An Open Letter To Jan Irvin and his “Gnostic” Media


Dear Jan,

Looking back, it seems I have spent my entire activist life seeking to find or make some goodness out of otherwise bad things. You, sadly, have proven to be no exception. How can I explain my tortured disposition right now? How do I shed the poison, the parasitic black hole that is Jan Irvin from my life and my reputation while helping others to avoid that not-so-hidden beast? Why did I allow you to be the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak — the causal effect to stopping my own show and lamely wither away like a poisoned weed? Why am I acting like such a little bitch, as if I’m some beaten down Hollywood starlet protecting her producer or directors’ immoral behaviors to get the part I wanted? And why am I allowing you to continue to poison and parasite off of not only my name and research but those others I seek to help and guide?

Well screw that!

#Metoo
#Timesup

To be frank, I have so many more important things to do than to try and counter your completely ridiculous false information and fallacious accusations about not merely myself but my family name. I’m sure hundreds of others out here feel the same; former research partners, friends, supporters, guests, and listeners all caught up like unwitting insects in the grill of that Gnostic steamroller that is your paranoid life. You are as the consummate spider, wrapping us into various cocoons within your spun web of lies and deceit, slowly sucking out the mojo, the will to carry on, and the soul of each victim to sustain your delusional existence and income, only to cut us loose once we’ve been drained of our usefulness like a pincushion pocked full of voodoo needles.

Yet, though I’d much rather be working on more beneficial things, you’ve placed the splinter of unwarranted doubt and distrust wheresoever your wormed-tongue has touched, and where your corrupt fingers have typed. And all this, suddenly, without warning, for reasons still unknown to me, even after my last Skype to you before the new year was to express my undying friendship and support despite the apparent army of handlers and trolls you claim that are after you. How foolish I feel now, believing your nonsensically conspiratorial concerns, even feeling sorry for your plight, and thus allowing a sociopath into my life the only way they know how to infiltrate — by pretending, by feigning friendship and emotion, and by triggering others to offer their own friendship and loyalty like the hopeful prey blindly turning its back in trust to its conniving predator. And so I feel the same presence of mind to overturn your ongoing historical hatchet-job and rhetorical scams as the story of the Christos did to the moneychangers, even as you continue to poison the temple and the Law, completely misusing and misdirecting in your rhetoric the scriptural intent and meaning I now teach straight from the Source.

The fact is that you abuse just about everyone within your digital, virtual reach, this being your number one complaint from both donating fans and whatever name you are currently labeling everyone else, be it trolls, agents, or whatever fits your conspiracy narrative. The word dick is actually the proper and most widely used colorful metaphor to describe your behavior and tone, used by your victims and fans alike. But what you’ve done to me, a friend and supporting colleague for almost a decade now, is not merely preposterous and downright evil, but 100% fallacious in every way. Yet, looking back, should I not have seen it coming? Any psychologist watching would have warned me of impending doom. After all, what parasite doesn’t eventually either harm or kill its host before discarding it without care for its well-being? Parasitically speaking, Jan, one must appreciate the extra care you’ve taken to ensure my personal spark to be extinguished behind you. Above and beyond, Jan, really. Like the wasp that stings its prey to deliver parasites because the wasp itself is already parasitically driven to do so, you’ve been using my reputation, and even my family name as fodder for your fallacious accusations so as to nourish and fester them, devouring me as sustenance while I sit paralyzed like a zombie watching it happen. But that’s what victims of parasitic infection do. They relax and watch helplessly as that which infests them chemically lobotomize any will to fight back, until the ability is no longer a part of their being even as their very life force is being sucked dry. They even protect the parasite that feeds off of them, if that is what the sociological programming of the parasite instructs.

You haven’t just become adept at uncovering the logical fallacies of others, but instead have learned to use them all as weapons. You do so not to help the user see his or her mistake in logic, but to disparage, to demonize, and often to banish, then go in for the kill by applying your own payload of twisted logic and disturbing insult while emotionally pummeling those who point out your own fallacious rhetoric, no matter their intentions or relationship to you. With me, you simply did as you often do, as bouts of paranoia continuously spark your twisted noodle into behavioral psychopathy, using unprovable, positive accusations and descriptions to demean my character, to poison my well. Never mind the argument, forget the facts… attack the messenger so as to ignore the primary source. Apparently you feel that if you talk about the use of logical fallacies by others long enough, pointing them out incessantly to the point that no full conversation or debate can ever actually take place and thus leaving an empty feeling in both the audience and the guest, that the falsehoods your own argument is based on will just be forgotten in the shuffle, the fallacious logic going unchecked?

Well I got news for you, sunshine, you’ve left a recorded audio, comment, and email trail of your particular brand of mayhem and madness behind, exposing the very nature of the narcissistic, parasitic sociopath you are, and now the taxman is cometh to collect. But first, we must provide an invoice; a history of your transactions within the borders of your own false dialectic and insanity…

As you well know, as a basic rule in science, it is said that one cannot prove a negative. Therefore, I cannot prove I am not something that you accuse me of, any more than you can prove that I am (because I’m not). How do I prove that I am not what Jan Irvin fallaciously says I am? The fact is, I can’t. And that’s why you did it, because you know most everyone out there will never check the veracity of your claims, let alone yourself ever offering any backing evidence. The murderer often gains the unwarranted trust of victims before sleighing them. Metaphorically, this is what you’ve done to your audience, including myself. And it’s no fun being on your particular chopping block, man, which is perhaps the reason I’ve been so silent for all these years. But even worse, how do I possibly pull such spewed venom from those you’ve bitten with your sinister charm and pathologically lying, accusatory disposition? For again, no one can prove something is not true, only that it is true. Amazingly this is the very foundation of law, for all of Nature is negative, self-existence, the I AM, which is why governments create positive (legal) identities and law, to identify all things negative (Real, of Nature), including men, as positive properties (by assigning artificial, legal names, titles, numbers, barcodes, etc.). To control the name or title, fallacious and inaccurate as it may be, is to control that which the name or title is attached, be it accurate or a lie. You’ve taken this legalism strategy, which not ironically stems from the and ancient “logicians,” to a whole new level though. For not only do you create the fallacious title like a deranged child, you then label and attempt to control the lies you place on anyone and everyone around you. In other words, you’ve created a blanket straw man argument called “troll” or “dirty” or “agent” or “CIA” or any other nondescript, unprovable, positively charged name/title, throwing it out like a darkly radiant, 360 degree fishing net. Your listeners, of course, don’t want to fall under that net, and so they walk on glass around you, knowing that any comment they might make, factual as it may be, could earn them a negatively applied title for their own efforts. Like unwitting dolphins, many good guys get caught in your careless net just like the very few actual bad guys, of there are any. Sadly for you, you’ve hunted the sea almost dry and have hooked too many good people on your line of craziness before callously tossing us back into the sea, hurt, confused, and victimized, but at least more experienced, more hardened for our mistakes, so that we may recognize the signs of such unseen lures by unpredictable, abusive fishers of men as yourself. Meanwhile, I am guessing there are dozens if not hundreds of us out here unable to prove the negative to your positive. I’m dirty because Jan says it’s so. I’m CIA because Jan doesn’t like me or my information anymore. I’m must be an agent because Jan Irvin doesn’t like the fact that my primary sources contradict his secondary or Theosophic ones. I certainly must be a troll because I asked an uncomfortable question that might lead to rational thought and discussion, or for God’s sake, might un-spin your entire Gnostic web, your limited hangout “brain” program, to be a fraud.

So what am I to do, now that you have falsely but with so much confident arrogance outed me as an agent for the CIA that is out to get you, as someone that is dirty and likely working with many others that are also out to get you? How do I prove you wrong? How do I disprove your positive?

Simply put, I cannot. Because I (nor anyone, for that matter) can prove the negative. The problem is, neither can anyone else that hears your bullshit, completely unsourced and un-vetted fallacious attacks. Now my own friends, followers, and readers don’t know if they can trust me, all because Jan says I’m (probably) a dirty agent of the CIA. Your probability drive is broken, Jan.

So how do I escape the web of your sociopathic brain…

That’s it! It’s so simple!

Put me in your brain program! Show us all the CIA connections. I volunteer!!!

Unfortunately for you, Jan, my only reasonable recourse here is this: I must cause you to publicly make a complete fool out of yourself, not that you already haven’t. I must, in other words, make it official. I must force you to prove your positive accusation, which you can’t, so that my negative innocence remains unblemished by your fallacious, positive name-calling and accusatory rhetoric. In short, I must make you repent, retract, and apologize to myself and those you’ve poisoned by your fallacious, unchecked, un-veted rhetoric and name-calling in unwarranted, un-vetted judgement. So I demand you provide proof that my father and I are CIA. I would think your fans would demand it as well, along with proving all of the other 100’s of fallacious accusation you’ve made towards others, or perhaps they assume you just have a magic mirror and take your word for it?

Prove your claim and apologize when you can’t. Simple.

But the sociopath apologizes for nothing. It’s never the sociopaths fault, is it Jan?

You cannot simply point to your past research, which shows public information connections of historical figures to the CIA, and expect people to take that as some proof that your hysterical beliefs and rhetorical lies about all others are also therefore true. You must prove your claim, right? Isn’t that correct procedure under the Trivium model and the scientific method model? It certainly is a maxim of law. Another maxim is that I can’t prove a negative. Yet another is he that is accused does not bear the burden of proof. Innocence until proven guilty? Recognize any of these?

So whatcha gonna do, Jan?

Even the sociopathic personality would at least see that to save his own ass he must at least pretend remorse and issue a public retraction and apology. Either way I’ll take it. But that’s not enough, Jan. For I am also here as an advocate for everyone else you’ve fallaciously labeled and mentally abused. Prove those too. Show your listeners that the entire universe except your supporters are a band of trolls, that all of those who criticize (or laugh uncontrollably) you and your “Trivium as God” religion are in fact a combination, a conspiratorial paid force out to get you. Your self-righteousness is astounding.

After a few months of reflection now, I realize that you have presented me with the perfect opportunity to teach you an extremely needed and deserved lesson in humility — one that you may learn from and hopefully improve yourself for the benefit of yourself and your listenership, whom in my opinion you have a duty and responsibility to as an somewhat influential public speaker and researcher. Indeed, this type of chance to improve and assist you in such endeavors through public embarrassment and well-deserved ridicule doesn’t often present itself in such a perfect fashion. But that’s what friends do for each other, no matter how painful it is in the short term. And so I am going to jump on this opportunity in the only rational, reasonable, and moral fashion it allows me to. To this end, and in the spirit of your own Trivium-based requirements, I hereby challenge you to PROVE YOUR CLAIM!

I challenge you to protect your own reputation and name by proving your nonsensical accusations, not merely about myself but all the others you have used and abused. Show me the evidence. Show everyone the evidence publicly. Prove your claims directed at my father and about myself. If my father was CIA, I certainly want to know about it. And if I am CIA or for that matter anything at all related to some government agency, I want to start getting paid for it, dude, let alone be told what the hell my mission is. Find a single pay-stub! In considering the fact that you suddenly terminated our friendship and professional relationship of more than 8 years over this fantasy you’ve convinced yourself of, that I am an “agent” because my father was (maybe) an “agent” and that I am out to get you like most of your past used and abused acquaintances — you know, all the others you’ve decided it to be a good idea to take a big shit on their foreheads as well — I simply ask you for the proof. Where is it? How can I find it? Where can your listening audience acquire it?

You even had me believing all these guests, friends, and colleagues you’ve thrown under the bus in the past must be part of the evil they. Apparently, the whole of the CIA is after you, Jan, and just about the whole of anyone that speaks critically of your work is as well. According to your crazy-pants rhetoric, by default we all must be CIA or just generically “dirty.” We must be a band of trolls from Trogloditaria. So go now and let me know what my dirt as an agent is, where my agency employment records are, and indeed post publicly when you find any connection between myself or my father to the CIA or any other government or non-governmental agency. I demand it. That’s all I need, since by default I must therefore be CIA if my father was, right? Isn’t that your fallacious logic, even though your sought-after colleague Dave McGowan, who exposed much of this military family information, clearly warned against making such fallacious connections as you have, as if everyone in the military is part of them? My father might have been a willfully ignorant man that loved old war movies and who was overly proud of his military title and actions thereof, as most are, but he was certainly not a part of the intelligence apparatus you have imagined. He was in the third seat of the planes he navigated. I may not be proud of his “service” but I will defend his good nature and name to my death, you piece of shit.

You want to know how ridiculous this is, Jan? I’ll bet all the money I have (which ain’t much) that you don’t even know my father’s first name. I bet you have no information on him whatsoever. I bet you are completely clueless in this regard, but for the few purposely misinterpreted words you heard me say on my show. And yet you have the audacity, the paranoid-schizophrenic gumption and untethered pathologic confidence to say he was an agent for the CIA with such careless abandon? You don’t even have his first name!

What really gets my goat is that you didn’t come to me as a friend and colleague to ask me the truth. You simply assumed it was true. You accused me without trial, without evidence, all based on the story of my father I’ve told multiple times over the years. But for you, it was the first time you heard it; the quick, redacted version I stated this time around. And so your blind followers and financial supporters will consider my name the same as you, not just about myself and my father, but everyone else you’ve spit out of the Gnostic Media shit can like two-hour-old gum. And that is why I’m putting this open letter up, so that everyone might see what you really are, and to stop this veritable witch-hunt led by the paranoid man that cries witch every time someone disagrees with him.

And if I am wrong, and you find such records, I will publicly apologize to you as well. To those on the sidelines, unless this has happened to you as well, you may have no idea how frustrating it is to be accused of something you are not, having no way to disprove it, knowing how utterly ridiculous and unprovable that accusation is. Jan Irvin is a divider, not a uniter. We couldn’t be more different in this regard, and our unique rhetoric shows this well.

With regards to the facts, that’s really all your listening audience should be demanding. In triplicate. Your rhetoric is so loose with regards to people’s name and reputation that it’s hard to believe you have any legitimate audience left. Show me the evidence not just on Clint, but on every single victim of your long chain of accusations and dismissals. The road behind you is particularly bloody. Why did you throw poor Jacob D under the bus? What did he do? Where’s your scoop on Joe Atwill? I may disagree with him, but I don’t openly accuse him of that which I cannot prove just to make myself look better. However, thanks to your influence, I certainly have in the past tended to agree with your assessments of folks as if under Stockholm Syndrome. And to those I may have made any agreeably false accusations because of Jan’s influence, I humbly apologize. We’ve all got to break this snake’s influence and that of others like him to start acting like a united family, because the false brotherhoods we are fighting always remain as brotherhoods, from the freemason to the Jew to the Jesuit, no matter how much they disagree. That is their power. It must become ours as well. And the Truth is the only bond we have left, for the brotherhoods have taken everything else.

Jan, of all the people you have accused of this fallacious connection or employment to the CIA or whatever alphabet code team you have dreamed up, please provide even a modicum of proof regarding myself. Just a little? Please? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Chirp… Chirp…

Secondly, I simply and reasonably demand that, since I know you won’t find a damn thing on myself, you must therefore by all standards of decency, morality, and ethics publicly apologize for blatantly lying and character assassinating my name. Just because someone disagrees with you and has evidence to back it up doesn’t mean they work for a government agency nor that they are evil or “satanic” in some way only you, the Great Irvin, delusionist extraordinaire can fathom.

Let’s put another lie of yours to your favorite, promoted, but rarely used Trivium logic test:

How many times and for how many years can you continue to espouse that the CIA or other agency, or perhaps organized trolls or evil leprechauns after your precious gold and raw green coffee beans are trying to shut down your website? I call bullshit, Jan. Show me the proof, Mr. I.T. guy. Essentially, if we examine this claim in its full spectrum, you are trying to pass as truth the fact that the CIA, the NSA, and the rest of the organizational apparatus of the military industrial complex is too inept to shut down your tiny little website, but that they gave it their best shot? LOL! I know you need donations, but does anyone actually believe that if the CIA wanted you dead or your websites and transmissions terminated that it wouldn’t happen by the end of government business hours today, Eastern timezone? Where do these grand delusions come from? After all, whole countries can’t keep the CIA out, let alone you and your unguarded mountain chalet. And don’t you ever stop to consider how ridiculous this notion is? That is what you are indirectly claiming, right, that they are so inept that they can’t break through your intensive countermeasures to kill and erase Gnostic Media? Just who do you think actually believes that? Wow, Jan, you must be some computer wiz to stand so bravely against the entirety of the powers that be, against the entire AI, and against military intelligence itself! Yours is a modern retelling of David vs. Goliath? No paranoia here, right? No logical fallacy? That wasn’t just an unexpected power outage for the entire 3-city grid, right, but was instead a direct attack on the Jan Irvin and Gnostic Media machine so that you couldn’t perform your scheduled podcast of a radio show for one night? LOL!

Gee Jan, you better not board an airplane, or they might shoot it down, willingly sacrificing the other 150 passengers just to shut up the great and powerful Jan “the Oz” Irvin.

Show us the proof. Show us the matrix code. Show us the cyber attacks. Because they seem to happen randomly to everyone else, too. Oh shit, I think they are making it rain right now. They must be controlling the weather so that I stay inside and write this letter to you.

You see, that’s the brilliant part about your particular brand of seemingly scripted, ridiculously demented paranoia. We out here in the digital wasteland cannot prove the negative on this either. We cannot prove that the CIA in cooperation with the Leprechaun Rainbow Liberation Army (LRLA) and the Jews Out To Get Jan Irvin (JOTGJI) and all the other alphabet agencies known and unknown isn’t every day trying to put static upon your airwaves or hacking into your websites to cause gremlin-like digital havoc. Entertaining and even false sympathy-causing as these thoughts are, I still smell a big pile of bullshit, Jan. If they wanted you or your website disappeared, I’d be writing an obituary instead of an open-letter critique from a pointlessly wounded friend and former supporter.

But I can’t support what you’ve become, which I can see is really just what you always have been, now that I’ve taken my rose-colored glasses off.

You have since created an even greater logical fallacy than I had first described in my original critique of the so-called Trivium and its misuse, linked here for posterity:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/weaponizing-the-trivium-the-greatest-fallacy/.

This time you are not merely using the Trivium in name only, as a supposedly unbeatable credential, that you “have the trivium and therefore you are correct.” No, at this point you’ve mastered the deflective use of any and all logical fallacies. You’ve learned to wear these fallacies like a badge of courage, like Wonder Woman brandishes her invulnerable bracelets. But your golden lasso is made of strung-together turds, causing people not to speak the truth but to accept your lies as truth, for any disagreement or evidence against you is magically, alchemically transformed into a personal attack against you. You’ve made yourself into a walking strawman, no longer arguing in the first person, no longer relegating anything of reality or that would require any personal responsibility to your actual self, for only the strawman appears now, same pig, different lipstick. You are no longer Jan Irvin, but the strange simulation of your self, a simulacrum (copy without an original). Your persona (mask) is now turned transparent. You’ve become your own martyr, your own hero in your own story, in a complete and utter transference — the fruition of a narcissists’ dream.

To be clear, though anyone’s comment or question will be genuine and attacking the argument, not the messenger (you), in what you espouse to be proper rhetoric based on grammar and logical conclusion, you have seemed to master the art of fallaciously changing every comment or question into a personal attack. You’ve built a strawman argument in and of yourself. It’s like reverse discrimination, but in this case, you’ve entered into a state of perpetual reverse ad hominem, where we, they, and them are all against you simply for challenging your rhetoric (argument and/or sources, or lack thereof). In other words, you take what is correct according to your own precious Trivium method and somehow transform it into an ad hominem. This is interestingly the reverse of the ad hominem fallacy, again like reverse discrimination. To take a disputed fact personally would be to pretend the speaker to be insulting you to avoid having to answer for the ineptness of your own original argument. You’ve created another new fallacy, Jan! You pretend everything is an attack on you by the CIA, someone “dirty,” or a “troll” (or basically anyone that disagrees or challenges you to prove your rhetoric), and that way you don’t ever have to answer for the continuous hairball of fallacious reasoning you perpetually cough up and call it “the Trivium.”

Or are you just calling it god now?

That all said, I have always had a great but in hindsight blind respect for the few in depth research projects you have done, just not your rhetoric. Frankly, you suck on radio as a host, interrupting your guests every two minutes because you can’t help but mention the few names you’ve researched like Gordon Wasson or the Huxley family and their exploits, as if everything is connected through those names through the CIA. After all, the brain software says so, right? There are no other options, no other players but what you’ve uncovered. And this is the epitome of why the Trivum method is flawed. It is only as good as its users total knowledge, the total grammar intake and storage. And as we will cover below, you lie continuously about how much grammar you have actually absorbed.

And what is worse, you connect all of this public information in that digital program called “the brain,” apparently so that you don’t have to use your own. Yet if we were to look fairly and critically at your so-called “brain” data file, we can see nothing more and nothing less than exactly what is portrayed in Hollywood movies and television shows — a depiction of the consummate, popular caste roll of the paranoid conspiracy theorist, with pinned up pictures and newspaper clippings connected by variously colored strings blazoned across the room from wall to wall, like a spider spinning its pointless but artful web while tripping on acid — something you’ve done according to your own words hundreds of times. But the effects are temporary, right Jan? Are they? Hmmm… Maybe in your acid dreams.

Here are some wise words and ponderable questions you might wish to consider:

–=–

clifford-stoll-quote-why-is-it-drug-addicts-and-computer-aficionadosclifford-stoll-merely-that-i-have-a-world-wide-web-page-does-not-giveclifford-stoll-rather-than-bringing-me-closer-to-others-the-time-thatclifford-stoll-data-is-not-information-information-is-not-knowledge

–=–

Your “brain” program is not open-minded, but stands as a barrier to all other knowledge. It excludes further pieces of any puzzle until its user selectively enters those pieces into its database.  Your “brain” has no knowledge, Jan, only data. So essentially, your brain cannot be used according to your rules of the Trivium method, though it’s the perfect tool for a narcissist. Your brain program is merely the trans-humanist, computer model of your own limited mind, minus the crazy, and you consort with it continuously to verify your own brain’s accuracy. In other words, you have become trapped in the circular, limited computer version of your own noggin. You ask your own brain questions, and it answers them to the best of its ability, which is limited to your own inputed information.

One might call this a paradox. Another might say it’s the magic mirror telling its user its reflection is the fairest in all the land… except for your next target. How can your brain grow if you don’t connect more dots, more conspirators against Jan Irvin, against the Trivium as religion? And so you commence in connecting more dots by making them appear in your “brain” from nothingness, with nothing as a source but your own conspiratorial modeling and descriptions.

Information-In-PC

It prevents you from thinking outside of the limitations of its virtual box, until the time where you input any new, always incomplete data you’ve discovered. Its data can never be complete, meaning it can never have correct grammar, meaning it is completely against the Trivium model. And so are you, without realizing it. You’ve become so much like your brain software that, like that non-human computer interface, you cannot distinguish between what is real and what is artificial, what is truth and what is lies. It is inclusive and it is exclusive, acting like a schizophrenic revolving door. It compliments your tortured mind and organizes your theories on conspiracy for you. It tells you exactly what you want to hear, because you programmed it. It’s what you would call an extremely limited hangout, a never-concluding and ultimately useless tool except to a mass-murderer or a vengeance-filled vigilante.

internet-addiction

It fits right in with your fallacious worship of the Trivium as the source of the Bible. LOL! If I asked what you intend to ultimately do with your forever incomplete brain database, I’m sure your answer would ultimately amount to a fancy way of saying bragging rights, to say I told you so. It’s not primary evidence, it has no chain of custody, and so it’s about as valuable in court or to an FBI agent’s dossier as a second-hand youtube video accusing George Bush Jr. of pushing the red button to commence the events of 9-11-2001.

But great job man. Way to use your– or ah, the computers… “brain.”

This is Jan’s Brain file. This is Jan’s Brain file after years of Jan doing drugs.

Any questions?

PC-Addiction

So here’s your chance to vindicate yourself, Jan, for what it’s worth. Just put me into your brain! Not the fucked up one dangling upon your shoulders, but the supposedly researched one on your computer. You know, the one people can download if you ignore the malware warnings of a “compression bomb,” in case they don’t mind an incredible array of malicious spy and mal-ware?

Talk about narcism – I’m Jan Irvin. Please download my self-programmed brain, so that you can stop being inferior to me and start thinking like I do. LOL!

Your life has become the manifestation of an Escher masterpiece:

880e1f7c71ecf950de5dde824a900270

But let us hit the nail squarely on the head before we continue here…

One comment I heard lately regarding your online presence and personality dis-order was shockingly accurate in its descriptiveness of your behavior-isms, and so I would like to offer here a comparative analysis of that armchair diagnosis to see if it might be relevant to your particular disposition, Jan. The more anyone knows you, the more of these traits ring true.

I defer here to an external link for this purpose, where I have placed in bold the traits that seem to fit your actions, and highlighted in red those that are quite evident in your personality… those that fit like a glove:

What Is A Narcissistic Sociopath?

  • A narcissistic sociopath is someone with a combination of narcissistic personality disorder and definitive behavioral signs of sociopathy.
  • People with narcissism are characterized by their excessive and persistent need for others’ admiration and positive reinforcement. They generally have grandiose opinions of themselves and believe they are superior to other people. Narcissists are also frequently convinced that they are above the normal responsibilities and obligations of everyday life, so they usually have significant difficulties maintaining employment or relationships as a result.
  • The narcissistic sociopath has this type of personality along with a noticeable lack of regard for the rights of others and a tendency to regularly violate those rights.

One noted difference between a narcissistic sociopath and people with narcissism alone is that:

  • The narcissist with the sociopathy reacts strongly and sometimes even violently to negative feedback. True sociopaths generally do not respond to criticism or care what others may think of them.
  • A narcissistic sociopath is unable to tolerate criticism and needs constant praise, as well as deference from other people. Many with this condition present themselves in the best light possible and are able to easily charm others to gain their trust.

THE MALIGNANT PERSONALITY:

These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of which they are capable.  To recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind:

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

For more and for update from http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Profile of the Sociopath

  • Glibness and Superficial Charm
  • Manipulative and Cunning – They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
  • Grandiose Sense of Self – Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.” May state readily that their goal is to rule the world.
  • Pathological Lying – Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
  • Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
  • A Sociopath is always “pitting” people against each other. My Sociopath
  • Smear Campaign:  A Sociopath will always be smearing someone and inciting people against each other.  Sociopaths do not want people to like or get along with each other and will try todivide and conquer.”  They will say odd things to people in the social group: “She doesn’t like you” or “She doesn’t want me doing anything with you.” My Sociopath
  • Sociopath has a strange network of Support People ranging fromconsultants,” to skilled-workers, to enabling co-dependents that back him up when he wants to go after his Target. Most of the Support People have their own Psychological problems. My Sociopath
  • No conscienceLack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt.
  • Believe they are all-powerful all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
  • The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
  • Shallow Emotions: When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
  • Incapable of real human attachment to another.
  • Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them.
  • Authoritarian
  • Secretive
  • Paranoid
  • Callousness/Lack of Empathy
  • Drama King: There is always conflict going on in a Sociopath’s life and it involves abad person,” “bad business orbad transaction.” My Sociopath.

For complete list: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

 

Antisocial Personality Disorder Overview
(Written by Derek Wood, RN, BSN, PhD Candidate)

There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite.

Over time, she says, their appearance of perfection will begin to crack,” but by that time you will have been emotionally and perhaps financially scathed.

Taken in part from MW — By Caroline Konrad — September 1999

Holy crap! If the shoe fits! My God, man. Mamma always said don’t go pokin’ a sociopath while its basking in its own narcissistic glory, but how can I resist? So you aren’t just a dick on purpose, but instead likely suffer from a grandiose mental illness? Being a dick to you is like having the uncontrollable Tourettes Syndrome, isn’t it? Because honestly, reading this list is like reading the introduction section of the Jan Irvin behavioral handbook 101 — subtitled as: how to use and be a complete dick to everyone and still get donations!

How did I not see this before? We are diametrically opposed, complete opposites. Yet it is said opposites attract. Perhaps that explains the repulsion I experienced when we actually met in person (described below). And indeed, as we all can see and as many have experienced first hand, you treat your audience as a “strange network” – enabling co-dependents that back {you} up when {you} want to go after {your} Target. Examples of this behavior are listed below as well.

To be fair, I can’t just state this general diagnosis outright here and attempt to apply it to you without giving the personal examples (proofs) that cause me to presume it applies to you, now can I? I don’t wish to attack you, only to liberate my conscious of all the dirty little secrets and discussing behaviors I’ve witnessed and kept about you all this time. But that’s what victims do, now isn’t it? For victims of the sociopath confuse what they believe to be friendship with what is actually victimhood. But suddenly, victims are finding a friendly ear, a friendly world to their victimhood, and they are coming out against people exactly like you.

Now, I wouldn’t want to be accused of dipping into any of that classic circular logic pattern of excuses from the Jan Irvin logical fallacy library. Oh, you’ll try to call it just that, I’m sure, as if anything I’ve said so far isn’t true. You’ll say this is a “hit piece” by an “agent” or “troll.” Yada yada yada. How about calling it exactly what it is, the truth? But alas, as we now know, the sociopath takes no personal responsibility. I get it. Thus any apology would be malcontent and only for show anyway. Of course the sociopath can do no wrong, and you’ve certainly denied events I’ve described between us before without even a glimmer of remorse (perhaps because you were too stoned to remember or care), have never taken the blame for anything, never apologized for being a dick or other colorful metaphors, and finally decided it was time to deliver me as your latest victim of a sociopathic smear campaign you believed would protect your narcissistic nature and cause you to look like, yet again, the Great Irvin standing morally tall above the rest.

It all makes a certain sick sense now…

But what you may not understand yet, Jan, is that this open letter is not a smear campaign, and does not require whatever ridiculous, fallacious response and defense you might attempt to post. No, this letter is not for your benefit or even an attack against you, but is being written for the benefit of the rest of your victimized audience, who generally have no idea how you use and abuse them, asking them as your “strange network of supporters” to find “dirt” and do “hatchet jobs” on those you’ve chosen to degrade and throw under the bus in order to make you look like some kind of hero or moral authority. What a wicked scheme you have going on here. Someone needs to expose it for what it is, and you inadvertently chose me to do it when you threw me away like a used condom, and even more so when you chose to disrespect the honor of my father, my family. We are all your victims in one way or the other. And we must worship you and ignore your shortcomings (and they’re all short) if we don’t want to be voted off the island. We must either become and act like you or be accused of being the opposite. For you, your latest attack word satanic only means anti-Jan Irvin.

Your perfect little public facade is indeed cracking Jan, judging by the number of blatantly open critiques, forums, emails, and outright no holds barred detractions and WTF’s directed towards your latest rhetoric. Like those Hollywood tramps that are at least pretending to be victims instead of willing participants, I feel a bit late coming out and telling my own story of your exploits in narcissistic sociopathy towards myself and others. But it’s a story that must be told, for your future exploits, trials, and public ostracizing of innocent people must be warned against, as must what may happen to them when they put their trust in you. Like the grand inquisitor heading a witch hunt, we users of brooms to sweep the floors must look out for one another, lest our brooms be said by you to have secret, government issued license plates with hidden agendas, as the whole of all broom owners in the world organize into covens so as to plan our next trolling of the implacable Jan Irvin. We must get his goat at all costs. We must spend our entire lives polluting his email, his comment section, his forums, and his website, or else our central intelligence coven (CIC) might be discovered. We really have nothing else to do, anyway. You might discover some easy-to-find public quote of ours from a blog stating our mutual connections and then claim to have found it occulted in some obscure journal only Jan Irvin and his “brain” could possibly find. And then you might talk about it or write about it, just like Alex Jones, never ever doing anything about it except exposing our brilliant but non-existent plans and how they are working to destroy not only America, but more importantly the Jan Irvin empire, if a website and radio show could be somehow considered as an empire. Yes, exposure without consequence or action… we in the government clandestine operations can’t have that now can we?

Oh wait, isn’t that our whole purpose, to let people like you expose us without consequence? Now I’m confused. Remember the dialectic (logic)… problem, reaction, solution. You don’t even contemplate that you are not their problem but their solution, do you Jan?

Well gee, maybe that’s a good thing after all. Maybe we let Irvin expose our CIA agenda with no other purpose than to incessantly talk about it with no intention of doing anything about it? That was the underlying theme of the very first episode of the show Black Mirror, wasn’t it? Hell, Jan, what is it that you think they are actually worried about with you anyway? What have you actually done? I mean honestly, you’ve had about as much effect on the CIA and its clandestine operations as a nature photographer has on an antelope being chased down and devoured by a pack of hyenas. Your essays are nothing more than a time-exposure videography of what has already happened, and they read like watching the grass grow. You’ve done nothing but over-expose the picture, which, while it created a novel, unique piece of art, sits dormant as the useless information it is. You are a passive observer at best, and an annoying master of the I told you so parrot call so at worse. Sure, everything you do and write has the appearance of being impressive. But, like a fishbowl, your work serves no purpose except to support the life of the fish. Your work is on its own life support system. If people lose interest, realizing there is nothing they can actually do with such useless information, that it holds or supports no actual substance, then the fishbowl no longer has a reason to exist. Like a fiction novel, what you’ve reported only serves to help the very agencies and personas you are supposedly exposing, placing them as nothing more than histories past, present, and future untouchables.

But let’s get back to your narcissistic sociopathy, shall we?

Here it goes, and this is but a partial list of your questionable behavior over the years that I remained silent and protective of, a case of classic Stockholm Syndrome…. I share these factual events not as slander, not as an attack, not as revenge or malice, but simply because I cannot prove the negative you threw at me. I am left no choice.

Hashtag: Hey Jan, you screwed with the wrong guy this time!

  1.  Firstly, and most importantly to this whole circle of events, in what was either another paranoid, bullshit story or what I thought to be a true one (who knows at this point), you told both myself and one of your other guests named Jacob Deullman on a three-way Skype call quite seriously and glibly and in great detail, that you were personally visited by an “old acquaintance” from high school that is now forced to do occasional odd jobs for the CIA, as would you be if you accept the offer that they would soon propose. You stated that he told you right before all this craziness happened with me and the advent of all this new strange behavior from you that you should “take the money” that will be soon offered to you when it is indeed offered, that the mysterious they of the CIA were going to essentially make you an offer you apparently cannot refuse, and that they would harass, harm, or kill you and your family/friends if you did not take that forthcoming but yet unrealized monetary offer. Thank God I have a fellow witness to this Skype exchange, as you seem to relish in the denial of such true events. You then assigned both myself and Jacob to secrecy of these facts, which again I obeyed like a little bitch. I even recommended you do something constructive with it or demand private land instead of money so you can help others in transition, those that need help getting out of the system, if that was indeed your choice in the end. No use putting your family in danger. In other words, out of concern for your well-being, never even considering you might be lying or just bat-shit crazy, I bit at your story like a hungry fish, feeling important enough to be entrusted with the secret and yet overtly concerned for what I thought was a friend — the perfect recipe for your brand of fallacious, narcisistic sociopathy to breed. If this was or is a true, continuing story, and not just another fallacious fable falling under the everyone’s-out-to-get-Jan-Irvin column, then what are we to think about your sudden rampage and ultra-strange religious turn since then, which is causing many to question your reputation and word, even in essay and posted formats? Because if you aren’t trying to destroy your reputation and remove yourself as any kind of serious researcher, just as they were by your words instructing you to do, you are certainly doing a good job of it anyway. What am I to think of how you’ve inexplicably and without proof accused myself and my family of being a CIA crime syndicate — guilt by a familial association you cannot even prove? Or is that just business as usual for the sociopathic narcissist? One would surmise, if one were to be so bold and be victimized suddenly and without warning as I and others recently have been by you, those of us who put their trust into you and your Godless religion of the Trivium Trinity (LOL!), that it was in fact you that were bought and paid for by your pretended rogue, nemesis agencies in government. Did you take the offer as you described it to us? This alone places you on a serious hot seat, and should cause all your “fans” that love to get their fair share of abuse from your podcast, comments, and emails to step back and consider just who you are working for? I’ll keep your secrets no more. I’ll not be your victim, and by exposing this I hope others will avoid putting blind faith in your multi-sided, unpredictable, eruptive drama mask. #Timesup dick.
  2. Speaking of your sudden religious tomfoolery with seemingly no feeling, substance, or spirituality behind it, I’m sure I have the same question as everyone else… that being WTF? You took my many years of deep study and language comprehension and basically took a giant Gnostic shit on it. Thanks for that, by the way, dick. I offered you and your listeners the Truth and understanding of the Bible as the foundation of common law and you have completely twisted and turned it into the religion of the Trivium. The Trivium is not God, Jan. Nor is Logos. Logos is man’s conception of God, not God. To say that Logos is God is like saying a gun (instrument) killed someone, not the man wielding it (Source). Seriously, look it up like a primary researcher should. See how that word is used in the Bible. And please, get this through your head — the Bible is NOT the Trivium. LOL! The Trivium doesn’t exist, dude. It is not of God (Nature/Truth) but of man (invention), nor is language, nor numbers, nor does anything True need the Trivium to prove it actually (negatively) exists. Your use of the Trivium as a weapon, as a blanket proof that since you have or use the Trivium, bearing it like a superhero emblem, you are therefore correct is complete nonsense. I call it the ultimate fallacy, the fallacy of all fallacies, that I have the Trivium therefore I am right. For you, the Trivium is a disease, and you certainly have it in that regard. But the sociopath cares not nor is willing to admit that his limited grammar is the very foundation of his rhetoric, and that his rhetoric can indeed only reflect the very limited resources available to him. I’ll give you credit for reading .001% of all information and books out there, but to base your whole conscious awareness on those extremely limited sources, many designed to deceive, most probably written or translated into vulgar (common) English… well, only a sociopath would believe such a limited set of grammar is enough to spout the bullshit you do. And don’t get me started on your Tartary crap. You’ve turned this tool of art into the religion of Jan, JanIrvinanity, no different than it has been used for centuries as such by the lawyer, scribe, Pharisee class. It is completely at odds with the scriptures, not in harmony with the Law of Nature, and the Bible refers to your precious logic as it should, as a dialectic. A trap. When your logic is based on bullshit, when your grammar is limited, then so too shall your rhetoric stink of said shit. Sorry, but logic has been the ruin of societies dating back to the Chinese dynasties. Logicians are legalists! You are missing in so many ways the spiritual, moral balance required to be a user of any such system of logic. Logic is not Natural Reasoning, but actions and rhetoric based on information created by men. There is no Trivium to be found in Nature, in Source, only in man’s sorcery and prestige (trickery). You are a victim of the collective enema of the works of men’s fictions and musings, trying to use and apply that fiction to the scriptural books of Truth and Nature’s Law. It just ain’t going to happen, Jan. And by the way, I just read the directions for the Trivium board game and it said no sociopaths should be allowed to play, lest horrible consequences follow. Sorry.
  3. You have made completely un-foundational and shamelessly sourceless claims against not only myself but my father, a decorated navigator in the Air Force, whom some years ago was buried with honors as a retired Captain from the military, and whom incidentally suffered horrific and disabling health issues due to the poisoning of Monsanto’s “Agent Orange” sprayed in Vietnam, etc., and for which he eventually received full, 100% medical coverage from the Veterans Administration, as many vets have due to activists both in and out of my family that helped others obtain that full coverage. You have accused him of working as an agent for the CIA, just as you do anyone that disagrees or challenges any of your work, and have subsequently made the completely logical fallacy of guilt by association (family) by claiming the same about myself. HEY ASSHOLE, THE CIA POISONED MY FATHER!!! It is public knowledge at this point that they used contracted military men, took their dog-tags away, and left them there to die when they went missing, because this was not even close to a legitimate war but was an illegitimate (legal) Executive operation. They even told families those missing in action were presumed dead, but we don’t know or can’t tell you where. To say he joined and was a member of the CIA and not a victim of its clandestine operations through Executive military cooperation is preposterous, and belittles every other man that was tricked, drugged, experimented on, and left to die in the jungle so as to keep plausible deniability. You fuck! And all these outrageous accusations just happened to occur after you were supposedly approached by the CIA with money to quit your research. Did they pay you to take us all with you? Is that what you had to do to get your new trophy wife? Will you get a puppy if you can take down more than 10 legitimate researchers? As your future ex-wife, I’m sure she will have lots to tell, especially if you ever turn back over to the light side. But this last part is just sarcastic speculation — not even my own, mind you, but of others you’ve harmed.
  4. Afterwords, in stead of telling the truth and stating that I (Clint) compared your research to the flat-earth (specifically the ‘Universal Zetetic Society‘) mentality on my last show (yes, I quit radio because of you, you dick), as appearance-based science instead of methodical, you told your listeners instead that “the CIA played the flat-earth card.” You dishonor my Christian (first) name, my intent, and my actions through this outright lie, being unprovable in any way. If this is not fallacious I don’t know what is? I think the CIA is happy to have you. I think you are doing it an unnecessary service, feigning to be its adversary while sitting on your ass doing nothing but continuously lying to people to sell books and get donations. Hell, on your last show you even charged people to ask you questions? Talk about willing victims. I can’t even imagine doing this, but then I’m not narcissistic. All my time, my effort, my shows, my books, and my blogs are free. What I do to try and help other people you do to feather your own nest. Opposites really do, apparently, attract.
  5. You have taken to now calling me publicly and on your most recent shows by words and false titles like “dirty,” with the implication being that I work for some alphabet agency or other group that is, surprise, out to get you (LOL!), though you’ve given absolutely no reference or proof to what the source of that so-called “dirt” is. In other words, by using these empty descriptions of false flattering titles in a completely logical fallacy-based mode, knowing they can neither bear the burden of positive proof nor be proven as a negative (as a bullshit, purely personal ad hominem attack and lie), you have now caused others to believe, as you say, my well is poisoned just because Jan says so. No proof, no reasoning, just that crazy Trivum logic. Way uncool, man. I am not alone in this, of course, as you seem to throw many of your former guests under the bus in like fashion, often for no apparent reason. Some people even keep track of your legacy of throw-away acquaintances, like a day at the races. Some of us victims have even contacted one another after the fact and joked that we need to form a support group for the victims of Jan Irvin’s fallacious name-calling and insulting rhetoric, those of us inexplicably torn asunder without cause, without proof, and without comprehension of why?
  6. You fool! You made the grave mistake of contacting some of my close friends and readers/listeners, including the incontrovertibly indelible Drew in Canada, in order to help you find “dirt” as a smear campaign on myself and other guests, including a search of Canadian records to try and find pedophilia records for one of your past guests I won’t mention. Deny all you want, we have the emails. This good friend of mine, this charitable salt of the earth up in Canada, actually had to block your emails when he refused to continue cooperating with what I now comprehend as your narcissistically sociopathic, vengeful witch-hunt behavior, after you then referred to him as a follower of satan and engaged him in other outrageously ridiculous name-calling and harassment. All this because he wouldn’t help you try to frame another guest, or find some fallacious connection to yet again destroy the character, not the argument? You must be crazy to try and turn my friends against me as if they believe your fallaciously ill-conceived implications about my character. Or, as the diagnosis fits above, you seem to be narsacistically sociopathic by trying to divide and conquer. Congratulations, Jan, because honestly I’ve never heard of a listener, let alone a group of listeners, having to block a host for harassment and fallacious name-calling! I think you are the first, and Drew will no doubt not be the last to block your attempts at Trivium-based, religo-cyber-bullying. In February, you apparently had already begun a well-orchestrated smear campaign against me, and I only found out recently that you have been dropping your copied and pasted Gnostic shit-piles about me in anyone’s inbox you can, though none of them asked for it. Here is an example from a sweet lady that I went to visit a couple of times in my hometown of Sacramento, to which you carelessly and apparently without forethought didn’t consider she’d eventually share it with me, even after she told you we were friends. Yeah, I must be CIA if I go around having secret lunch meetings 60 year old ladies, you fucking idiot. While I won’t include some of the vulgarities you sent, here are some quotes from that email, the shit you’ve been flinging behind my back to anyone that will listen:

Jan:

These disinfo agents always expose themselves

–Thanks for the heads up.

–Ps. Clint Richardson went dark path too. He’s dirty AF.


(reply) –Jan… your final statement has me reeling….why do you say Clint is dirty?  I’ve met him, had lunches with him…


Jan:

“RE Clint, did you hear his last show attacking me and the trivium and scaliger and Tartary and calling me a Satanist and all else? All coordinated with Miles Mathis’s attack!!!! Hmmm…

I figured out that he’s a homosexual (Left hand path) and misleading people with his version of Christianity

The Book of Mormon makes clear that homosexuals are always behind conspiracy(key unrelated verse)

Due to the shows with Clint I went in and decided read the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Qur’an myself. All I can say is… wow is Clint full of shit. I read after reading the Bible MYSELF, I realized it was TRUE and repented and became a Christian last Autumn

Furthermore reading the book of Mormon, I was astounded at all the natural law I found there, and mentioning it to Bill and Clint, they both went apeshit and started attacking me and refused to read it. I actually suspect the who (two) were playing me behind the scenes.

Clint is a Satanista sort of grand wizard I think. His attack and spin on the trivium is highly revealing.
Clint has been harvesting souls so they don’t repent. I went into bad depression last week when I realized what he was doing and how dark he is the rose on his book, the checkerboard, that artistit’s all occult magic the “Strawman” is what his book actually is (below)… by hiding all of these. There are many dozens of such citations in the Bible and Book of Mormon. There is NO WAY Clint could have confused accepting Christ with flattering titles of a judge, et al. It’s ridiculous. I think he was working with Mark Passio the entire time. He pretended to expose Mark to gain my trust.”

–=–

So where to begin here, Jan? How does one counter such fallacious rhetoric without delving into your own narcissistic sociopath model that would be required to even fathom such nonsense?

Well, let me put on my “grand wizard” hat for this one… LOL!

For my friends that were with me at the conference and whom shared in my own exposure of Mark Passio, which included you, Jan, no one can possibly believe such nonsense. You have the gaul to use my discovered information on his real name and what the word Passio actually means, and give me no credit now for your own usage of those facts. Typical sociopathy. This accusal is so ridiculous, so narcissistic and wildly conspiratorial and unprovable, that I cannot even fathom how to follow up on it. Yet again, there is no negative I can prove to counter your positively fallacious association of my name with known satanists, even ones that I exposed as still being such. So I won’t waste the effort here. If your fans, your strange network of supporting victims, are actually damaged enough by you to be able to accept such nonsensical, fallacious shit then you deserve each other. You are exactly what your victims (fans) need.

I attack your use and especially misuse of the Trivium, not the Trivium itself. I wouldn’t criticize a hammer for its misuse by its user. I criticize and stand firmly against your fallacious misuse of it and placement of it on a pedestal as that which is worthy of god-like worship that it is not even close to being qualified to stand upon, as I would a magistrate using his false authority to label anyone a witch or a priest a saint.

A criminal or a cardinal, they’re both frightened of angels (messengers). (–The Fixx)

Now let’s speak to your conversion from doper extraordinaire to so-called “Christian.” The first show we did on the Bible entitled “Red Pill Sunday School” was May 16, 2017. And yet you claim to have finally read the Bible yourself at the earliest then after this show — thus, not until the last half of 2017. The next show we did was actually already in “autumn,” on September 19, 2017, and there was no sign of Jan Irvin debating or doubting anything I had to say about the Bible, quite the opposite in fact. Our next show was in October, and again, no debate or sign of psychopathy. Yet in the above email you claim that during this time (not sure how or when) you were somehow able to have “repented and became a Christian” in “autumn” of 2017, which is of course between the months September and November. This adds up, as I would now expect, to be just another impossible lie. So you are claiming to have read the Bible and the Book of Mormon for the first time in, conservatively, less than two months, and suddenly became a Christian by such efforts? Oh, and let’s not forget the part where you say that you finally, actually “read the Bible yourself” just before autumn, 2017. Jan, you have been telling me you’ve read the Bible for years now, even pulling up your computer program to “prove” it. So here you expose yet another of your own lies, unable to keep track of them all on your twisted, ever-changing, demented timeline. You use the Bible like you use the Trivium, right? You have the Bible in possession and therefore you know it and can quote from it and are right? You have the Trivium and therefore you know whatever topic you discuss and are right? But now you admit you’ve never read the bible till late 2017? Liar – Liar – Pants on fire! I, of course, knew you hadn’t read it and still think you haven’t, because instead of speaking in its authority and words with confidence you simply prove you have possession of the Bible as a physical and digital, computer version with concordances and lexicons, and therefore magically, gnosticly possess its knowledge. What took Clint 5 years of full-time study only took Jan a couple of months! That’s incredible… and complete bullshit. I wonder if you actually read any books at all, or just collect them to say (prove) fallaciously that my library collection of books therefore proves I read? You obviously haven’t read my book, Jan, if only because I ask readers only to comment on it if they have read the full contents, which your comments make clear you have not. And the Bible? How many times can I say it, you just can’t read it in English (dog-Latin) without looking up the words in their Greek, Hebrew, and Latin (etc.) forms and origin of intention. Anyone that grows up speaking Greek as a first language, for instance, will tell you that Greek is not able to be properly translated into English, for English is a literal language and verse (poetry/metaphor/allegory) simply cannot be expressed properly in English. Yet you somehow mastered it in a matter of months. Wow! Impressive. You’re so psychotic at this point that you probably think you can enter the Bible characters into your brain program! I bet Moses was CIA for sure… And Jesus, totally controlled opposition, right? What you’ve revealed by your rhetoric is that you’ve embraced religion, not the Bible. Religion is not the Bible. Religion is usually opposed to the Bible.

Now, what can I possibly say about myself being satanic, since the darkly angelic Jan Irvin has now resorted to calling everyone that disagrees with him by this epitaph? Can’t prove a negative, so that’s out. Such slander is not just inexcusable but amazingly without any merit or understanding of the word itself whatsoever. You’ve actually found a way to fallaciously personify the word satanic, a word that simply means adversarial, into your narcissistic sociopathy and rhetoric. You’ve made your strawman persona (mask) with God-like qualities, so that the term satanic actually means opposed to Jan Irvin and his Trivium brand of fine logic. You basically accuse anyone and everyone now of being satanic if they don’t agree with your worldview and its digital brain feed. You’ve pulled this word right out of its proper usage in the Bible, as what is adversarial against Jehovah (Nature), and narcissistically applied it to yourself instead. I would certainly love to see any proof whatsoever that I’m working with Mark Passio and Bill Joslin, let alone some guy named Miles Mathis that I didn’t know existed till a month ago. Even your listeners questioned why you put myself and Bill Joslin together, as we were until then unaware of each other’s work? The sociopathic answer: to cause us to first become adversarial to each other and then at least one of us to become adversarial to yourself, because this sociopathic destruction and tearing apart of others is what feeds the entire machine you’ve built. Simply stated, you need adversaries to exist in your false persona, in the simulacra you’ve built up. But you know, as a registered soul harvester like me, it gets very hard to keep names with faces. A soul here and a soul there, everywhere a soul soul. It’s True, I’m only interested in each and every one of my listeners, my friends, my readers and my family’s best interest, that is, in the well-being of their souls. If that is harvesting souls, then I stand guilty as charged. LOL! Idiot.

Finally, we see the narcissistic sociopathic pattern emerge that I must be doing what I’m doing, even when exposing a satanist like “Passio” for what he is, I’m only doing it to gain Jan Irvin’s trust. Mirror, mirror on the wall… Everything’s about Jan, for Jan must appear in his digital podcaster reflection as being the fairest of them all. All others must be destroyed or made to appear less than Jan. We’re all out to get Jan, even if we don’t know it. If we appear fairer than Jan in any way, we must be sacrificed to the alter of Jan’s ego. Yeah, Jan, that’s become the whole reason why I take a shit too. I arrange the toilet paper in homage to your initials before I flush. You’re not the wind beneath my wings, dude. You are but a foul air permeating from already corrupt, spoiled airways.

Now we arrive at my apparent sexuality. How did you possibly “figure out” that I’m a homosexual? Well, that was certainly out of thin air! Was it a Trivium-based mathematical formula, or are you just being a dick again? Well, since I cannot prove a negative, for arguments sake let’s say its true. So I’m therefore responsible for and “behind all conspiracy,” that is, me and my fellow, organized homosexuals out there? The gay mafia? Ok, I’ll bite. After all, if the Book of Mormon says so by Jan’s interpretation, it must therefore be true, right, though the verse you pointed to in reference speaks of combinations (conspiricies) of men, not gay bars and nightclubs, you sociopathic idiot. Can this really be taken as anything but ad hominem, an attack on the messenger, or some other fallacious attack designed to steer the argument away from the subject? Are the CAFR reports I read, which are printed by government and independently audited somehow less authentic or less official because I might be one of the that man-on-man persuasion? Or indeed, is it that the entire auditing department of government part of the gay mafia? Or perhaps I’m wrong because I’m apparently homosexual, and therefore I’m behind whatever conspiracy or lie that is against (adversarial to) you by default? What fallacy is that, Jan? Choose your poison. But let’s go even further… what if, in fact, I’m actually bisexual, Jan? Does that mean I’m at least half right, half innocent, and really involved in only half of the conspiracies against you? Oh, I know, what if I’m just asexual, what would that mean? Does that surpass even the heterosexual persuasion, meaning that my research is somehow legitimate even more than 100% of the time? Would that make me even better or more right than you, oh master of male sexuality? Or perhaps you come up with this one just because you are a narcissist, that I participated in your shitty interviews because I wanted to bed you? For anyone actually interested, as my book is now printed and free to download, you may read my final word on the subject on page 491, which applies to all men (male and female) without exception and without fallacious name-calling. But more importantly, it seems your particular projection of fallacious reasoning here is that because you are heterosexual, you are therefore… what? Right? Righteous? Less of a dick? Qualified for angel-hood or heaven in the afterlife? On the “right” path? If you are suggesting some moral superiority, well then you’ll want to keep reading as I expose your own behavior towards the female of the species, one of the signs that I knew spelled we were absolutely not the same in any way, and that the pit that is your moral degradation had no limit (see next section). One last note: AIDS was a biological weapon introduced into the “homosexual” population of men through vaccinations only offered for free to gay men, claiming to prevent certain strains of Hepatitis. I found this in my vaccine research. So the homosexuals hate themselves, too, since they are behind all conspiracies, even the ones targeted to their own depopulation? And I suppose they are not allowed to marry ac other because of the homosexual conspirators as well, because it only makes sense that they would want to be banned from the social and civil rights of others? You have now bordered on the ridiculous in your spin. I’m flattered.

And now to the book, my book, which you are literally judging out loud by its cover. But when Jan Irvin does it, it’s not fallacy, right Jan? LOL! Yet again the logical fallacy rules over Jan Irvin’s reasoning and words without him even being aware of it – the rhetoric of a completely uninformed snitch (an oxymoron). The rose on my book, if you had read it, is indeed a secret symbol of the elite. Therefore, I must be an elite, right? The symbol is guilty as charged. But why is it used as such by the author, that is the question? The symbol of the rose generally means that secrets are kept beneath it, which is why you see it on government buildings, Masonic halls, old churches, the Queen’s monuments, Mormon Church buildings, etc. The art on my book instead displays the extending of that rose, as the revealing of the secrets hidden about the concept of a strawman and in the Law, both legal and scriptural. Actually, it’s quite neat. I’m proud of it and the artist. But in this fallacy, because I used a symbol from them I must be one of them. Well then, Jan, by this logic every time you quote Huxley or use the symbols as you do on your website and books, you must therefore also be one of them. Which they, I don’t know, because I don’t think that way. You see, Jan, as you know, which they doesn’t matter to the construction of your sociopathic, narcissistic fallacies, only that they must be believed to exist and that I used one of their symbols. Never mind that I used it against them and their intentions, as the opposite of what they use it for, which is to keep secrets. You have of course used this fallacy on your other guests too, and said as much about Jordon Maxwell, Joe Atwill, and others. But then, we all apparently are working together to thwart your work, right Jan, so in your mind it makes perfect sense? That’s what you have been saying like a bumbling fool. You are the only one actually guilty of your own accusation, as is often the case. We all tried to work with you, and you not only turned us against you but against each other! But then that is the recipe for sociopathy as I comprehend it. Oh, and the symbol for christ, the fish, which is visibly floating over the checkerboard without touching it — that’s a symbolic symbol of christ walking on water (the sea of commerce/legality), unlike those pawns that represent you and me. The checkerboard is jurisdiction, of which the free man under the Law of Nature (Law of God) has no attachment, like the floating fish (example of Christ). Again, you could have asked. But instead, you choose to create vast conspiracies in your messed up “brain.” Oh, and the artist himself is a struggling comic/graphic novelist that wants to do good with his work just as I did, the reason I quit Hollywood, and who decided to help me without fee. He was indeed a Godsend, not a devil, you asshole.

–=–

Now, let me throw a fallacy back at you Jan, so that you may understand not only how ridiculous your own rhetoric is, but that you cannot prove that its not true (can’t prove a negative). Here goes: since there are no halos in the Bible, only in the artworks of cults and religions, and since the halo comes from the God of Ra, you must therefore worship Ra as your false god because you put a halo on your book-cover.

Makes sense, if you are a fucking nut.

What you might want to ask yourself is this: why is this exposure of your severe, unadulterated shortcomings being delivered by yours truly at this moment, Jan?

Answer: because you actually didn’t read the Bible in the spirit intended, and you aren’t following it as the Law of Nature (existence). Instead some false religion (apparently from your new illegitimate “wife” and Mormon “guest”) has a strangling influence upon you. You’ve forced my hand by your false judgements of me and my family, leaving me no other choice that I might clear my own and my father’s name from your condemnation, your false measure. Though I forgive you, I want you to know that the Bible would have saved you from this ridiculousness. For it clearly instructs:

–=–

Judge not, that ye be not judgedFor with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 7:1-2, KJB

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

 —Luke 6:37, KJB

–=–

What you reap you will sow, Jan. You just had to piss off the right man, leaving him no recourse than to do exactly what I’m doing here. And you did…

These verses are not mere suggestions, but stand as the Law of Nature (Truths). Action vs. reaction, where the moral teaching (parable) is to prevent the reaction (return judgement) by avoiding the initial, action (false judgement) while it’s still avoidable (not made public). Forgiveness must come before actions in judgement. To condemn based on lies is the furthest from emulating christ and God’s Nature (Truth). And your actions in false judgment then force the hand of others seeking such avoidance, who must protect their name (fictional persona/reputation) then as if it is their actual self. The Law of Nature (God), the Bible, is not there for you to use in judgment against others, but to emulate in your own actions of forgiveness, love, and compassion. You not only broke the Law but force my hand to do the same.

You see, what you reap is what shall be sowed upon you, either out of spite, revenge, or from necessity in my case. When you judge, especially without proofs, then one must judge you as ones only defense. In other words, you brought this upon yourself, Jan, by playing the character of the fool exactly as the Bible describes it and incessantly warns against. Instead, you keep claiming to be following what must be a very lonely “right-hand path” instead of the “left-hand” one, which is not in any way a Biblical connotation, and has nothing to do with Christ or the scriptures.

So what is this so-called “right-hand path?”

One thing for sure, it’s not in the Bible, and should not be confused with being on the “right-hand of God,” a metaphor meaning to act christ-like under the Law of God (Nature).

However, a quick search of any website regarding witchcraft and the occult reveals our answer. For instance:

“The distinctions Right Hand and Left Hand Path are usually only applied to traditions which are associated with the occult and magic but they can sometimes be applied to any religion or philosophical tradition. Generally the labels are used more specifically to differentiate Left Hand Path practitioners from those on the Right Hand Path who are often regarded as being the norm that Left Handers deviate from. Hence, many Right Hand Pathers don’t even recognise or use the term to refer to themselves. The terms left-hand and right-hand paths in Western occultism are often attributed to (i.e. made popular by) Theosophy founder Helena Blavatsky but in fact can be traced back to various Eastern practices and definitions.”

–=–

What a surprise, eh? Not really, since your listeners have commented many times about your use of occultist and theosophic terms like this. But then, a good chunk of your research came from such Theosophic sources in your early works, did they not, Jan? I certainly remember that being my own biggest critique of your early works. So, do you make it a general rule in your “research” to twist and misuse every damned thing you touch and see? Can this devilish persona (mask) of “Jan Irvin” even exist without spinning everything first and then calling it “unspun” just because Jan Irvin has now officially spoken on the subject? It’s like a grocery store having a sale by first marking up the price and then putting it on sale for the original price. Your life’s work is essentially a spin sale, upon which you place the empty title of unspun.

The other mistake you consistently make, which I have in depth addressed, is the use of the phrase “natural law,” which is often opposed to the “Law of Nature,” also known as the “Law of God.” After our shows with Bill Joslin, I did not attack Bill as you did, but instead dedicated a show to this misunderstanding of terms, of which you both suffered. Many will convince themselves that such semantics matter not, and they will continue to use these terms interchangeably. Big mistake!

Here is a link to that show, dedicated to helping (not hating) Bill Joslin (and all others) in his understanding of and distinction between these terms because of your attempts to cause us to be instead adversarial to each other:

https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/2017/12/26/red-pill-sunday-school-episode-14-december-24-2017/

In essence, unlike you, Jan, I took the critique of my colleague at being able to explain these concepts and I turned it into what I believe is the best show I’ve ever done, because I wanted to be absolutely uncompromised in my rhetoric. I didn’t just resort to name-calling and fallacious character assassination, I corrected my own shortcomings. I took self-responsibility to ensure I wasn’t misleading or obfuscating that which I sought to communicate. I can’t remember a time that you’ve done this, Jan.

Let’s be honest. There have been many others like myself, we being the unwitting receivers of the Gnostic Media 1-2 punch and curse, run over by the Gnostic bus, all of us thinking it a wise juncture to make innocent comments, helpful critiques, or simply leave provable contradictions to what one disgruntled emailer calls as the “Trivium guy!” But now, they (we) are coming out similar to Hollywood’s abused and exploited actresses (that prostituting A-list of professional liars), all making the same claims of abuse together, mostly about what a total dick you are to us all and to most others. Some even still donate to you — like after you squash a fly and its wings still jitter from nerves despite the abuse — showing how sociopaths truly can manipulate and get ahead as politicians, bankers, and of course certain podcasting authors, causing those you harm to turn around and support their own pain-stick. How many of your listeners have had to block your harassing emails, Jan, and why didn’t I think of that? LOL! I am certainly not the first or only victim of this bizarre behavior, as the virtual blood trail from your particular magic bus syndrome of shroom, DMT, and LSD madness seems endless, let alone claims of your own time spent in the psych ward. Now that I have received so many emails from others that have been brow-beaten by you both publicly and in private communications, which make you sound like the utter lunatic you’ve become (or rather, always have been), I can at least take comfort in our mutual victimization. I can have a bit more confidence to name you as the predator you are.

You remember when you said that hallucinogens should be called suggestogens because of the hypnotic suggestibility they put their users in? Well now, how many times have you “used” the CIA’s special candies again? 100’s? Do I hear 500, a 1,000 doses?

And to think, I didn’t recognize all this as a psychological pattern till way too late, wishing and perhaps remaining purposefully ignorant so as to stay on your good side — which is like being on the right hand side of a crashing airplane. Ironically, I was trying to stay friends with one of the main culprits of tearing people apart out there, not realizing I was already part of the virtual carnage left behind after being thrown under the bus for no qualifiable reason.

I could go on with this particular list (above), but let us instead speak about the moral aspect of Mr. Jan Irvin… or lack thereof. Because there appears to me to be none to be found. Are you what you pretend to be? Is your heterosexuality a qualifier meaning you are also a moral gentleman to the women you’ve used and desecrated? I learned the answer to this when I came to your home in California to visit, and where between that trip and our other private conversations, I learned about the real Jan Irvin:

1. To top it off, though I will not mention names, you were proud to inform me of the affair you were then having with one of your past guests, despite the fact that she was married with a severely mentally handicapped, autistic child, even as you still pretend moral conviction and superiority in such matters on air. I overlooked this and many other oddities and moral depredations, an action I now adamantly regret…

2. including that brand-spanking new Jeep that had to cost at least $60-70,000. Yes, when I visited you there at your home a few years ago, there it was — brand new and shiny. Beats my piece of shit, 1998 4-Runner valued at about $3,500, although at least I have no debt to cover. Do your “fans” know about this purchase, or do they think you use those donations to actually live as the meager and honest researcher you pretend to be? Did you announce that this overloaded dick-mobile was where all their money was going, or did you get credit and now must solicit money every second to pay it off? Do those who are already harmed by and disenfranchised from this system and who believe you to be one of them (us) know where their money is going to — another charlatan selling himself as a down and out and a desperate researcher, induced into obscurity and income deficiency by secret government agents so he can pay his luxury taxes? You even drove like an asshole all day with no consideration of common law or common sense, signs, or lines, showing no sign of respect to other drivers or to women in general, making vulgar comments with every new set of tits or ass that reared itself.

3. Also, while there visiting, you suggested to me something that I found not only unbelievable but tortuously unhinged. You told me that I should use my radio fame, as you do, to get laid. Firstly, Jan, I don’t at all confuse my extremely limited and censored infamy and internet open-broadcasting that anyone can do nowadays with even the remotest hint of fame, and neither should you. Of course, if I’m indeed trying to reason with a narcissist, such advice is useless. You’re so famous that from what I can tell you aren’t even censored like some of us actually are, and in fact are still appearing at the top of most search engines! Secondly, your complete and utter disregard for the moral treatment of women in this and so many other ways was so foreign to me that again I felt like the hollywood grunt or intern trying to get ahead by keeping your jackass behavior, the real you, a public secret. I went through this in Hollywood, working for some real duche-bags, and had to pretend friendship and respect to get ahead in the company. That’s one reason why I left. Well no more, Jan. I won’t comment on your sudden engagement to what some are even calling your new handler, your door prize for playing the devil, this mail-order bride to be from Maine. I don’t know her. But from what I’ve seen of your narcissistic, sociopathic behavior, she is sure to be your future-ex wife in no time at all if anything real exists in that relationship. Or perhaps you are two birds of the same feather?

4. Perhaps my favorite fallacy of yours, and the one that most describes your true moral character, was when you told me that your personal feeling on the way you can personally get back at “them” for their depopulation agenda and genocide was to “fuck” as many women as possible to try and get them pregnant with illegitimate children, to have as many kids as you can born out of wedlock. I couldn’t even respond to that one, Jan, and I remember thinking at the time that this day of hot-rodding around the mountain towns up there in the new Jeep couldn’t have been over any quicker. Meeting you in person was like seeing santa claus drunk in the back alley of Macy’s for the first time, meeting what you thought was a hero but realizing quickly the opposite. It was like the worst kind of bad date, and the only happy ending was when I put my rental car in drive, made like a tree, and leaved.

–=–

Finally, a few comments from your recent Q & A show posted at Gnostic Media, which is the perfect example of why sociopaths purposefully do not conduct call-in shows with their audiences:

  1. You have admitted several times in the past to being part of the “royal” bloodline, privately and on air, directly related to several (actually all) US presidents, etc, of which I have done extensive genealogical research upon. In other words, technically, you are one of them by your own logic of association, just as I must be CIA if my father was, right Jan? You even had me talk privately to your royal-blooded mother for over an hour to try and explain what I had learned about private citizens and land from my guest KW and how your family was indeed the stock of “white persons” of the posterity of the US constitution’s preamble (purpose), qualified to be landholders or take back the land that was escheated from your family. Yet when someone asked you the perfectly legitimate question during your show of what blood-type you are, you reverted back to calling them a troll. Why? Why not just answer the question. All presidents that I am aware of are negative blood type. Obama was AB-, according to Time Magazine, the rarest type. But then you acted like you weren’t part of the bloodline so as to get to the next question, though you’ve admitted several times to being of the family and even how “they” tried to recruit you several times, supposedly failing. Let’s add this to the above fact that you were apparently recently approached by an “agent” to take money to quit your show and destroy your own reputation. You’ve got some ‘splaining to do, Jan.
  2. I cracked up laughing when I heard you contradict yourself as you so often do. But this time it was kinda special. First you got annoyed at a question about the over twenty books by Anatoli Fomenko, then told the questioner that before he critiques the book series he should first read them all. Yet later in the same hour you said you only have read the first book in the series, and part of the second. Two out of one hundred? Is that due diligence? Is that good research? Is that good grammar to form good logic to back up your rhetoric? LOL! Why is this fallacious? Because you are claiming complete and utter knowledge and unwavering support of Fomenko and other authored works on history and culture, even though you have admittedly not read the books. You went against your own words. You outed yourself! It was beautiful. What is the difference between criticizing that which you have not read and supporting that which you’ve not read? Which is worse? Where does all this confidence come from about false history, Fomenko, Tartary etc.? And how can I or anyone else trust that you’ve actually read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quaran, or even Dr. Seuss since autumn of 2017? You certainly have no idea what the Bible’s message is, though you pretend to know by agreeing or disagreeing with what others say. And by the way, you can’t stand up in an actual Bible discussion worth a shit, either misusing or not knowing where to find the answers nor having any clue what it says. Let me quote you, because this is some funny shit! “You would need to, like, read his (Fomenkos’) 100 books on the subject, and, I think there’s 30 or so available in English… but so far, you know, ah, looking at the research myself, especially in the first 7 books, ah, it’s very, ah, solid, but again I’ve only read 2 of them or 1 and a half completely, but, ah, there’s a lot of good research in there but you’d have to study it for yourself and don’t take other people’s opinions, that would be the best way.” Is anybody actually listening to this? Are people just tuning in and tuning out? You just told people not to listen to you or your opinion, especially because you just admitted outright that you’ve only read at best 2 of Fomenko’s books out of 100, 30 of those that are actually in English. Yet you are an authority on the subject? WTF??? So everything you say is admittedly bullshit? You haven’t read his work, but you say with certainty that the dark ages were faked? Why, because you read most of the second book? This is nuts, man. Why are people giving you money? A fucking psych patient in a rubber room would be more entertaining… and have more experience to offer. Probably read more books too.
  3. For this one, I’ll just quote you word for word, keeping in mind the symptoms of narcissistic sociopathy as we progress: “Clearly there’s 100’s of you that have been targeting me for years now, and that’s a lot of money when you think about it for, you know, for one podcast host. I can’t even think of how many, you know, 10’s of thousands — even millions of dollars that would cost to pay all of you, to keep your B.S. going…” You also said they were “trying to shut down my website for 2 or 3 months.” Now, I can’t imagine it would take them 2 or 3 months of trying and then they just give up because, after all, you are the great and indefatigable Jan Irvin. I’m sure they and their combined forces of darkness are powerless against your computer and its Gnostic superpowers. Your computer must have a christ-complex, man. Logos! Or maybe the Trivium protected you? But let’s focus on what you just said here about all the agents, the trolls, and how they are being paid just to mess with you. You seriously believe that, don’t you, that you are so important to them and they that they waste tons of resources, manpower, time, and money on you and your little website? So did they hire all these people separate just for the act of “fucking with” you, or are they normal agents with nothing else to do? Is this virtual attack on Jan Irvin actually a planned event or just work to do in downtime, like busy work, like when they aren’t busy with dictators, international war criminals and thieves, and corporate and political espionage, they had a memo passed around that said when there is no work as planned and your feeling like pervin’, attack Gnostic Media and Mr. Jan Irvin. You see, there, it even rhymes. Boy are they clever. Waitresses clean salt and pepper shakers and fill catsup bottles in their down time, while CIA agents and paid trolls sabotage Jan Irvin in theirs? Or maybe you actually think you are their main concern? LOL! O, my dear Jan, when you look back at your life’s work and realize you’ve done nothing to harm them or they but relay to other people what is already publicly disclosed (declassified) information, and probably only what they don’t mind you relaying and maybe even hope that you will, perhaps then you will come down from your pedestal and quit pretending your shit don’t stink. I believe your statement above qualifies as paranoia of the spectrum infinitum. Actually I just made that up. It means endless, narcissistic, sociopathic paranoia with no boundaries in reality or rational thought. Hell, they apparently spend more on you and have more assets watching you than they do Jason Bourne, and he isn’t even real! You also said, “they (trolls) are definitely watching what we are doing. They don’t like what we’re doing here. That’s too bad. You know. Whatever…” Bravo! Bravo, Jan! Well spoken. It’s so clear now. Tolls don’t like us, especially you, so they watch us, especially you, according to the official troll code manual section 21.5.678, which only Jan Irvin has privileges to. FJEO = for Jan’s ego only. Jan, to be clear, people don’t attack you, you attack them, and then they block your email to try and tune you out. That’s what victims do.
  4. The best thing you’ve ever done for your body is to “drink buttered coffee?” LOL! There was a recently published, false peer-reviewed study that lied and said chocolate helps people lose weight. And so all the TV doctors parroted that study while their fans went out and got fat on the chocolate diet. It must be true if Jan Irvin says it, right? If it’s right for Jan, expect the one size fits all fallacy to follow.
  5. The Trivium was given (as a gift? apparently by Jan Irvin and Company) to the world to solve all the worlds problems? Seriously? You stated “We already released the Trivium…” as the answer to the question, how do we save the world? You said it as if you were Superman speaking casually about how he saved the world. You said it as if you are its inventor! Get over this Trivium worship dude! Because last time I checked, the Trivium ain’t altered shit, and that’s because the trivium isn’t a real thing. It’s a method, and one you use in a generally unscientific and unreasonable manner. It’s not a holy grail. It will not save the world, and neither will your rhetoric. The Trivium is not the Law of God, it is the law of Jan Irvin.
  6. You said all religions are based on “logos.” That’s hilarious. What are you, Captain Obvious now, or do you still not understand what the word Logos is defined as? Logos is the perception of what God is by men. So yes, that’s what all of the thousands of religions would be based on, of course. LOL! No wisdom shared there, as usual. How can you believe you are speaking with wisdom when you are merely pointing to the sky and calling it blue? Nice spin, again.
  7. There are no books missing from the Bible, Jan. If there are, then show me the original Bible that has those original books in it? Again, fallacious reasoning without the possibility of proof or source. Can’t prove a negative though, so again, well-played. Some “books” do exist. Granted. Those “books” are not in “the Bible.” Again, granted. Neither is “Mary Had A Little Lamb.” These are totally separate facts that you (and many others) insist are not separate. But to thus equate this to the statement that therefore the Bible is missing those books is like saying that because a walnut tree is not growing olives, the walnut tree is thus missing its olives. Obviously the walnut mafia must have coerced those helpless, unorganized olives to dismiss themselves from their original tree, with the help of the troll brute squad. Help me out here, Jan, which logical fallacy is this? This type of sophist conceptualization is the epitome of your circular rhetoric.
  8. According to the continuous, accusatory name-calling on this show, trolls are defined as: (1) anyone that asks a hard question, (2) anyone with “no activity” on their “account,” (3) “braindead,” and/or (4) people with “little dicks.” So apparently, only people like you, Jan, who by your own rhetoric here is implied therefore to have a bigger than average dick, can rise to the level of researcher and yet again narcissistic host of Gnostic Media. And since it sounds like you label as “trolls” most of your audience, I am thinking there are very few non-trolls actually listening by your logic, or just a lot of little-docked ones. So do you broadcast your show just for troll entertainment? Shouldn’t you then tell advertisers that the majority of your listeners are trolls, so they might not confuse your website traffic statistics with all the CIA-paid trolls with small dicks? Perhaps male enhancement pills would be a hot selling item on Gnostic Media? But then, if we all had penises or active brains or even lots of activity on our avatar accounts like Jan Irvin must apparently have based on this rhetoric, then we’d all instantly become as smart and Gnosticly-orientated as Jan himself. Then what? Who would you belittle then? Who would you compare your man-hood to if that happened? Oh, and by the way, by your logic, all trolls (conspirators) are also homosexuals. So anyone you’ve called an agent, CIA, troll, or dirty is thus by default a homosexual, since homosexuals are in your head somehow behind ALL conspiracies. So anyone that asks a hard question or registers an avatar so they can ask you a question is a homosexual (conspirator). LOL!
  9. Most open researchers and authors will state that there are no dumb questions, but you say there are lots of them in your forum. A dumb question is apparently one you don’t want to answer or think is beneath you. Perhaps only the gays ask dumb questions as part of their conspiratorial nature? What a narcissistic Dick. You addressed basically all questions as at the very best being beneath you, and yet still people paid for your asinine answers. Amazing. You are like the pied piper of predatory snake-oil salesmen.

I could do this all day… But alas, all things must come to an end.

If there is one life lesson you certainly haven’t learned yet Jan, it’s that you do not fuck with he that has nothing to lose. You’re little tirade against me worked only as long as I could stand to throw myself a perpetual pity party and act like such an abused, whiny little bitch. Whatever your goal, congratulations, I sure don’t have anyone beating down my door for an interview anymore. My books are sitting virtually still while I pay storage for them I can’t afford. Am I blaming you? No. I’m blaming myself for quitting my show because of your inconceivably confusing treatment of me – for allowing myself to become yet another of your victims. I’m not blaming you for anything here, I’m just liberating myself from your particular brand of batshit crazy. I’m taking my power back from you, not that I ever really lost it. I’m doing exactly what the victims of a narcissistic sociopathic should do, expunge my life of your influence and waiting without much hope for your sincere (if that’s possible) retraction and apology. Until then, let this open letter be a beacon to others to steer clear of the false light emanating from your Gnostic nonsense and abusive, narcissistic, sociopathic nature. And may your other victims have the courage to do the same, to stand up, to demand proofs, to demand apologies and retractions, and to take their own power back.

One thing I have recently begun to consider, which is a very frightening thought, is that a good many of alternative media hosts, shock jocks, and authors out there are just like you. But even worse than this is the notion that many of us start to emulate your nature and tone, your behavior, your narcissistic sociopathy, either to sell products or even just to fit in and be a accepted by peers that now almost expect this sociopathic behavior in their media and “news.” How do you compete with Alex jones, for example, the perfection of a narcissistic sociopath, without trying to outdo him? For if you oppose him or act at all sane in your delivery, his audience (strange network of supporters) is trained to use exactly the same fallacious rhetoric and labeling that Jan Irvin has perfected, without any form of proof, relying completely on heresy and social consent. Are the airwaves ruled by sociopaths? I can’t say this. But I can say that sociopathic behavior is being mirrored and performed by many out there, and seemingly has somehow become what people expect. People are at least pretending sociopathy to fit in to the alternative narrative, parroting each other as source without fact-checking. Of this phenomenon, we are all victims.

Jan, I’d like to impart to you a bit of knowledge, in the form of a parable of my own making. I realize that, in your mind, anyone who might happen to fart in your general direction is suspect of being a paid farter out to cause organized flatulence against you (that’s sarcasm, dick). But keep in mind, if I have to fart in an elevator and you happen to be in that elevator car when my body expresses the need to blow foul air, I’m going to fart — and it has nothing to do with you or your life or your information or your opinions or your website. Sometimes, Jan, a fart is just a fart. And sometimes, like in my case, a good man is just a good man, or is at least trying to learn and break free so as to be one.

And that brings us to the end. All eyes are on you, Jan. Will you do the right thing and retract your false, unprovable accusations against me and my father that you’ve never met nor even know his first name? Or will you openly attack me further with whatever fallacious things you can imagine in that crazy brain database of yours, so as to further obfuscate the fact that your original accusations were completely made up and without one line item of evidence? The choice, and I dare say your reputation, is on the line here, man.

Until then, we all wait with bated breath. Actually, that’s not true. I could give a shit what you do. I mean, really, no one should believe anything a sociopath does or says.

But then again, as expected, you’ve already put me in that brain database, haven’t you, with a line connecting me to Mark Passio? So, as your listeners complain that even though you’ve had thirty thousand times more contact with Mark Passio than I ever did or will, there is no line stringing Jan Irvin to any of these bad guys including Mark Passio, even though you’ve worked with and even called as friends a great many of those that you now call as CIA agents? That, Jan, is truly a sociopathic mentality. Remember, your silly strings connecting people in your brain program is not proof of anything but your own demented worldview. Use primary source for once in your fucking life.

One last thing… I forgive you, Jan, because that’s what my moral, scriptural, unwritten Law says self-evidently is the only way to peace, love, and happiness. This doesn’t mean I want anything further to do with you, though. This open letter was more like a good, bowel-relieving wet fart that helped me to let go of the unnecessary pressure caused by holding your bullshit in. But this should not be confused with the kind of fart mentioned above. No, this one was most certainly pointed right at your damned face.

I hereby forgive and banish you and your ilk from my life.

.

Clint > richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Friday, May 25th, 2018

 

 

Advertisements

Red Pill Sunday School: Special Guest: Kurtis Richard Kallenbach


–=–

Join me this Sunday for a special live discussion with Kurt Kallenbach. Check out some of his works, here: (http://www.kurtisrichardkallenbach.xyz/)

If you’ve missed some of my past shows, including my three part series on the True history of the United States (#12, 13, 14), please revisit my archives where all my guest appearances and regularly hosted shows are archived:

https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com

Past guests on Red Pill Sunday School have included Patrick Jordan and Daniel, catching up on our adventures in our Republic Broadcasting days. I plan on doing more live shows from here on in, as requested, so stay tuned to this archives site for future guest announcements.

Check out the other shows, new and old, from Bill Cooper to Alan Watt to Hal Anthony, at the UCY.TV station: http://ucy.tv

And please download my book for free at: http://www.strawmanstory.info

–=–

Thanks one and all for your generous gifts and especially your kind and supportive words to keep me going on this path, where so many stumbling blocks have been placed before us.

Until we meet on our paths in the Real, let us remain united and meek (spiritually prepared) together as we may in this strange realm of the digital simulacra…

.

–Clint>richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, January 9th, 2018 (Anno Domini)
–22 Tevet, 5778 (Anno Mundi)*

 

*Yes, Kurt and I will discuss these alternative timelines!!!

Vote N.O.T.A. For President In 2016


N.O.T.A.

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

Transgender Bathrooms: A Very Simple Solution


(Warning: dirty words ahead, because this shit deserves it and I’m pissed off. Puns intended.)

I remember, as many do, being required to use the only bathroom available to me in that locked-down educational prison we call as public school. I remember feeling embarrassed that there was no door on the toilet stall, which meant no privacy as I took a shit. Well, actually, I suppose I gave it. And come to think of it, I am still amazed at the free-for-all piss fountain created by the many imbecilic drunkards at large outdoor concerts, where hoards of staggering men stumble into the wholly inadequate public restrooms provided only to find a large, extra-long, stainless steel troth with no privacy at all. We are expected to whip our cocks out and have a go at it while just 2 inches away (if we’re lucky) the next inebriated fool does the same without falling in, creating a quite disgusting cascade of sudsy yellow urine with enough nitrogen that it would surely kill all of the grass in Central Park.

This experience, and especially experiencing it in early childhood, is already demeaning enough. But now, public restrooms are being federally mandated to be duel-sex and transgender accessible. This purely counter-culture drive to further degrade the already amoral public moral standards set by purely evil private associations like the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) to  restrict personal and parental choice is ridiculous in every way fathomable, unless you consider the very corrupting source. By this logic, Ebola and plague patients should not be forced into quarantine, because all bugs and viruses and the people that carry them should have equal rights to be hospitalized next to healthy, very susceptible people. It is yet again only a case of the absence of right-mindedness by those that blindly accept this as “just the way it is,” even as we find ourselves asking, as usual, who in their right mind would promote this?

I say again, it’s merely counter-culture.

Before we get into the cause and culprit behind this constant barrage on the moral senses specifically directed towards our quite impressionable children, I wish to offer the most simple and easy to implement remedy possible. The answer is so obvious and right in front of our faces that it is invisible.

The simple answer is privacy. A short and concise referendum or proposition on the ballet in each state, which causes a majority vote to change the laws that require all public restrooms to become single occupancy, private, lockable bathrooms, would solve this issue immediately. These new single-occupancy restrooms can be called anything and carry any symbology that represents and floats these psychopath’s boat, as long as a child or adult isn’t unnecessarily forced into sharing a very personal and unavoidable experience with any other person.

This would have one of two possible outcomes. It would pass and defeat these federal mandates at the state level by simply ending the public, shared nature of these coopted bathrooms, or it would necessarily cause these bastards to end this public mandate of “sharing” so as to avoid spending billions to retrofit every school, library, and other government building in the nation and state, thus causing this counter-culture agenda to be defeated before it can take hold and morally rape our children’s mind any further.

To defeat evil, one must counter the evil with methods that only evil may understand.

The other option is simply to require to be built single-use bathrooms for those who seek such nonsensical usage of the opposite sex’s space. Problem solved. No sharing needed. Everyone’s happy. Everyone has a choice. After all, what could solve the excuse of being uncomfortable in these public restrooms than a little bit of privacy for all concerned?

So simple…

This drive for public inclusion makes no sense, even on the face of it, satisfying only one small fraction of the public while violating the rights of all others to choose. To force the vast majority of others to dread such a necessary and personal functionality of the body’s waste system is patently ridiculous. Simply build private bathrooms that can be used by any public person and the problem is solved.

If anything, this should be the only viable political response by “straight,” heterosexual people anyway, so that these so-called “equal rights” can be kept by all statuses of legal persons. Hell, they could even campaign for this solution on the proven bullshit of the “right to choose.” Pro-choice. To shit alone and piss without an audience. I can see it now, political activists screaming through microphones and blow-horns for the right to defecate in privacy, ending their rather humorous rants with phrases like: …and that’s a choice worth fighting for!

I shit you not here when I say, what could be more reasonable than that?

Seriously though, this could be a huge movement. (Pun intended).

And honestly, who among you would rather use a shared restroom rather than a private, single-service one? We could make T-shirts that have political slogans like “I choose to poop alone!” and “I’d rather pee standing up!” and what is sure to become a classic, “My junk is not for public viewing, and neither is my child’s!”

But you see, we must understand that to these counter-culture predators, this obvious fix is not a viable option, for the real goal is not to satiate any class or cause some skewed version of political, legal “equality,” it is to destroy morals and culturally accepted boundaries. This solution would of course be fought tooth and nail by these purveyors of moral depravity, for the real agenda is merely a war against what is sensible and reasonable. Reason has no place in public-mindedness. In order to destroy a people, one must first morally admonish them as a whole, taking away all sense of privacy through the implementation of the de facto (illegitimate) public law. The conditioning of slaves requires exactly this, just as the impression of farm animals requires that herd mentality and separation of the calf from its mother so as to be artificially nourished in promotion of  the economic viability of its meat, milk, and future labor potential. The slave must be publicly humiliated in front of all other slaves for the social conditioning of the herd to take hold and cause others to accept what is normalized among the goyim.

At this point, we must do a bit of discovery to understand where this organized psychopathy is coming from. Will the usual suspects please stand up?

–=–

ADL Commends Justice Department’s Message to Transgender Community – New York South East Post

Link–> http://nysepost.com/adl-commends-justice-departments-message-to-transgender-229369

–=–

ADL Blog:

The Most Basic of Rights: Transgender Students Are Entitled to Respect and Dignity

Link–> http://blog.adl.org/tags/bathroom-bill

–=–

Finding the Balance: Countering Extremism and Combating Stereotypes

ADL Resources for Schools and Educators

Link–> http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/curriculum-resources/c/finding-the-balance.html?_ga=1.77417750.2048757235.1463509578

–=–

ADL Programs for Schools

“Today’s youth require school environments that promote respect, inclusiveness and civility. This work is at the heart of A CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCE™. We offer a variety of training programs for pre-K through 12th grade school communities – educators, administrators, youth and families – which focus on the development of an inclusive culture and respectful school climate by addressing issues of bias and bullying.”

LINK–> http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/anti-bias-education/

–=–

We must acknowledge the source, the moral, Talmudic enemy of the christian culture, before we can battle this on-slot of counter-culture. Most of the recent “anti-bias” campaigns from the ADL have certainly been hotly debated topics, not the least of which are the so-called “sex education” curriculums that promote instruction to 1st graders on topics and history of LGTB issues and “equal” rights in marriage and family, complete with visual aids. In other words, all of this multiculturalism shit is coming from the same cesspool.

If the American people don’t get this by now, they never will. It’s staring us right in the face, challenging even our most basic of rights to choose what is right for ourselves and our children. But then, the notion that children belong to the state naturally comes from this very same source.

I am reprinting here an excerpt from my past research, directly from the ADL’s website, with links to all of my research into how the ADL has infiltrated into education through the non-governmental organization (NGO) of the National Governor’s Association’s copyrighted COMMON CORE standards and lobbying for your consideration.

Remember when school taught math, science, Latin, and wood shop?

Those days are long past. Today’s learning environment is strictly to cause a Brave New World of zombie-like, automaton, bi and a-sexual children without any ability to choose for themselves what is right or wrong.

Begin excerpt…

-–=–-
The Anti-Defamation League:
Militarily Defaming The Arab Spring
-–=–-

Through what is surely the worst possible conflict of interest I can possibly imagine, the so-called Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – a staunch supporter of International “Jewish” interests and the spreading of Zionism (support for the political “State” of Israel) – and through the Public Private Partnership model, can truly be seen for what it is. This non-governmental private association, interest group, and ultra-powerful lobby is one of the most powerful and influential private associations and political assassins in the United States and indeed the world. They even got me kicked off of a local radio station in Utah after calling the station to complain about my choice of words. And yes – it is currently publishing the propaganda training manuals for not only our children in public schools, but also for our men and women in uniform (the U.S. military, all branches).

If you are from or have any empathy for any of the Middle Eastern countries as the actual Semitic Arab people, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Libya, and most of all the gold at the end of the U.S. and Israel war-profiteer rainbow (Iran), then this fact should light a rather hot fire under your posterior. For when the enemy of any people is solely responsible for teaching a military force about that people, what else can one expect than for that military to kill million upon millions of men, women, and children due to purely false information? And what else would you expect than that, through infiltration into the public and military education systems, American children and soldiers (infant-ry) would have the true history of that which the ADL protects erased from their memories?

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of the Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews —Winston Churchill

“We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class.” —Lenin

“The interests of the revolution require the physical annihilation of the bourgeoisie class.” —Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Jewish general of the Red Army

“The longer the rotten bourgeoisie society lives, the more and more barbaric will anti-Semitism become everywhere.” Leon Trotsky, New York Daily Forward, a Jewish newspaper, interview in 1937.

“Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritzky, Zinoviev and Vólodarsky, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeoisie–more blood! As much as possible!” —top Communist Jewish official Zinoviev, Krasnaya Gazeta, Sept. 1, 1918.

“Bourgeoisie was a Bolshevik code-word for Gentile. The first law passed after the Communists seized power in Russia made anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death.” —Izvestia, July 27, 1918.

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.” Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in “The American Hebrew”.

If this hostility, even aversion, had only been shown towards the Jews at one period and in one country, it would be easy to unravel the limited causes of this anger, but this race has been on the contrary an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself. It must be therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, since they lived in countries very distant from each other; since they were ruled by very different laws, governed by opposite principles, since they had neither the same morals, nor the same customs, since they were animated by unlike dispositions which did not permit them to judge of anything in the same way, it must be therefore that the general cause of anti-Semitism has always resided in Israel itself and not in those who have fought against Israel.” —Bernard Lazare, noted Jewish author, from his book “L’antisemitisme son histoire et ses causes”, published in 1894, regarding the history of the expulsions of Jews from so many cultures.

“Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” —U.S. SAMS officers, about the Israeli intelligence service MOSSAD, and reported in the Washington Post on September 10, 2001.

–=–

They can either kill us, make us foolishly kill each other in their name, or brainwash us through public re-education. But something must be done about us evil gentiles, right?

Perhaps you’ve already heard of some of the ADL’s infamous lesson plans already introduced through the Common Core standards into the public education system, though most likely you didn’t know their source. I’m referring to such beauties as:

“UNHEARD VOICES: STORIES OF LGBT HISTORY – This is an education curriculum course to be taught to youngsters in grammar, middle, and high school and labeled as lessons in civics, history, language arts, life skills: working with others, and of course VISUAL ARTS.”

–=–

On page four of the lesson outline, we see that this ADL teaching tool is listed as in compliance with:

CORRELATIONS OF LESSONS TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS.”

Link–> http://archive.adl.org/education/curriculum_connections/unheard-voices/pdfs/standards_docm.pdf)

–=–

From the ADL’s education resource website, the ADL is proud to give some of the following statistics:

“Over 19,000 educators teach about the holocaust using “Echos and Reflections”

“Over 58 million adults and youth impacted by ADL”

“Reaching 300 campuses in 44 U.S. States”

–=–

But let’s focus on perhaps the most resourceful crime against humanity I can imagine being perpetrated by the ADL, even as we speak. Coming in November (2014), the ADL has actually stooped to the lowest of lows. In its modern day version of book-banning, and symbolically the political burning of books, the ADL will teach you (the parent and teacher) how to not read or teach books that hold what it refers to as a “bias,” so as to prevent your child from developing any opinions based on fact or historical purview of true “Jewish” history. After all, any book that shares the true history of Israel, international Zionism, Jewish supremacy, or one that tells the true story of the genocide happening right now in Palestine, must be regarded as “prejudice” and “anti-Semitic”, right? Let’s examine this brilliantly conniving best practice that has been created by the non-governmental private association called the Anti-Defamation League to literally destroy history through clandestinely banning “biased” books about history…

–=–

Using an Anti-Bias Lens to Examine Early Childhood Children’s Books in Your Program


“Unfortunately, the impressions imparted by some books are
not always positive and free from bias. Learn what teachers can do to
take advantage of their early windows of opportunity to prevent
the development of prejudice. Note this webinar is 1½ hours.”

(Source: http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/education-webinars/#.UkutVhCRH1A)

-–=–-

(NOTE: A child that is “free from bias” is a child that is free from morals and values, free from street smarts, free from scriptural teachings, and free from being subject to some of the most revered authors in history, including Shakespeare and Voltaire. To make a comparison, this is like a wild animal having no consciousness of who or what its predators are. This term “anti-bias” is a fancy term used for the erasure of all notions of Zionist and Talmudic thought and actions in history against all other religions and nations, including that of the Jewish Bolshevik Revolution that purportedly killed 60 million white, Russian farmers. And of course, it is the ADL curriculum and lesson plans that will be teaching children about the holocaust, promoting the now almost totally defunct “official story” that allows so much false respect and leniency to be given to their efforts, the promotion of false shame in “white” culture [standing at only 8% of the entire world population and declining], and destroying its beautiful culture and contributions both through media and Hollywood entertainment and now in education at the youngest and most influential of ages. To put a spin on history as either positive or negative is to utterly destroy the purpose of history lessons. This can only cause that died of proverbs to come true, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Only in this case, those who cause our doom will be worshiped as gods.)

To further the understanding of just how the ADL has infiltrated and snuffed logic and reason out of the education process via the distorting and erasure of history and modernization of reality, the ADL further explains its Common Core curriculum of clandestine book-burning, which it calls as “anti-bias curriculum”.

From the ADL.org/Education website:

The Need for an Anti-Bias Curriculum

Preparing students to live and work successfully in a pluralistic nation and a global community requires opportunities for them to engage in curricular content that furthers the ideals of justice and equality upon which the nation was founded. Anti-bias curriculum provides an understanding of diverse perspectives, strengthens critical thinking skills, challenges the development of emerging biases, and builds skills and motivation to take action against injustice.”

“Additionally, creating an anti-bias learning environment fosters a positive and open mindset to engage in and learn from curricular content that promotes equality and diversity nationwide.”

Anti-Bias Study Guide

“Anti-Bias Study Guides have been prepared for educators to use as supplementary materials for students in grades 4–12. The Guides are available in both Intermediate and Secondary Level. The lessons assist students in exploring societal issues arising from bias, bigotry and discrimination; building critical thinking skills; increasing understanding of diverse perspectives; and building leadership skills in promoting justice and equity in schools, communities, and society at large.”

–=–

Apparently, at least according to the ADL, to have a “bias” is to automatically have bigotry and engage in discrimination?

To give you an idea of just how ironically bias the ADL actually is in its support and promotion of Israel and Zionsim, take a look at just what the ADL is protecting from these entirely Jewish sources:

–=–

Note that this is from a Rabbi at the Jewish School in the West Bank,
promoting the end of Christianity and of cultural Europe as we know it.

–=–

(NOTE: Does this sound anti-bias to you? Make no mistake that this is the origin of prejudice. This is the foundation of racism. And it is as ancient as any empire in history, a history and current mind-set that is being completely removed from public education by the ADL and its so-called non-bias curriculum.)

If you are a Christian, or for that matter any other non-Jewish people (born/birthed in a nation) with or without religious tendencies, then you are considered as goyim (non-Jew gentile), “born only to serve the Jew.” From its own newspapers… this is Zionism.
This is the Israel. This is the bias that the ADL truly protects through its non-bias propaganda.

Of course, at the front of the debate on the Christmas holiday being celebrated at schools is the ADL, because of course the Jews should have a say about christianity, which I must remind my readers is PART OF THE COMMON LAW!!! Judaism is not part of the common law, but its power and influence is certainly present in the commercial realm of the public realm. For the common law is only for private men, protecting only those who utilize the Bible as their highest law. All others are public. And there is no room for christianity (or common law) in public school.

–=–

THE DECEMBER DILEMMA:
NAVIGATING RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS


Explore the legal issues of religious freedom and learn how you can help to create a school environment that respects different points of view, religious beliefs and practices.

Link–> http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/education-webinars/december-dilemma.html#.VzuW1jaMDAx

-–=–-

The ADL also created the World Of Difference Institute to further promote and implement “non-bias education,” which it self-describes as:

ABOUT THE ‘A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®’ INSTITUTE

 

The Anti-Defamation League’s A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE® Institute is a market leader in the development and delivery of anti-bias education and diversity training programs and resources. Comprised of four distinct departments — CLASSROOM, CAMPUS, COMMUNITY, and WORKPLACE — the Institute’s customizable, interactive programs are used by schools, universities, corporations, law enforcement agencies and community organizations throughout the United States and abroad.

The Institute’s training modules and curricula are designed by human relations and education professionals, incorporating the latest research from the education field. Ongoing evaluation efforts in collaboration with renowned universities, colleges and foundations ensure and enhance the efficacy of the Institute’s offerings. Through the development and delivery of its programs and resources, the Institute seeks to help participants: recognize bias and the harm it inflicts on individuals and society; explore the value of diversity; improve inter-group relations; and combat racism, anti-Semitism and all forms of prejudice and bigotry. Institute programs provide the necessary skills, knowledge and awareness to promote and sustain inclusive and respectful school, work and home environments.

-–=–-

Hidden behind Agenda 21 and within these seemingly wonderful and fluffy words like sustain, respect, combat racism, inter-group relations, and of course anti-bias education lays a corporation (private association) with one of the most clear biases in the entirety of all lobbying groups, as the claimed mission of the ADL states:

“The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.”

–=–

In other words, forced political equality. It uses other discriminated against groups to hide behind – not so much to protect them as to exploit them in order to protect themselves and their True history.

But that’s not all… for the ADL does all of this too:

A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups, carrying out its mission through a network of regional and satellite offices in the United States and abroad. ADL’s long-term commitment to fighting anti-Semitism and fighting for fair treatment for all people provides the context for all of its anti-bias initiatives.

Today, ADL’s 30 professionally staffed offices in the United States, plus offices in Jerusalem, Vienna and MoscowWORK TO TRANSLATE THIS COUNTRY’S DEMOCRATIC IDEALS INTO A WAY OF LIFE for all Americans. Legal Affairs files amicus briefs challenging discrimination and encourages model legislation — including hate crimes laws, which enhance penalties when crimes are committed because of a victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or national origin.

Its Research and Fact Finding monitors extremist groups, from neo-Nazi skinheads to international terrorist groups. The Civil Rights Information Center provides quick responses to the media and the public on breaking news and events relating to civil rights issues. Education seeks to break the cycle of hatred through curriculum and training.

(Source: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/People-v-Leo-Frank-Teacher-s-Guide-ADL.pdf)

–=–

Please understand that the ADL and AIPAC are by far the largest special interest contributors to political campaigns in the entire world. If this is not clear, you’d better darn well watch this video of the real United States presidential election:

–=–

End excerpt…

For my full 3-part essay on the ADL and its infiltration into the education system (ADL in last link below), please see my articles and lecture on the non-governmental structure of Common Core, here:

LINK–>https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/common-core-agenda-21-and-global-governance/

LINK–>https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/core-making-children-stupider-around-the-world/

LINK–>https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/core-our-common-enemy/

LINK–>https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/united-states-and-its-military-now-rotten-to-the-core/

–=–

Only a fool would read this information that I have provided and use the terms that the ADL wants, conditions, and teaches through media entertainment and “news” us to use, such epitaphs as “anti-semite,” “bully,” or “hate monger.” Do not be fooled by these wolves in sheep’s clothing. Recognize your enemy, for counter-culture and cultural genocide is the strongest tool of these devils. Talmudic Judaism is not compatible in any way, shape or form with christianity. And this degrading, forced social acceptance of public issues is a great and powerful weapon.

Think I’m an anti-semite?

Silly rabbit, tricks of word-magick are for kids (he-goats of goats).

The Pure Love and Charity taught in scripture must be kept from the public-minded gentiles, who instead must be kept in ignorance and in competition with one another. We must be made into kids (goats) through public education, so that we do not become as sheep unto God. We are told not to be sheep, and yet what else can we be if we are to be shepherded by christ’s teachings? And you wonder why the Bible is kept from us in public school? You wonder why Alex Jones and other disinformation masters cause us to hate the idea of being sheep and cause us to be instead merely headstrong goats with guns for horns? We are mislead in so many directions and by so many Zionist interests that it has become difficult to distinguish what is good from what is opposed to it.

This is what we are not supposed to grasp, the opposite of competition, the opposite of public-mindedness, the opposite of Love and Charity, the opposite of mammon (money and interest), as the parables that would prevent us all from remaining always out of harmony with Nature, the self-evident Truth of all things.

–=–

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

–Matthew 25:31–46, KJB

–=–

Why would this be banned from public school? Think about it. Counter-culture. Goat creation. Slaves cannot be taught that which would free them from this money system of the money-changers. Is this not an obvious conclusion? Of course the Zionist, Jewish powers will stop at nothing to ensure the teachings of christ never reach the ears of our children. For a Bible-reading people cannot be enslaved!!!

And why do you suppose this goat-headed statue of Balphamet is being allowed to be erected next to the 10 commandments at a secular government building? Isn’t it obvious? Perhaps the Truth hasn’t gotten your goat yet?

Link–> http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/satan-statue-575×431.jpg

–=–

So is this merely an anti-semitic rant, religious drivel, or a glance into the very heart of darkness? The fool may regret his answer in conceit of what is self-evident.

But just in case their trickery is not fully comrehended, watch and learn from one of the masters of deception themselves:

–=–

The main theme of this post today has been nothing more than to get you to understand that the word public is akin to the word goyim, a voluntary slave-state that actually allows your children to suffer this atrocity of “public education” provided by the most well-funded and evil (antichrist) political, non-religious organization in the world. A public person must submit to the public law. If you want to teach your children well, you are going to have to end your public relationship with whatever nation has you encapsulated  as goyim in its contractual relationship and legal, amoral matrix. Their victimhood is by your own hand; you who ignorantly signed as the “informer” upon the application for birth certificate.

If this doesn’t make sense to you now, I guarantee that it will if you choose to read and comprehend my future volumes of free works entitled Strawman: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person.

The problem is not what is happening in government, the problem is that you allow yourself to voluntarily be under its legal contract and law through respect of its public person (legal status) while ignoring and publicly decrying (through the expression of fictional personhood) the scriptures. Remembering that the Bible is part of the common law, I leave you with a few of the many scriptural words (Laws) that are the very center of this public issue. The private man does not suffer the public law, and certainly never sends his private child to public school. Only slaves love their own servitude.

If you can understand the following verses, you can understand why your children are doomed to the very name (public person) and false identity you legally registered them into at birth.

–=–

For there is no respect of persons with God.”

—Romans 2:11, KJB

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

—Job 32:21, KJB

“Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.”

—Philippians 4:11, KJB

But if you have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the Law
as transgressors.”

—James 2:9, KJB

To have respect of persons, is not good:
for a piece of bread, that man will
transgress.”

—Proverbs 28:21, KJB

“Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.”

—Hebrews 12:16, KJB

But them that are without, (let) God judgeth. Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person.”

—1 Corinthians 5:13, KJB

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement, thou shall not respect the person (title) of the poor, nor honor the person (en-title-ment) of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.”

—Leviticus 19:15, KJB

“These things also belong to the wise: It is not good to have respect of persons in judgement.”

—Proverbs 24:23, KJB

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

—Proverbs 18:5, KJB

“Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afarre of (he doesn’t know).”

—Psalms 138:6, KJB

“And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him.”

—Ephesians 6:9, KJB

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”

—James 2:1, KJB

“Wherefore now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you, take heed and do it: for there is no inequity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.”

—2 Chronicles 19:7, KJB

“For he see that wise men die, likewise the fool, and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others.”

—Psalms 49:10, KJB

But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.”

—Colossians 3:25, KJB

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 (flattering titles).”

—Daniel 11:21, KJB

“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 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, KJB

–=–

These public mandates come from Caesar, also known legally as “the district” of the nation. The gods of the public realm have their seat there, controlling all things they create, including men who claim to be a public person and thus receive public rights and benefits from that city on the hill; a municipal corporation for sinners (sureties of fictional persons and flattering titles). To be clear, the ADL and the public education system it exploits cannot have influence over you or your children unless you offer yourself and your children to it and pay tribute to the United States municipal corporation in its artificial persona (legal, public status). In other words, the ADL can only influence your children through public education if you keep your children publicly registered as goyim of the nation by respecting their legal names, numbers, marks, and other signs of fiction.

So do not blame anyone but yourself. You are the Highest authority in Nature. But in the public, legal fiction, you are only a temporary holder of the right to raise the persons of your children, having abandoned (delivered) them to the state (district/Caesar) at birth certification (creation of a legal entity). If you don’t believe that, you better read what the courts will tell you as a voluntary public slave, here:

LINK–>https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/do-you-own-your-children/

–=–

Just how much of this cultural upheaval are you going to bear?

How much shit can you be made to eat?

WTF?

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 17th, 2016

Republican National Party Is Member Of International Democrat Union (IDU)


In these modern, strong delusional times, it is often hard to see the forest through the trees and to distinguish the lies from reality. Even the principles of law conclude that a lie may be confirmed and ratified as a legal “truth,” that black may be declared as white, left right, and up down. In short, we live in a democracy.

Plato wrote in his 5 regimes that this state of democracy is only the lowest form of humanity before the final step of total tyranny, from which a reset happens as the pure aristocracy reestablishes itself as the cure for democracy and tyranny, the repeating cycle of all the ages. Like the phoenix rising from its own spent ashes, these planned revolutions apparently reestablish the old order as the new order, the bloodlines of the ages appearing in new form and title. Same as the old boss…

But there is something new on the horizon. For we are witnessing global government for the first time in history. It’s not so much that this notion of globalist rule wasn’t already established long ago with such beauties as Unum Sanctum and other bull-shit from the powers of combined church and state that be, it’s that for the first time in history technology has caught up with greed and desire. The combined legacies of so many “leaders” have added up to one big modern orgy of infrastructure and control.

Democracy is politically spouted from all the virtual rooftops of the mass media, that exceedingly transparent controlled opposition of the old and new boss, as the CIA’s large-breasted bluebirds report and sing homage and fealty to that great system of political corruption. It is touted from the halls of legislature and parroted by the multitude of the unaware. And as it turns out, both main political parties are on board the same purposefully sinking ship, desperately and meticulously building a new Atlantis around their own dying model.

But do not be fooled, for this word Atlantis merely means fantasy, its synonyms being delusion, illusion, nightmare, apparition, chimera, mirage, a fool’s paradise, hallucination, fabrication, and of course the impossibility of a man-made utopia.

That only leaves a few things in opposition to such a false creation, and the antonyms to this word Atlantis are indeed simply truth, reality, certainty, actuality, and fact.

Now, the author realizes that the masses of goyim out there as the citizenships of the nations united in such an invention would rather support and live falsely in such a lie as this, a virtual matrix of pure delusion. I have no doubt that this will be the future of the majority. And so I am not here to try and prevent its dissemination as much as I am to document the tools of its creation. For we who will not take the marks and use the biometric identification and suffer the inoculations designed to rid us of our spirituality must be ever vigilant of such evils, such darkness posing as the light.

And so today we shall focus on what this author considers to be one of the most ridiculous customs and rituals that the common people participate in without having the slightest clue as to the origins and intent thereof. That is, of course, the private associations called as the political party system and its control over the electoral process.

But before we expose the communitarian, socialist agendas of both parties as that celebrated “democracy” in action, perhaps we should get a better grasp on the historical point of view of this word. So who likes and who opposes democracy?

–=–

DEMOCRATIC:

“Of or pertaining to democracy, or to a political party called “democratic,” particularly, in the United States, the Democratic party, which succeeded the Anti-federalist, or Republican, party.”

—Black’s Law 4th Edition

–=–

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.”

—Plato

–=–

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

Noah Webster

–=–

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

—John Adams

–=–

“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

—=—

“Democracy is the road to socialism.”

Karl Marx

–=–

“To my mind, there is a solution which has to do with democracy, because democratic governments are subject to the will of the people. So, if the people will it, you can actually create international institutions through the democratic states.”

George Soros

–=–

“Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.”

–H. L. Mencken

–=–

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

—=—

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Churchill

–=–

Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and value with all nations.”

—Chuck Hagel, 24th United States Secretary of Defense under Obama, Chairperson of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board

–=–

“Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.”

—Ron Paul

–=–

“I’ve always had a Marxist understanding of history: democracy is a result of a broad modernization process that happens in every country. Neocons think the use of political power can force the pace of change, but ultimately it depends on societies doing it themselves.”

—Francis Fukuyama

–=–

“Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood.”

—Augusto Pinochet, president of Chile

–=–

“Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.”

—Alan Coren

–=–

“Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.”

—Clement Attlee

–=–

“The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.”

—Theodore White

–=–

The President will lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you… When evil men take office the whole gang will be in collusionThey will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade. When Government removes your armaments, you will have no power, but government will have all power.” 

—Patrick Henry

–=–

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

—John F. Kennedy

–=–

“Democracy needs support, and the best support for democracy comes from other democracies.”

—Benazir Bhutto

–=–

Perhaps the greatest flaw in this concept of government in general, be it of kings or representatives, is the mistaken identity of its members. To assume the incorruptible nature of any man is the folly of all others. And in this lowest form of government called democracy, such an assumption would only lead to exactly what we see in government today. For behind the banner of democracy lies always the worst possible cheats, pirates, and thieves. And under that subjective banner lies only illiteracy and ignorance, the masses of they who actually vote for their tyrants while choosing to believe they are saviors.

To turn the entire world into individual democracies is the number one goal of the modern tyrant. For only in the ignorance of the masses may democracy may take hold, thrive, and destroy itself. From this subversion the tyrant thrives, the old system dies, and the new order begins. This rebirth process is well under way in most nations. And of course war will transpire in those whose people choose knowledge over the necessary ignorance of democratic public-mindedness, for war is merely the clearing of obstacles in a globally sanctioned international commerce of nations, utterly controlled by one united front ratified by those same tyrants promoting democracy now and central, globalist rule later.

–=–

“Democracy still has a real hope and chance in Iraq, and true freedom in this country would be the greatest testament to those who gave their lives for it.”

—Mary Landrieu

–=–

Nothing is more ridiculous than this political notion of killing millions and causing mass starvation, suffering, and destruction of infrastructure with only the somehow innocent and patriotically perceived design to spread freedom and democracy. This attitude that many millions or billions must die so that democracy can live is ludicrous at worse, paradoxical at best. But then, what else would one expect from these creators of a New Atlantis?

What really is this militarized, psychological warfare effort to spread democracy to the world? Why the need to cause democratic elections?

The answer is simple really… volunteerism, or at least the appearance of a voluntary society. You see, this term “volunteerism” goes by a different name in law, that being the doctrine of master and servant. When a commonality of people are all given “equality” to vote for their tyrants, the title of those tyrants is officially merely professed as legitimately elected “politicians.” Thus the voting process is the creator of mutualistic consent as mob rule. The minority assumes the majority will; the majority always being the most weak and susceptible to illusion and predictive programming. This is called as democracy, where a bunch of fools (a legal term meaning those not in right mind or in Latin non compos mentis) believe they each have a voice, when in reality their votes are counted as only one voice from one body. And those who choose not to decide between their tyrants in that democratic system of voting still have made a choice, that choice being assent to the majority will. It’s a no win situation, regardless of how we individually vote. For it is not the results of the vote that matter, only the volunteerism that causes legitimacy of the whole illusionary process. The act, not the result, is what makes tyrants become as legitimate in the minds of the masses.

Obviously both political parties and all third parties must include themselves in this democratic process. And so we can state with self-evident absoluteness that all parties must support democracy. The Lenin and Marx quotes above certainly help us to understand the origins and necessity of democracy as the gateway to all other systems, be they socialism, communism, or that great combination of all isms called and promoted as communitarianism. The reader would be shocked to learn that most “politicians” out there are grand supporters of this modern plan of communitarianism. And I invite the reader to research this on his or her own. A good source is here:

LINK–> http://web.archive.org/web/20080621055453/http://nord.twu.net/acl/evolution.html

Note: Please support Niki Raapana in her works. (http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com)

Now let us examine this collusion of the Republican National Party of the United States with the International Democrat Union (IDU), supporting so many other socialist and communitarian constructs around the world.

–=–

IDU Mission:

“Being committed to advancing the social and
political values on which democratic societies are founded,
including the basic personal freedoms and human rights,
as defined in the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights….”

–IDU founding Declaration of Principles, second Paragraph

–=–

Yep. You read the title of this blog-post correctly. As it turns out, the political party game is one giant United Nations, Agenda 21 fraud.

Yes, the Republican Party of the United States is actually a member of the International Democrat Union (IDU), which above all else promotes the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the supposed sovereignty of the United States constitution – and over that of any other member party’s (nation’s) constitutional charter as well! This is essential for global governance.

In an article written by Tom Deweese (American Policy Center) and posted on the Gunowners of America website, the IDU is succinctly unveiled:

“The root of the IDU’s political agenda is Fabian Socialism which wants to blur national borders and cultures, eliminate private property and individual liberty in favor of the common good. The Fabians consider themselves to be a ruling elite that knows better than individuals how to run our lives. Their way is: Heads, government wins. Tails, citizens lose. It is the worst form of tyranny. And this is the root of the IDU, and by association, apparently the Republican Party. That answers a lot of questions about recent Republican policy decisions…”

Link–> http://gunowners.org/op0542.htm

–=–

As it is so very easy to confuse the intentions of these international bodies with that of individual peoples of sovereign states, we must make this very important distinction between the United Nations and the individual but no longer seperate Nations that subscribe to it.

From the American Policy Institute in 2009, again by Mr. Tom Deweese, we read:

New GOP Chairman should remove Party from the International Democrat Union…

“As an example of how this second system works in practice, The Constitution of the old Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans. Except that it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia where individual wants and needs simply didn’t count. We all know how that worked out for the Soviet citizens.

While veiled in language designed to sound much like the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of “unalienable” rights, instead referring to “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Human Rights Declaration? It says, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds like America. Democracy. People voting – the opposite of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks or wants. Moreover, Article 29, Section 3 of the Declaration says “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” So much for “unalienable” rights.”

LINK–> http://americanpolicy.org/2009/01/08/new-gop-chairman-should-remove-party-from-the-international-democrat-union-3/

–=–

Of course those unalienable rights spoken of in the declaration of independence had nothing to do with public 14th amendment citizens of the United States, but only actually protected those private men who reserved all rights from the United States. The American Policy Institute will never tell the common citizenship this of course (or simply does not know). Often the parrots of policy know nothing of the words they speak, led by the beak to support and make falsely patriotic what should be abandoned and utterly destroyed, such as the existence and purpose of these controlling and corrupting political parties.

We must learn to recognize the difference between blood and fiction, between man untainted by political, public status and he who avoids such marks, names, and numbers in privacy. Citizenship is, of course, an alienation upon privacy. Thus the United Nations and its declarations only apply to the public citizenships of each nation, which are only the common, registered goyim (general people) and the commercial laws pertaining to us. The private men of each private (several) State will not be subject to such national rule, for they are the creators of nations. Gods. A “State” is nothing more than a Private bloodline of “People.” And it is these tyrants that create the democratic nations and the law of nations for their own protection against that mass of illiterates we call nationally as the public. In short, the United Nations is the uniting in commerce and law of all slave colonies called as nations. Colony means only farm or plantation. And global governance will only apply to those born in the nations; those birthed and certified in attainder or legal “corruption of blood” under a commercial, legal system of alienation.

It is certainly true that those who falsely believe they are free are the most hopelessly enslaved. And democracy is certainly the best tool for the propagation of such a false dialectic.

In the history section of the about tab from the IDU.org website we read:

“The International Democrat Union (IDU) is a working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre and centre right.

Formed in 1983, the IDU provides a forum in which Parties holding similar beliefs can come together and exchange views on matters of policy and organisational interest, so that they can learn from each other, act together, establish contacts and speak with one strong voice to promote democracy and centre-right policies around the globe. FOUNDER MEMBERS of the IDU included Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, then US Vice-President George Bush Sr, Paris Mayor and later President of France Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and many other Party Leaders.

Our Mission

I. The International Democrat Union (IDU) shall consist of Member Parties of the Asia Pacific Democrat Union (APDU); the Caribbean Democrat Union (CDU); the Democrat Union of Africa; the European Democrat Union (EDU); the European People’s Party (EPP); the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR); and the Union of Latin American Parties (UPLA), which have adhered to the IDU Declaration of Principles.

II. The IDU will foster the common philosophy of its Member Parties, establish permanent relations at a bilateral and multilateral level, encourage mutual support and to these ends will provide a forum for the exchange of views and information on matters of interest to all or a considerable number of its Member Parties.

Countries can only develop their full potential if they develop recognising the ideals of liberal democracy, freedom of the individual, and the need for economic growth to be based on individual initiative and free, competitive enterprise economies. The IDU has a clear role in a modern world, where today’s idea in one country is tomorrow’s policy in another.

Through the IDU, member Parties can exchange policy ideas, assist each other to win the political argument, and to win elections. There are regular meetings of both the full IDU and its Regional Unions and Organisations. The officers of the IDU are elected at Party Leaders’ Meetings which are held every three or four years.

At IDU Executive Meetings, briefings are given on local and topical issues, as well as consideration given to applicant parties. Apart from Executive Meetings and meetings of IDU’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the IDU holds events such as the Young Leaders Forum, plus undertakes fact-finding missions and election observation. A major event is also held every four years to coincide with the Republican Convention, the last one held in September 2012 in Tampa (Florida).

The IDU also organises campaigning seminars for politicians and party workers. These involve exchanges of information on campaign technology, fund-raising techniques, opinion polling, advertising and campaign organisation. The IDU plays an essential role in enabling like-minded, centre-right parties to share experiences in order to achieve electoral success.”

Under the history tab we read:

“19 dignitaries attended the meeting that established the IDU held at the Hotel Intercontinental n London on 24th June 1983: Dr Alois Mock (Osterreichische Volkspartei, Austria); Prime-Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party, Great Britain); Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU, Federal Republic of Germany); Prime-Minister Franz-Josef Strauss (CSU, Federal Republic of Germany); M Jacques Chirac (Rassemblement Pour la Republique, France); Mr Andrew Peacock (Liberal Party, Australia); M Evangelos Averoff-Tossizza (Nea Demokratia, Greece); Sr Fraga Iribarne (Alianza Popular, Spain); Sr Oscar Alzaga, (Partido Democrata Popular, Spain); Mrs Susanne Wood, National Party, New Zealand); President Glafcos Clerides (Democratic Rally, Cyprus); Mr Ilkka Suominen (Kansallinen Kokoomus, Finland); Sr Lucas Pires (CDS, Portugal); Mr Tatsuo Tanaka (Liberal Democrat Party, Japan); Mr Ulf Adelsohn (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Sweden); Mr Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative Party, Canada); Prime-Minister Poul Schluter (Det Konservative Folkeparti, Denmark); Mr Jo Benkow (Hoyre, Norway); and Mr Frank Fahrenkopf (Republican National Committee, USA).

In addition the US Vice-President George Bush and Norwegian Prime-Minister Kare Willoch (IDU’s second Chairman, from 1987 to 1989) were present and both spoke at the founding meetingClick here for the minutes of the founding meeting and Declaration of Principles in PDF format.

The IDU officers elected were: Chairman: Dr Alois Mock (Osterreichische Volkspartei, Austria); Vice-Chairmen: Ulf Adelsohn (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Sweden); Richard Allen (Republican National Committee, USA); Jacques Chirac (Rassemblement Pour la Republique, France); Cecil Parkinson (Conservative Party, Great Britain); Sir John Atwill (Liberal Party, Australia); and Prime-Minister Franz-Josef Strauss (CSU, Federal Republic of Germany), in addition to Treasurer: Allan Lawrence (Progressive Conservative Party, Canada) and Executive Secretary: Scott Hamilton (Conservative Party, Great Britain).

–=–

That’s right folks, the self-labeled “Conservative” Republican Party of the United States has partnered with such other national political parties as the Liberal Democrat Party of Japan, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Democratic Rally of Cyprus, and who could forget those supposed tyrannical redcoats of the Conservative Party of Great Britain?

THE CHAIRMAN:

Thank you very much Mr Vice-President, and I am particularly grateful to you coming to London and conferring additional reputation to our meeting by your presence. May I now ask Mr Fahrenkopf to take the floor.”

MR FRANK FAHRENKDPF:

“>Chairman, Republican National CommitteeU.S.A .]

“Mr Chairman, my colleagues, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I as Chairman of the Republican Party of the United States join Vice-President Bush in commemorating the historic creation of IDU here in London today.

A year and a half ago I attended an EDU meeting in Munichat which the seed of the Pacific Democrat Union and the International Democrat Union was sown. Last July, in Tokyo, the PDU was formed; and last week, in Honolulu, I had the great pleasure to host the PDU’s first annual council meeting. Today, we reap the remaining harvest of that Munich meeting with the birth of the IDUOn behalf of the Republican Partylet me assure my colleagues of our full cooperation and participation in the IDU – and in seeking our mutual goals of promoting democracy, freedom, self-determination and, most important, peace in the world.”

THE CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Mr Fahrenkopf.

May I now ask the Norwegian Prime-Minister to take the floor.”

—Minutes of the IDU founding meeting and Declaration of Principles

–=–

Even as the Pope calls for the same system of worldwide “peace and safety” through United Nations programs and one world religion, we are warned repeatedly that these artful terms are merely the lies of tyrants.

–=–

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… 

1 Thessalonians 5:3 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

–=–

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

—Mathew 7: 15, KJB

—=—

“Now, it is true that the nature of society is to create, among its citizens, an illusion of safety; but it is also absolutely true that the safety is always necessarily an illusion. Artists are here to disturb the peace.”

—James Baldwin, ‘An interview with James Baldwin’ (1961)

—=—

“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).

—=—

20 bucks says the reader has no idea what the word “danger” means in its etymology.

–=–

DANGERnoun – mid-13c., “power of a lord or master, jurisdiction,” from Anglo-French daunger, Old French dangier “power, power to harm, mastery, authority, control” (12c., Modern French danger), alteration (due to assoc. with damnum) of dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominarium “power of a lord,” from Latin dominuslord, master” (see domain). Modern sense of “risk, peril” (from being in the control of someone or something else) evolved first in French and was in English late 14c. Replaced Old English pleoh; in early Middle English this sense is found in peril.

LINK–>http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=danger

–=–

The United States, the nation, is the creation of a danger, also called as a district. And citizen-ships are of course on a commercial voyage in peril, requiring licensure and insurance on their surname. This scratch of the surface will be expounded upon intricately in my upcoming book, a private work currently in editing and due out very soon, free to all who seek such forbidden knowledge.

It is strange that no one seems to question the fact that Abraham Lincoln, as he who caused what can only be compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia that killed so many millions, was the first Republican party president. And suddenly, a civil war? Suddenly, the first tyrannical executive order against brother and sister, mother and father. Suddenly, lawlessness according to the law of necessity in war. Suddenly, reconstruction of the constitution and government, including the 14th amendment that enslaved all commoners under a slave-state based on equality, but never equity?

No one seems to question that the later and 2nd president Roosevelt, whom days after his election caused congress to declare his and all future president’s virtual dictatorship through permanent national emergency status, was of this Democratic platform, though his previous presidential namesake was certainly of that “Grand Old Party.”  For those unfamiliar with these histories of the American presidency and the dictatorship spoken of, please see my articles entitled “Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution,” parts 1 & 2, or Volume II of my upcoming book series.

“Two distantly related branches of the family from Oyster Bay on Long Island and Hyde Park in Dutchess CountyUpstate New York achieved national political prominence with the elections of (republican) Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) and his fifth cousin (democratFranklin Delano Roosevelt (1933–1945), whose wife, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, was Theodore’s niece.”

–Wikipedia entry for Roosevelt family

–=–

But where exactly does this leave us as compared to the already so-named competition?What about the other United States “Democratic” Party?

–=–

“Note that the Political Party today known as the “Democratic Party” was
initially established as theRepublican Party.” The Jeffersonian party
members were labeled “Democratic” by opposition Federalists –
an attempt to stigmatize them as purveyors of democracy or mob rule.
By the Jacksonian era, the term “The Democracy” was in use by the party;
the name “Democratic Party” was eventually settled upon and
became the official name in 1844.”

–Thomas Jefferson, by Joyce Appleby, Encyclopedia Britannica

–=–

One would be hard-pressed to describe the National Democratic Party of America as anything but a promoter of it’s own brand of the similitude of neoliberal, communitarian socialism promoted by its mainstream counterpart. And certainly the antics of this current president need to be discussed as to their source.

For instance, the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America stated in true communitarian spirit the following in its report entitled “New Ground 45” in 1996:

March – April, 1996

A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity: Employment and Survival in Urban America

By Bob Roman

Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America,” the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago’s 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA’s National Political Committee…

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign iswhat does it take to create productive communities,” not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first ishuman capital development.” By this he meant public education (think Common Core), welfare reform (Think Obama-Care), and a “workforce preparation strategy” (more Common Core). Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training (i.e. Common Core and Obama-care). While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy,” Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in (wealth) redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts

Link–> http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

–=–

Not only was Barack Obama an honored attendee and speaker for the socialist party of Chicago, in September 1995 he was a contracted publicist for the Marxist “New Party”.

“About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, CANDIDATES MUST SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE NP. The contract mandates that THEY MUST HAVE A VISIBLE AND ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama…”

Link–> http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.ht

–=–

Perhaps the most amazing cognitive disassociation and dissonance of the American people is the fact that “democracy” and the spread of it actually means that the people do not elect their own president/head of state.

The member nations/states of the International Democrat Union, including the United States, are almost exclusively nations/states where the president/head of state is elected through parliament or electoral college. In other words, in most of these “democratic” nations/states, the head of state is an INDIRECT ELECTION, NOT BY THE COMMON, VOTING PEOPLE.

For instance, the following nations have indirect elections for president, either as a monarchy, by election of legislature or by electoral college, orby some other committee or parliament, as opposed to that supposedly communist China, where the common people actually directly vote for their president:

Albania
Australia
Belgium –
Canada
Peoples Republic of China –
Denmark
Estonia
Ethiopia –
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong –
Hungary
India –
Iraq –
Israel –
Italy –
Jamaica –
Japan –
Kosovo –
Kuwait –
Lous –
Lebenon –
Libya –
Luxemburg –
Morocco –
Nepal –
Netherlands –
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan –
Saudi Arabia –
South Africa –
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland –
Syria –
Thailand –
United Arab Emirates –
United Kingdom
United States
Vatican City –

Complete list here –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_by_country

–=–

In contrast, when we view the nations or states that do have direct elections, with few exceptions they are generally considered as “third world” counties. It is not that they are, just that the self-proclaimed first-worlders call them as such. Ireland and Iran for instance hold direct elections, two very isolationist countries that do not cooperate with the monarchical or electoral systems and wish to preserve their culture and religious heritage. The same cannot be said of America, a people that seem to have no idea that their vote is purely a political pole, a popularity contest, and not the actual vote for a president. We do not vote for the best man, only for the best fictional party member, 1984 style.

I have presented here many threads to follow for the reader. At the time of this posting the IDU.org website is conveniently and temporarily not in service. And so I hope this collection of information will be a foundation for your own future research and sharing with others so brainwashed by this illegitimate system.

Will it stop you from voting? Who cares? The result is always the same with or without your individual vote, and not enough common goyim will see this to matter. I speak now only to the remnant, to those desiring to be unenfranchised from their false, political freedom.

DOM – Used as a termination, denotes jurisdiction, or property and jurisdiction; primarily, doom, judgment; as in kingdom, earldom. Hence it is used to denote state, condition or quality, as in wisdom, freedom. (Webster’s 1828)

FREEnoun –  [Hebrew. See Frank.] 1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations. 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. 3. Instituted by a free people, or by consent or choice of those who are to be subjects, and securing private rights and privileges by fixed laws and principles; not arbitrary or despotic; as a free constitution or government. There can be no free government without a democratical branch in the constitution. 4. Not imprisoned, confined or under arrest; as, the prisoner is set free. 5. Unconstrained; unrestrained; not under compulsion or control. A man is free to pursue his own choice; he enjoys free will. 6. Permitted; allowed; open; not appropriated; as, places of honor and confidence are free to all; we seldom hear of a commerce perfectly free. (Webs1828)

FREEDOMnoun – 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. Freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious. [See Liberty.] 2. Particular privileges; franchise; immunity; as the freedom of a city. 3. Power of enjoying franchises. 4. Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will. 5. Any exemption from constraint or control. 6. Ease or facility of doing any thing. He speaks or acts with freedom. 7. Frankness; boldness. He addressed his audience with freedom. 8. License; improper familiarity; violation of the rules of decorum; with a plural. Beware of what are called innocent freedoms. (Webster’s 1828)

FREEDOMLiberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. (Bouvier’s 1856)

ENFRANCHISETo make free; to incorporate a man in a society or body politic.(Black’s 4th)

ENFRANCHISEMENTThe act of making free; giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Admission to the freedom of a city; admission to political rights, and particularly the right of suffrage. Anciently, the acquisition of freedom by a villein from his lord. The word is now used principally either of the manumission of slaves, of giving to a borough or other constituency a right to return a member or members to parliament, or of the conversion of copyhold into freehold. (Black’s 4th)

ENFRANCHISEMENT nounRelease from slavery or custody. 1. The admission of persons to the freedom of a corporation or state; investiture with the privileges of free citizens; the incorporating of a person into any society or body politic. (Webs1828)

–=–

“In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage.”

–Black’s Law 2nd Edition, definition of franchise

–=–

This idea of liberty and freedom is taken so completely out of context to the average “citizenship” in public-mindedness that the notion that we live in a voluntary society where servants choose their masters as the doctrines of law is completely lost. We do not realize that it is our own unrestrained freedoms (liberties) as franchises of the state that actually cause us to be slaves to it. For a citizen-ship is like a rental care, a legal status that is bound to all legal laws of persons. And so the freedom (franchise) enjoyed, including the right to suffer from our own choices, also called suffrage or voting, is the very nature of the slavery system called politically (artificially) as liberty. Yet again, we are taking what is false, what is created only in the Atlantean jurisdiction, and pretending it to be a reality.

And so if one and only one thing is learned by the reader of this article it must be this: that the powers that be exist and subsist only because we suffer (vote) for them to do just that. In other words, we can only blame ourselves for voting for the better of two evils. No one is forcing our hand. No one is forcing our participation in the franchise of citizenship. We put ourselves into the path and ad-venture of the danger of another. We consent through our actions and inaction, and by doing so allow the worst of the worst element of the human equation to cheat, steal, and pirate everything we need even while it allows us the franchise to use what we want. After all, we voted for everything we complain about and deserve everything we are handed. Until we admit defeat, we cannot and will not find natural freedom, only the false appearance of nature as a political art from called franchise.

In the end, which is by the way right now, we need not fear the threat of globalism for it is already here. To fear deceit when it is already upon us is foolishness. Fear of it is truly irrelevant at this stage of a very ancient game of pledging. The only consideration we must individually make is wether to participate in it or not, whether to voluntarily carry its enfranchised mark, surname, and number or not, and ultimately whether we are willing to be persecuted, imprisoned, and killed for daring to have, and more importantly act upon, the Highest knowledge of self-evident Truth.

Remember, you are voting for a party, not a man. The party has no power without the person you vote (or don’t vote) for and thus give legitimacy to. Whether we give willingly our choice or refrain and offer no choice at all, either action is an expression of consent. Not tacit, expressive.

We must choose our Master. Reality or Atlantis. It’s that simple.

Until then, enjoy the big legal lie…

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, April 28th, 2016

Anarchy: A Non Sequitur Non Compos Mentis


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

–=–

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

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

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

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

–=–
Text Wars and Talk Radio
–=–

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

Here’s how it looks:

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

(Note: Actual texts, spelling not corrected.)

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Statement of equal rights

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

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

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

(c) Protection against impairment

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

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

–=–

With laws like this, who needs enemies?

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

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

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

NATIVI CONVENTIONARIIVilleins or bondmen by contract or agreement.

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

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

NATIVUSA servant born. Spelman.

–Black’s Law 1st edition

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

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

Note that: Sovereignty = People = State.

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

–=–
Definitions:
The Terms Of Art
–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–Black’s Law 1st Edition

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

–William Penn

–=–

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

–Anthony Ashley Cooper

–=–

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

–James K Polk

–=–

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

–=–

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

–=–

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

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

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

Ignorance will surely never accomplish this feat.

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

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

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

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

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

Anarchy = rules but no rulers.”

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

And here is what I found…

From Merriam Webster’s modern dictionary we read:

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

Examples of ANARCHY:

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

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

First Known Use: 1539

Related to ANARCHY: Synonyms: Lawlessness, misrule.

–=–

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt…

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

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

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

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

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

–Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

–=–

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

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

Origin of Anarchy:

Related formshyperanarchy, noun; proanarchy, adjective

Can be confused – anarchism, anarchy.

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

–=–

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

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

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source–> http://uniformlaws.org/

–=–

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

Again from the sourced Wikipedia article:

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

STRICTO JURE – Latin. In strict law.

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

–All from Black’s Law 4rth Edition.

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

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

–=–

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

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

American Law Institute article continued…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 –=–

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

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

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

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

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

MAXIM

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

–=–

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

But don’t just take my word for it…

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

–Black’s Law 1st Edition

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Of The English Language

–=–

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

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

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

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

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

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

–Black’s ‘Law 1st Edition’

–=–

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

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

–=–

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

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

–=–

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

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

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

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Of English Language

–=–

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

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

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

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

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

–Noah Webster

–=–

It this is statism… count me in!

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

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

–=–

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

–2 Corinthians 11: 13-14, KJB

–=–

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

You cannot serve two masters...

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

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

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

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

How do I know who Frank Rizzo is?

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

I refuse to do this anymore…

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

Just asking…

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

Why is this important?

A man afraid of his own name…

–=–

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

–=–

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

–=–

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

–=–

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

–=–

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

–=–

But I digress… Back to the Walmart analogy.

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

So how is this like Walmart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due diligence, you know… it changes everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look it up for fun…

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

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

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

–=–

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

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

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

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

You cannot serve two masters.

And so the monopoly game continues…

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

–=–

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

So where does that leave the anarchy gurus?

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

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

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

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

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

Wait… Wha?

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

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

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

This is a ridiculous non sequitur.

.

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

STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person


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

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

http://www.strawmanstory.info/

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is legal is not what is right.

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

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

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

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

https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/

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

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

Be well…

.

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