays fees for the permissive use of the problem.

As long as we pay a tax, isn’t everything just ok then?

If a corporation pays for carbon credits, isn’t it then just ok for it to pollute our streams and suck up our reservoirs for its production needs?

I was recently affronted by a “green” advocate brainwashed by the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development scheme and catchphrases for not having a recycling bin in my kitchen so as to properly dispose of a water bottle. No, the big can was down in the garage unseen. Even so, I was demonized in the mind of that actual waster of plastic. Was it I that was drinking form a corporately made, designed-to-be-disposable water bottle? Of course not. I avoid such unnecessary uses if I can. But the legalism of recycling as a way to forgiveth our sins causes the blame of that action of disposing of the plastic upon anyone else but the actual disposer. I was the bad guy for not making it easier for the sinner to go through the motions of un-sinning. Personal acknowledgment was non-existent.

The legalistic view is one of an insurable lack of conscious responsibility, of licensed innocence from duty. With this recycling meme, the ceremonial act of disposing of that which should have never been created in the first place triggers a chemical reaction in the brain that replaces moral thought with a self-similar non sequitur. Logic is tempered into false reasoning, and the crime is justified through the fallacious notion of solving the problem while at the same time actively being the creator of it. The notion of being judged by God after death has been reassigned into the legal realm of being judged by agents of government. And with the advent of social media, that assignment of judgment is now a social matter, where lifeless 2-dimentional comments and posts on Facebook and Twitter make the digital public into judge and jury. In other words, our duty to nature itself and to that of our fellow beings within it has been replaced with ridiculously assessed and implied social and legal contracts of popular opinion. The expression of moral will has been trumped by social engineering, and the legal foundation of law, which is opposed to all forms of natural law, makes moral action impossible. We have been transformed into automatons, reprogrammed for optimal performance without conscious application of mind.

And so we consider it somehow perfectly logical and reasonable to purchase water in throw-away plastic containers instead of fixing the foundational problem of the purposeful contamination of the water supply, though the bottled water is merely filtered from that same contaminated secondary water supply. Problem, reaction, solution; except we never actually reach the real solution, instead focusing on remedies for the symptoms of the problem but never on killing the problem that causes the symptoms.

Some people would say that this means a bunch of idiots are in charge within government. But in fact, the idiots are us. This is an ingenious scheme with a causal result, a well-oiled machine that makes us react to the created problems while believing those problems are caused by those “stupid dumb-head num-nums” in government and by licensed, evil corporations. But in the end, the consumer drives the market. The consumer purchases the product of the corporations which are allowed to be produced by government license. The consumer uses the product and thus creates the end result as the end user: trash. Before its ever legally considered as trash, it is first a legalized consumer product, which requires voluntary exchange of money for the product by the consumer. Blaming corporations for trash, from the consumer of that trash’s perspective, is like blaming a fruit tree for producing rotten fruit. The tree is somehow the problem even though it is functioning by its natural design, not the fact that we didn’t pick the fruit at the correct time.

The responsibility for our own actions is always magically made the fault of another person or thing, even things which don’t actually exist in nature.

But then, when we are found to be responsible for a legal crime, we simply pay the fine as if nothing ever happened. Someone else will clean up the mess. Government has people for that, right?

Oh, my children just made a huge mess in your restaurant. Sorry, but I know you will clean that up. You have people for that, right?

Another example is our callous disregard for those in need. But that’s what welfare is for, isn’t it? The depersonalization of caring for our fellow man has been degraded into democracy, the worst possible place it can be. We have been taught that donating to the Red Cross or other legally recognized charitable institution is virtually the same as taking action ourselves. It is not. Money and charity are not conducive to each other. The word charity is a verb, as in to act in a charitable manner. But the institutions of legalized charitable corporations is charity in name only, a noun, which implies no action at all. But we truly have been hoodwinked into perceiving our charitable, title 501 donations, which are tax deductible so as to benefit ourselves, is the same as actually acting in a charitable, moral manner. Legal fiction has replaced reality. False perception of reality causes our truths to be just as false. Instead of acting charitably with no proof of the action, I can merely donate money to a corporation calling itself a “charity” and instead legally prove that I am a “charitable giver.” And so the social idiocracy judges each other not by their works but by their financial records.

Meanwhile, despite all the churches and other so-called charitable corporations, the hungry and homeless line the streets while the “charitable givers” drive by in their freshly washed automobiles and pretend not to see the end result of their lack of actual charity. But hey, perhaps they will be inspired to fork over more money when they get home to pay for their sins, a legal manifestation of the deep-seeded guilt we all share in our collective, willful ignorance.

With the pope’s whirlwind visit to the East Coast, to congress, and the United Nations this past week, we are seeing the newest push for agenda 21 policies on a global scale with his promotion of the newly recreated “Agenda 2030” plan. (Link: With goals like ending world hunger and protecting wilderness areas by forcing all legal persons into sustainable cities, fools worldwide will embrace this agenda as a good thing, believing yet again that the money involved will solve the problems that they can otherwise ignore due to the plans of these legal gods of the United Nations and united religions under guidance of the corporation sole called POPE.

And here we also find more pushing of the global carbon credit scheme. More syntax (sin-tax); mere words on paper and changing of money by the real money-changers of world governance. If I pay for carbon credits, which are digits on a computer screen register, a digital database of extortion, it is then ok to use more than I need, right? The pollution caused to live a certain disposable lifestyle is alright if I but sin-credits, right? Surely the extinction of a few species per day is no big deal if money is transferred in their name…

We even have a sin-tax scheme called virtual water to cover our “water footprint!”


“Virtual water is the amount of water that is embedded in food or other products needed for its production. Trade in virtual water allows water scarce countries to import high water consuming products while exporting low water consuming products and in this way making water available for other purposes.”

–World Water Council





This is not about conservation, it is about control. Virtual water is not actual water. It is about money. Money, you see, will somehow save water. By tracking the virtual footprints that we sinners cause by requiring the life-sustaining sustenance of all that water provides, we can simply pay a tax and somehow those footprints will be legally disappeared, though nothing in nature will actually change. Just another multi-level marketing scheme that creates a trickle up effect of money while damming up the trickle down effect of water. The true crime is the legalized theft of the world’s water rights by these government institutions, allowing companies like Coke and Nestle to literally steal what is free and sell it back in disposable plastic and glass bottles. Must be ok though… after all, they acquired those rights legally.

In the end, it seems ever facet of personal responsibility has been monetized and insured and re-insured. Nature is only a trade-able commodity, as are apparently aborted fetuses and body parts of the living and dead adult population. Nothing is sacred in legal consideration, because everything has a value in this system of mammon (money), especially the heads (capita) of men. Capitalism is only human trafficking, commerce in souls, counting us all by the head as human resources to be exacted and extorted from according to our usage of natural resources.

Meanwhile, the hungry remain hungry, the homeless remain without homes, and the Red Cross and United Way continue to suck billions from that stagnant pond of legal citizens seeking to buy their way out of the laws of nature through legal, monetary means.

But hey, at least we get a colorful rubber bracelet for our legal, monetary efforts, so that we can show our social network that we care!


–Clint Richardson (
–Wednesday, September 30th, 2015


Global Warming Greenies And Sports Fans Suck !!!

The Global Warming hoax…


So what is carbon anyway?

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known life forms including the human body. Carbon is the second most abundant element by mass, averaging about 18%, after oxygen (in the form of water – H2O).


Then, what is carbon dioxide (CO2)

Carbon dioxide is a benign, life giving molecule. This molecule – CO2 – is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things and is even released through nocturnal emissions by plants and trees. Carbon and carbon dioxide are essential to all known living systems, and without it life as we know it could not and would not exist. It forms the bubbles in your soda, wine and beer. Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which approximately 93% comes from “natural sources” which are way beyond human control. Some of these sources include the decomposition of organic matter, exhaling (breathing) by living things, volcanic vents (which are by far the greatest atmospheric source), and natural methane gas. Thus, when it is said that a carbon tax is a tax on breathing, this is not far from the truth, although we exhale our share of supposed “carbon credit” by age 3. And because carbon is in methane gas, the carbon tax on breathing includes… cow farts.


O.K… so if carbon and CO2 are good for the planet, why are our leaders saying otherwise?

It has been said by those “crazy conspiracy theorists” for decades that the powers that be created “Ozone depletion” and the “Global Warming” schemes as a fear tactic, which could be used to control and tax not only the people of the United States, but the inhabitants of the entire world through the United Nations and its global governing bodies. Of course, as usual the theorists were right. It always takes some time, but the so-called theories of these well educated and quite excellent researchers (of which the elite, through the corporate controlled media portray as nuts, crazy, paranoid conspiracy theorists) almost always seem to be revealed over time as true. Why? Most of the time the facts, figures, and plans for these mass scams and hoaxes are written out in government documents and in elitist think-tanks like Agenda 21, PNAC, Operation Northwood’s, The Rand Corporation, and many other groups and papers which are unclassified, declassified, public record, or requisitioned through the Freedom of Information Act. In other words… not only do they write down their plans years before the carry them out, but they revel in the fact that most people never figure this out.


Instead, these gullible masses would rather watch a pigskin full of air be carried back and forth on 100 yards of fake grass and kicked between what I consider an easily attainable extra large set of metal posts by some of the most steroidal and mongoloid members of the human species (mentors and hero’s they are not). Or maybe they prefer to watch the “sport” in which the most un-athletic of men and women, dressed in cardigans, polo shirts, and dress slacks stroke a little white ball with a multitude of divots onto vast plots of well manicured land hoping to get it as close to a little hole with a flag in it as possible, while being shown advertisements for every type of automobile and wrist-watch that are just outside of their budget, followed by bank commercials offering loans at interest. And its players are somehow the hero’s of many a child, teenager, and adult – if only they would speak truth to power with the platform they have. Instead, they wear and use the products they endorse and reap huge advertising fortunes while shutting up about the real world. Imagine the good Tiger Woods could do for the world by just getting involved in politics. Imagine some of the support O.J. Simpson would have gotten if he had actually done something good with his fame and fortune.

But then, why do you think there is so much money in sports to begin with? Why do professional sports players make so much money anyway? Simply stated, the whole organization is fixed, and the players are paid to keep this dirty little secret. Think about it: Why is it that in a football game with only minutes or seconds on the clock, the losing team suddenly scores three touchdowns – not enough to win the game of course, but enough to almost tie the game? Professional sports are run by the betting industry, which as we all know… is run by the mob. When you bet on sports, you bet that one team will win, and by how many points (the point spread). Thus, the point spread must be narrowed to insure that the bets are covered, insuring the house always takes in more money than it pays. There is no randomness in these sports. They are run by the mob. How do I know this to be true? I was fortunate enough to have been told this at the tender age of twenty-two by a couple of extremely old, extremely drunk former baseball players and a retired official who were sitting at my blackjack table as I dealt them cards, across from the sports book at Harvey’s, So. Lake Tahoe. They were smashed! I asked questions, they had drunk and disorderly answers. They both said they wished they were in the game today, only for the outrageous amounts of money these guys make. And they explained the sports book and how it works and the mechanics involved. Since I wasn’t a baseball fan, I don’t know their names, and I have no other proof to back this experience up except for my word and hopefully your logic and reason. It was one of those once in a lifetime moments of enlightenment, which I’ll always cherish. It was my first trip down the rabbit-hole and into the world of truth and cover-ups.

What’s most interesting about this is that when I’ve tried to tell people about it, nobody believed me. Even though everyone knows about Don King’s boxing empire and the pre-paid falls his boxers take in that sport (for the purposes of covering the bets) not a one of the devoted sports fans I tell this to can believe what I say about their chosen sport and the blind loyalty they have to it. Some faith in the goodness and wholesomeness of the church of Monday night football has them in a stranglehold of thickheaded imperceptibility.

Even some professional wrestling fans still believe that the WWF is real…

Jesse Ventura, in describing the two party political system to Larry King in 2008 said,

“In pro wrestling, out in front of the people, we make it look like we all hate each other and want to beat the crap out of each other, and that’s how we get your money, [and get you to] come down and buy tickets. They’re the same thing. Out in front of the public and the cameras, they hate each other, are going to beat the crap out of each other, but behind the scenes they’re all going to dinner, cutting deals. And [they’re] doing what we did, too — laughing all the way to the bank. And that to me is what you have today, in today’s political world, with these two parties.”

And so, when men like Al Gore say that global warming is real, the masses (the sports fans) believe it is too, without checking the source of his information. The faith is so strong that it cannot be broken, regardless of the overwhelming proof and record low temperatures that have been sweeping the globe. Ice storms in Africa, the lowest temperatures of all time in almost all 50 states of the United States, record snowfall levels in the history of recorded measurements, and now the earliest snowfall in Austria ever recorded.

Believe what you want, but the facts don’t lie.

*** Now that was the champion of all segue’s! ***

Global warming as the theory of the man-made global destruction of the earth’s climate is simply not real, and has no basis for rational debate because there is no evidence to support it that hasn’t been debunked.

Global warming as an occurrence due to cyclical fluctuations of the solar conditions of the sun is a proven scientific fact. Just as its opposite, global cooling happens inversely once the cyclical sunspot activity goes dormant again.

The truth is that plants grow healthier and produce more fruit when in a carbon rich environment. And the abundance of carbon and CO2 is the reason that in our lifetime the climate has been so livable and so abundant with these crops. It is the near future, as a predicted cooling of the earth’s temperatures due to the lack of sunspot activity leading to a mini ice age that we should be worried about. And it won’t be the first. (See more info at:


Clint Richardson (
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The Nobel Prize: An Award For Liers Like Al Gore

I was really mad when I was fooled (apparently like millions of others) into believing that global warming was a man-made event, because I simply watched a movie called, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gores movie won such massive acclaim, an academy award, countless accolades, and the man even won a Nobel Prize!

A Nobel Prize… I was especially curious about this. The Nobel Prize is a very distinguished and coveted award, and it’s not at all easy to be its champion. Therefore, when I found out that almost all of the information, facts, and figures used in Al Gore’s ‘shock-u-mentary’ were either doctored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, falsified, junk science, or completely fabricated lies, I wondered at the qualification process in being awarded a prize from the Nobel Foundation.

And so, I decided to send an email to the Nobel Foundation.

I had two questions.

1)    How does the group decide who to elect and what are the research and verification criteria involved?

2)    If a winner is proven to be a hoax, or in Gore’s case, use junk science and false information in his glorious work, is the prize then withdrawn or retracted from the corrupt recipient in question?

The following is a transcript of my correspondence.


Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 7:51 PM


I have two questions I would greatly appreciate an answer to for a school project:

1) Has there ever been a case where, after earning a Nobel Prize, the prize was withdrawn due to dishonesty or fraud in the earning of said prize?

2) How was this acknowledged, and what would be the process for this to take place. (i.e. petitions, court case, vote, etc…)

I thank you for your time and consideration.


From: Sofia Bryngelson via RT <>
Subject: [ #3414] Help with questions…
Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 1:25 AM


Thank you for your interest in the Nobel Prize.

No, it is not possible to revoke a Nobel Prize, according the the statues of the Nobel Foundation § 10:

No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.

Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decisionof a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged.

A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.

Yours sincerely,

Sofia Bryngelson
Marketing and Communications Assistant


To: c/o Sofia Bryngelson
Friday, July 3, 2009 4:44 PM

Hello Mrs. Bryngelson, and thank you for your timely response.

In regards to your answers to my previous questions, may I interpret your response as meaning – The Nobel Prize organization, if and when confronted with overwhelming evidence, obvious visual proof, or blatantly plagiarized writings or lies in regards to the qualifications and merits in the earning and bestowing of a past Nobel Prize, would not reconsider, convene a board to reconsider, or even mention to the public that the prize awarded was in fact earned under false pretenses, not merited, plagiarized, or was based on half-truths and lies?

And, if this is the case, what could possibly be a logical, reasonable, moral, or fiduciary  explanation for such behavior from a most respected organization?

As an organization with such uncompromisingly high standards of fiduciary responsibility to the world, I would be extremely disheartened with this organization which I have held in such high esteem for as long as I can remember if the above statements are indeed true.

This being said, the Nobel Prize surely represents the body of work of a person or group, and not the person alone. Therefore, if the “work” is proven to be contaminated or false after the prize is bestowed, surely the Nobel Prize committee would strive to keep it’s name in good standing as the premier academic amalgamate of our time by denouncing an award given under false or malevolent pretenses?

Again, your response to these inquiries is welcomed and eagerly anticipated.

Thank you,

Clint Richardson… a concerned citizen of the United States.


I never received a response to this, but today I resent the email hoping to ruffle some feathers and to make this apparently corrupt and phony organization own up to its deceit and fraudulent support of men like Al Gore.

I’ll keep sending this, and I’d really like for all of you to ask the same questions by emailing the Nobel Prize Foundation. Ask if they support global government. Ask if they support eugenics. And ask what their stance on depopulation, sustainable development through Agenda 21, and everything else these elitists are perpetrating on us.

Good luck and good night.

Clint Richardson (