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

The True Intent Behind Counter-Cultural Gender Neutralization


—=—

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

—Voltaire

—=—

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just what is neutrality?

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

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

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

 –=–

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

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

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

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

Have you taken a look at our society lately?

–=–

–=–

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

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

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

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

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

And yet, in our very legalistic law we find…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

–=–

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

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

–=–







–=–

Nature: Universal Grammar”

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

–=–

“Nurture: Behaviorist Reinforcement”

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

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

–=–

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

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

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

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

.

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