How Truth-Seeking will affect You.

What to expect if you stand up to the System.

What does it mean to live your life as a truth- or freedom-seeker?

Well that depends on a number of things, like your own state of mind, how combative or laid-back you are, if you want to take a stand about lots of things, or are happy just reading and listening.

But before we get into special cases, lets just look at what to expect generally.

We all have people with very fixed viewpoints on life, around us. They may be family, neighbours, friends and people we work with. They may feel threatened or worried about the idea that the Government, the Public Service, Media, the Education System, the Justice System, and the Medical Establishment, is not always there for the general good of the people, and that the people that control these organisations have used them to misinform us, to enrich themselves, to dumb us down, to make us sicker and to focus on trivial things like celebrity gossip, sports, gadgets, TV series, partying, etc. etc.

They will not readily be willing to face the fact that they have been manipulated like this, and will insist that it is we the “conspiracy theorists” that has got it all wrong. And again, depending on their state of mind, they may just politely stay out of any arguments, or they will make it their mission to convince you how wrong you have been, or to make fun of you for being so stupid that you believe “that crap”.

Personally I never had an issue with the people around me, or even “public servants” that I have dealt with in my trials of various strategies. I think this comes down to a combination of a thick skin and a friendly and accepting attitude.

I have gone against the stream, one way or another, for most of my life, and I stopped caring about what other people thought about how I lived my life, a long time ago. If I lived my life according to the wishes of those around me – would I even be having a life of my own?

But enough about me.

You can expect to lose or see less of some friends, that does not share your rebellious streak and your suspicious attitude towards everything “official”. You can expect sarcasm and jokes aimed at you. Expect the odd sigh followed by rolling eyes.

When dealing with people working for the Police, Taxman, Courts, Councils, Vehicle Registration, etc. you will be dealing with people who get paid to perform a narrow function in those organizations. They cannot be seen to support you or give you any more leeway than they give others. They will generally be courteous and polite, but might occasionally take a dislike to you (often based on your attitude toward them) and give you a very hard time.

They may treat you as if you were an idiot or a fool who have fallen for some false ideas spread on the internet. They may act as if their rules and procedures are the only valid ones that applies to anything, and what you do (even if you use the same principles as they do) is of no consequence.

But when you hit the nail on the head and present them with truths they cannot argue with, they will become silent. They will not respond. This no response can be in the form of silence, or no more letters. It can also be in the form of coming back at you with something else that does not have any relevance to what you brought up, This is an effort to get off the hook and to get you to abandon your point. Do not fall for it. Insist they answer your actual point. It does not matter if it is an interaction with a Judge in a Court Room or if it is a letter conversation with a debt collector or a parking company.

Point out that they have not responded “in substance” (as required concerning the matter at hand) and give them two more opportunities to do so and add the wording that if they cannot (prove, show, substantiate, etc.) whatever they claim, they agree that you are (right, innocent, without blame, owed something, etc.).

Expect that you will end up in the archives of various agencies who spy on the population or who try to keep tabs on “Enemies of the State”. Assume that your phone calls are being scanned for keywords and recorded, and that your E-mails and other electronic communication will be intercepted and read. If you have blogs, websites or accounts in social media, assume someone is watching what you say and share. I had a site under my own domain some years ago, and when people clicked on it in facebook, a warning pop-up from Norton Antivirus appeared saying this site was a known hazard or that visitors might get malware there. Now I use Blogger owned by Google, which they cannot treat like that.

Is this a problem? Depends how “under the radar” you want to be. I have long ago made myself clear as to what I think and what I stand for. So do not worry about it. I have no dependants any more, so if they come and take me away (which I consider very unlikely) no one else gets seriously affected.

Do not write or say things you are not willing to take the consequences for. You may believe a lot of things to be true, but if you cannot prove it, treat it as hearsay or a theory, even if a likely one, and say so.
Use disclaimers in language or notices. There are a lot of people in the “Truth or Freedom Movement” who are not that bright (as can be observed by the amount of followers of the Flat Earth Theory) and they may do stupid things with what you teach, and when it goes wrong they may blame you for their plight.

If you become really popular with thousands of followers, and your method is simple and effective in things like getting people out of jail, getting them to win in Court, getting them to set off debts with alternative means, defeat Banks in Court, or bringing corrupt public officials to justice. There is a good chance that you will be arrested on some bogus charges, and be railroaded in Court and put in Jail – unless you know how to hold your own in that situation (if you are lucky enough to not be in a total police state).

If you do a debt verification process on your unsecured loans and it all goes well, and everyone gives up eventually, you may be tempted to do the next “logical” step – do the same on your Mortgage or Car Loan. Go ahead if you like. But I have seen at least two fellow freedom seekers lose their houses doing this. They got themselves into this long before they were at a point where they could handle the deep water they were getting into. Do not forget that the Bankers rule the World and that they probably are the best customers for the Court System.

When you are consistently successful in getting wins against the State or Banks in the Courts, and you know exactly everything about the “loan” process and can prove it – you may give the Mortgage a try. Preferably on a test property or for someone who will for sure lose their house following the conventional process, so has nothing to lose by trying your method.

I have seen a good number of people lose interest or give up, because “it became too hard” or they met resistance from various directions. Or it was not as easy to get remedy as they had hoped. Or they felt their family or children were at risk. They of course have every right to make that choice.

It may all seems so logical, so crystal clear and so simple when one sits in front of ones own computer at home. But when you stand in front of some aggressive bailiffs and police officers or a Judge that will not give you any slack, but will be happy to plead for you, speak for you, witness for you and in the same breath claim you are getting a fair trial, then it is a different ball game. Some people decide this is more than they are willing to deal with, and give up on this “Freeman stuff”. You will forget 99% of what you know in the safety of your study or room, when you end up in a heated situation like I just described.

You are also likely to become a bit obsessed with your quest. You may find yourself going to the toilet in the middle of the night and spend the next two hours having a conversation with a Judge in your head, as you lay there in the dark unable to let go of the subject.

You will start seeing lies and manipulation in almost anything you encounter in your daily life. It can be as simple as asking yourself why you are obediently sitting there in your car in front of that red lamp on a post, across from you, when there are no other cars around that would be affected in any way if you just ignored that red light and drove on. Or you will see the hidden message in crime drama series, medical dramas or even child programs on TV. And when some news about a new war, shooting, bad weather, earthquake, unrest, etc. are shouted from the rooftops by mainstream media, you knee jerk reaction will most likely be that this is an orchestrated or caused event by those that want to keep us worried and enslaved.

When you look to the skies, and se some cloud that looks a little bit different, you will jump to the conclusion that it is created by the ongoing geoengineering programs. If it is unusually rainy or there is a drought on, you will be sure that it has been engineered to make us ill, miserable, poorer or to kill us all slowly.

When you catch a cold or a flu, you may think it has been cooked up in some lab somewhere by men in white coats who then go and spread it in airports the world around or on undergrounds and trains.

If an old parent or relative gets alzheimers, cancer, etc. you will think “If it wasn't for those greedy bastards in the food and medical industries, s/he might still enjoy a decent life now.”

When (if) you pay your electricity or gas bill, or fill up your car, you will be inclined to think “If Nicola Tesla's inventions from over a hundred years ago had not been suppressed, we would all be enjoying clean, harmless free energy now.”

Your thinking will be diagonally opposite to what most people think or the way they react to things that happen. Which makes it a bit hard to make small talk at times, and you cannot help yourself in trying to bend the conversation towards questions about why things are like they are and what are the underlying causes for things.

The Positive.

The above have for the most part been dealing with the negative side of being a “Freedom Fighter”, “Truther” or “Freedom Seeker”. But it is far from the whole picture.

Since we were children and our parents and teachers ordered us about and told us what we can and can't do, until adulthood when bosses, public officials, police, etc. tells us what we must do, we have been trained to obey orders and directives without questioning the logic behind them or whether the one issuing the order had any moral right to do so. We have “learned” that “resistance is futile” when the State makes a claim or orders something.

So with all that in mind, just imagine the boost one gets with even the smallest victory – like having a parking ticket cancelled or a debt collector or bailiff back off.

And if you can get through a session in Magistrates Court without stepping into the shoes of the “legal fiction” referred to as “The Defendant” and walk out unmolested, things really start to feel great, and you confidence gets a great boost, and you lose a lot of fear for these people and all their uniforms, robes, high seats and guards. That is in my book priceless.

If on top of this you have had some deep spiritual experience, like a near death experience, or other event or therapy that has made it clear to you that you are not your body, but you are a soul that has a body, and that you cannot die, but are an immortal spirit – then there is not much that will scare you or intimidate you.

Losing the fear and realizing that those poor souls that rely on a title or a gun to get respect, are just ordinary people like you and me, makes a big difference to ones confidence, happiness and courage.

Let me just end off with a few comments about our “opponents”.

We will never come face to face with the creatures that are the root cause of this very faulty system we have today. We may face a few sociopaths or psychopaths, who work for them, but on the whole we will be dealing with people that are our brothers and sisters of this Earth, and who are acting in a way they believe is correct. They may not have come to some vital realizations yet. They still have a lot of waking up to do. But that does not make them evil. Most of you who read this may have been there yourselves, not that long ago.

Some people who claim to have “woken up” are full of hate and anger and their language and attitude is not pretty. They think they have the right to be nasty and derogatory about those that are still asleep “within the Matrix” - for no other reason than having been lied to all their lives. As much as I can see that viewpoint, I do not agree with it.

Hate creates more hate. Emotions are contagious – both negative and positive ones. If we want a better and more fair world, it is not going to come about through hate and animosity. We do not only create our own emotions, we also do so to a degree in our fellow man – depending how we make him feel.

One can do this in a friendly manner, with love in ones heart. This does not mean one will be a push-over or doormat. One can be friendly but firm. One can stand ones ground with love in ones heart, without giving an inch.

Lose your fear, and there is no reason to be antagonistic any more. Anger and antagonism is often a kind of defence mechanism. I have had more success with a friendly attitude than the few times I have tried an antagonistic one. That goes for the tone of a letter too.

A Judge may try to wind you up so that you lose your cool and become angry. He knows angry people are off balance and not as logical as calm and collected ones. Do not fall into that trap.

Know the good in yourself and see the good in others. Many a “Public Servant” knows the system is broken and in his or her heart supports what you do, as long as you do not make them your enemy or harm others. Make the system or what is wrong with it your enemy, not the poor souls trapped by it.

Do well!

Kent

Eight reasons our government is not legitimate.

(This of course does not apply only to the South African government, but applies to virtually all governments acting on our Earth today.)

I also want to mention that I wrote this article for my Swedish blog first. Sweden and South Africa are very different in many ways, both when it comes to how they are governed and the attitude of their people. The Swedes have gone from the proud and fierce Vikings to a bunch of spineless cowards who allowed the politicians, the bankers and big business to dictate almost everything in their lives. But they are unable to see this, and think they are well informed and a good example to the world as to how a society should be run and how people should think.

South Africans are far more independent, self reliant and self governing. They are also blessed with a fairly incompetent government, that does not pose any huge threat to the individual.
Maybe this comparison is unfair, and maybe I do not know SA well enough as I have only been here for over a year, plus six years in the nineties. But this article should be relevant anyway.

Before we can continue, we should first define the concept of government.

Government: A group of people (like you and me) who have either been appointed by the people to represent them and their will, or who through cunning, violence and betrayal ensured that they came into a position where they could claim to speak for the people (whether the people agree or not).

All ceremonies, protocols, procedures, etc. that led to a government coming into being, is rather irrelevant. The fact remains that they are people like you and me. They eat, sleep, piss, fart, burp, brush their teeth, cut their toenails, love, hate, dream, have fears, faults, weaknesses and aspirations, just like you and me. They no more deserve to rule their fellow man, than you and I. In fact, by thinking they do, they probably are less suited to do so, since they then lack humility.

All power stems from the people. The Preamble of the Constitution states: "We, the people of South Africa, ..." which shows that the PEOPLE of South Africa is the highest authority – since it's constitution is written in the voice of the people and is the highest law of this land.
This is true even in a dictatorship. If all the people in a nation with a dictator as head of state, suddenly turned their backs to the dictator, and ignored him, he would just be a pathetic individual with a superiority complex, who stood and screamed and stomped somewhere. The police, military, security services and the entire public sector is run by individuals who are all part of “the people”.

So, how is it that the current government is not legitimate?

If we agree that the only laws that apply are the laws of nature, then it may be true that someone who is strong or cunning can acquire a position of power over his fellow men, by any means. And those who are too weak or stupid to assert their right to be free, deserve the fate they receive.

But in our human tradition - across different cultures, races and geographical locations, there seems to be some kind of agreement in terms of our relationship to each other. This could be called "natural law", “universal law" or "moral law". It is a subject in itself, but includes things like "Treat others as you want them to treat you", "When you step on other people's right to life, limb, property, peace, freedom, etc., you give up your own rights these things", "All human beings are born with equal rights and freedoms ", "All are equal before the law", "Each one is his own master", "Everyone has the right to a free, fair and impartial justice procedure", "Everyone has the right to defend themselves and others who need help, against an aggressor", "Everyone has the right to the fruits of their labour", "Everyone has the right to choose to join a society or a group, or not" etc. etc.

With this viewpoint in mind, lets continue.

Eight points showing why the government is not legitimate:

1) The government is doing things that individuals according to moral law does not have the right to do. You can not transfer a right to another that you do not possess yourself.

Theft and extortion is still theft and extortion, even if they are carried out in the government's name. To confiscate money (tax), property (confiscation) and even children (kidnapping) under threat of further fines, confiscation or imprisonment, is not something a person has the right to do with another. Thus, no abstraction like "The State" (which is nothing more than a bunch of people like you and I) have the right to do these things.

Murder is murder, whether it be planned and executed by a private person or a soldier in the service. The only circumstance in which it can be considered acceptable to kill another is if in the current moment s/he is about to kill or seriously injure you or someone else who can not defend himself or herself.

2) You can not be forced to commit acts contrary to your faith and morals. In Humankind, some things are seen as bad or or wrong - regardless of the circumstances under which they were committed. In the Nurnberg trials, it was no excuse to say "I was only following orders."

An assassin can not say, as a mitigating circumstance "I was just doing what I got paid to do."

Similarly, a business owner with employees has no right to take a share of the compensation he / she gives an employee and give it to a third party (SARS – the Taxman) if the employee does not agree. If your morals say that it is wrong to steal, then it is wrong to contribute to theft in this way. If you think it's better for your children to develop a natural immunity to childhood diseases, rather than to vaccinate them and possibly thus expose them to substances that in the long run are more harmful to them, you can not be forced to vaccinate your children.

3) You can not be expected to follow laws or rules that you can not understand. If someone gives you a thick wad of paper with only Chinese writing on them, and says that you must do what it says there, everyone would agree that it would be impossible to do so (unless you are fluent in Chinese). But if you are given a tax return form, most people think that you can and should complete it and attest under oath, that all information given is correct. How can you do this if you do not have a law degree, knows for sure what definition of each word in the Income Tax Act was intended by its creators, or even studied the Income Tax Act?

Furthermore, if you are not a lawyer, are you qualified to interpret a legal text? If you are not qualified to interpret a legal document, how can you understand what it says? If you can not understand what it says, how can you comply with it? How can you be punished for not following directives you can not understand, or even do not have the right to try to understand? And, which you may not have agreed to follow in the first place?

4) If we all, according to natural or moral law, are free men and women who are born with equal rights and freedoms, are we not then our own masters? If you then consider that the CREATOR is the senior to the CREATION, and that we humans created our laws, governments, money, contracts, statutes, rules, etc. then, logically speaking, these could only apply to us, with our consent. Consent can only be given when you understand what you agree to.

How many people can honestly say that they fully understand how this society is composed and how some people acting on behalf;f of such abstractions as The State, Municipalities, The Police or "The Justice System" has the right to order a free man, who did not cause others any harm whatsoever? Is not that like Donald Duck telling Walt Disney what to draw and write ???

We can, as free men and women, enter into contracts or agreements where we make ourselves subservient to others - such as an employer and employee scenario, but this is then, based on an informed and conscious decision where all terms are on the table and the terms for how this relationship can be terminated, as well as established and agreed upon.

In addition, it is customary that the person who agrees to subjugate him or herself to another person, does so for an agreed compensation (salary or payment) during certain scheduled hours or for a given time or task. When did you last get paid for entering into a role, subordinate to these clowns who now rule the roost? What!!! Never???

What is your schedule for when you agreed to subjugate yourself to them? What! Do you don't have one ??? Why???

5) Those who pay for something are the ones who decide over the thing in question. We - the people are the ones paying for everything. This is true even if you take money out of the equation. We tar the roads, build the cars, build the houses, sweep the streets, grow the food, transport everything, maintain equipment, tend gardens and parks, purifies water, remove the rubbish, educate the children, keep the books, bake the bread and anything else that needs to be done our country.

We do this both for ourselves and for those who can not contribute because of illness or age.

We even do it (and even more so) for those traitors who were meant to act as a good leader and trustees of the land and it's people, but now acts as traitors by letting large corporations and foreign interests rule the roost and rob us of our resources, as well as taking a lot for themselves and their personal comfort. They also allow our skies to be sprayed with toxic aerosols in global geoengineering programs – totally without asking the people or even informing the people.

6) South Africa as an institution (not the land mass), is what it seems, a corporation in a giant global commercial system. The crafty Men (and maybe Women) who designed this system, have done so more or less in secret.

Not only that - they also have for each one of us created a commercial unit; Our legal/juristic Person. This is in my case MR KENT ERIK BENGTSSON with ID Number. This is probably a trust or a corporation. Most likely it is a trust, as there is no obligation to inform the beneficiaries of a trust, that a trust even exists. See "The difference between You and Yourself" if you are not familiar with this.

The good news here is that we as a people can not be forced to do business with a company or obey its decrees without a voluntary agreement to that effect. The bad news is that it seems as if everyone in the public sector refuses to see us as people with natural rights and only recognizes us in the capacity of our legal person, which can be seen as a subordinate commercial entity. This in turn makes them Masters and us Subjects.

What leads me to conclude that South Africa (and other nations) is a corporations?

"THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA" is registered in the US Securities & Exchange Commission, and tax revenues listed as income. See this link and the article in this blog called “What is South Africa” for more on that:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000932419&owner=include&count=40

Also, all countries seem to have a certain credit rating. If they were sovereign nations, how can anyone say what their credit rating was?

A legal person is, in other words, a fiction, an abstraction, a paper construct, a figment of our imagination - that only exists on paper and in our minds. A legal person has different rights and obligations. But only within a larger fiction, such as a political or commercial system - not in the tangible physical reality, where a legal person can not exist any more than a fictitious person in a novel or movie.

7) “The State” is not a part of the tangible reality, and exists only as a legal abstraction. The basic idea is that the "state" providing certain services and protection for its members (citizens) in exchange for members give their support to the state (in the form of taxes, obedience and recognition). A bit like a Golf Club – you pay the membership fee and abide by the rules, and you can play on the golf course. Mutual benefit. But whoever heard of a club you cannot leave?

We hear about the "social contract" as an unwritten contract in which the members of a society have an implied contract with those who act as leaders for a society, where the leadership is providing protection and assistance to those in need in exchange for financial support, obedience and recognition of the State as a legitimate institution.

From this "social contract" can be concluded that the State can only be legitimate if it acts for the good of the members of the society and in accordance with the wishes and needs of the people.

Does the South African State do this today ???

From where I stand, it looks more as if they are working for interests other than the South African people. One of the first things the new Government did after apartheid fell, was to borrow from the IMF which made out nation a “debtor” and subject to a whole array of negative conditions. Then the politicians gave themselves huge salaries “so they would not be tempted to be corrupt”. Yet as we have seen over the years the corruption is rife and there are claims of 700 billion rand wasted in the last 20 years.

Also, in many parts of this country the skies are being sprayed with nano-
particles of aluminium, barium and other agents. This must be done with the blessings of the Government. Search “Chemtrails” and “geoengineering”.
In and around the larger cities black South Africans are today enjoying an improved education, opportunities and income. But go to rural areas and nothing looks different than it did 30 years ago, except the prices in the shops.
Large corporations are given free reign to enrich themselves – like SANRAL and it's e-tolls, or the banks who create credit, at no real cost to themselves, and then confiscate tangible assets if people cannot pay the “loans”, or gets paid in money that represents our labour, while the credit they issued were not backed by anything tangible or of any substantial value.

8) It appears that most countries are bankrupt (They have debts they can not pay right off), and are operating in bankruptcy under administration of people appointed by the bankruptcy court or Trustee. (ever wondered why politicians and officials change, but not much changes in the real world?)

I guess this is also true in the case of South Africa. In the UK, it has been admitted by public officials that the country has been in bankruptcy since the end of the eighteenth century.

If a country (corporation) is operating under a bankruptcy, it is not sovereign and its government (leadership) must do what is dictated by the Trustee or whoever administers and controls the bankruptcy.

Many a wise man has said, "If you have debts, you are not free." I am convinced that this is a key strategy in keeping both nations and individuals enslaved in this world.

Tempt politicians and public officials with personal wealth and benefits if they put their countries in debt. Tempt individuals with new cars, mobile phones, luxury homes and nice holidays, which they can get right now - if they just take out a loan.

In both cases, you now have much more control over the country or individual in question, and you can set conditions on how they run their business.

Perhaps I am wrong in some of the assumption above. I do not write thinking I have all the answers or that I am always right. I write to get people to think and question. I want us all to lift the veil of indoctrination that we had covering our own eyes, since we stopped asking "Why" as three or four year olds.

I do not want to overthrow the government or the current system. If the house of cards, built on lies, which today constitutes our modern society, suddenly fell, a lot of suffering would result. BUT, I want the people we entrusted to take care of public functions, to do what they get paid to do, and that they do it for their people and in accordance with the will, the culture, the values ​and the traditions of the people.

I also want them to do all they can to make the people wise, strong, responsible, community minded, etc. so they can start govern themselves and run their own lives, rather than having it done for them.

I want those who are now in positions of power to recognize us as living, breathing sovereign people, and treat us as their employers, not their slaves. If they want us to cooperate with them, they will have to do what others have to do – to come to us with a proposal for cooperation and draw up an individual voluntary arrangement concerning each individual's relationship to the State and public bodies.

I want them to stop seeing themselves as a monopoly on how things should be, and stop fighting individuals or groups who want to go their own way and test new ideas or models for communities, money system and laws. If we look around we certainly can find lots of flaws with the current system. So why not encourage alternatives and those who are willing to go out on a limb to try new systems.

I realize of course that no one cares what little me wants. But if we all started to wake up and removes the blinkers, and can get enough people to do the same, then we will become a group so powerful that we can change things or a group large enough to turn our back on the existing system and create our own.

So if you're reading this, and more or less agree with it, share it - and talk to people. Talk only about things they can agree with and introduce a little bit at a time of new ideas and evidence. Try not to lump the whole "truth" of someone living in "The Matrix" (the current system), as this can be overwhelming and too unreal. We do not want to seem like unreal weirdos, which can easily happen if you try to present a whole new and strange reality.

Ask questions that encourages people to think. Ask them to compare the past with the way things are now. Ask how they think it should, be rather than how things are, etc. etc.

It seems that we, as humanity are moving towards a crossroads, in the not too distant future. Beyond it (which could be a new world war, or a technological coup, in which we are facing weapons that we find it very hard to defend ourselves against) might wait a world that is totally centrally controlled by a small elite that has us in a stranglehold and dictates everything of importance, with few personal choices and freedoms. But it may also happen that humanity will wake up in time, realize their faults and weaknesses and decide to change their ways and become more responsible and live in harmony with nature.

What you and I, do now and in the near future, may well be decisive in what kind of future we will have.

Kent

New page about Tax

I just added another page to this blog.

This one deals with taxation. Historically, morally and how to pay less tax if you disagree with how the government uses your money.

Lots of references and videos by various people.

See the tabs above.

Tricky Questions

It happens now and then that we end up in situations where we are accosted by the police or authorities.

With "accosted" I do not necessarily mean a physical confrontation. It can be as simple as an envelope in the mailbox, a phone call or an email, where you are accused of something and money is demanded for some imagined benefit, or a construed "crime".

Whether it's a police officer who stopped you because you did not have a seat-belt on, or a demand to pay for driving on roads you already paid for and keep paying for by means of fuel tax, it is now something you need to deal with.

If you read my previous post about real people versus the fictitious state, you should understand what follows.

As children our parent are controlling us and telling us what we can and cannot do, that carries on in school and often in work places. As a result, we have become so accustomed to be guided and controlled by the "authorities” that we stopped thinking or questioning what they are doing. I see this as a very deep apathy or brainwashing, and am sure that it was created intentionally with preschool, school, jobs, taxes, fines, penalties, etc. etc.

I will probably write a more comprehensive process one can use to defend oneself when the “Vultures” come knocking, but for now this may give some ideas of a simple “defence”. See also the article “Open letter to Authorities”.

So I'm going to give you some questions that may be appropriate in different situations. If nothing else, it can make people think a bit outside the box, or think a bit more for themselves. I use some of these questions as icebreakers when I speak with people who are completely unfamiliar with the freedom movement.

The beauty of using questions as a way to point out what one means or stands for, is that a question is relatively innocent, and no proof can be demanded from someone who is just asking questions. The questioning party is the one asking for proof. If you assert something, it is more aggressive and the receiver can also say "prove it" which can be difficult or even impossible.

When you take a position, you are fixing yourself in one place – kind of. It is easier to attack someone that holds a fixed position (whether it is a physical spot or a mental one).

General questions:

Who created me, the Government, or Nature/God? (If dealing with religious people, use God)

What created the Government, human beings or Nature/God?

Who is the most senior, the Creator or the Creation?

Am I a human being?

Was I born free or a slave?

If I am not a slave, how can anyone be my master?

Are we not all born with equal natural or God given rights and freedoms?

If so, how can anyone claim authority over me?

Can anyone authorise another to do something that he/she does not have the right to do?

If not, how can the state which claim its power comes from the people, take a large portion of the money we earn (tax), threaten us if we do not give them that money, or decide all kinds of things, such as who we can and cannot hire or do business with.

In Court:

If you want to address the issue of "the name"
(See the article "The difference between you and Yourself" for more on your relationship with your artificial Juristic Person):
2When you ask if I'm Mr. JOHN SMITH, do you ask for the legal/juristic person that I occasionally use to operate within the fictional, man made, world of laws, contracts, credit, securities , etc., or do you ask for, the by nature created living man - John of the family Smith, which I am?"

If they insist that you identify as JOHN SMITH, say something like: "As I understand it, the plaintiff is some kind of, artificial entity, created by the State, and not the living man you are talking with now. If I were to say that I'm something I'm convinced that I'm not, would I not then be lying - In a court? Are you trying to make me commit perjury?"

If you do not care about distinguishing yourself and the legal person, you can use this approach :

"Am I entitled to a fair trial?"

"Can I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interests in the court?" (Normally the State, the Police or the Local Council are behind the prosecution and the judiciary is owned / run by the same gang).

To the prosecutor: "Who or what are you representing here today?" (Should be the Police, state or local government)

To the Judge: "Who or what do you represent here today?" (His employer is the state or municipality). Write down the answers.

To the Judge: "Hmm, I'm not trained in the law, but how it is not a conflict of interest if both you and the prosecutor are working for the government?" (If the judge counters with "Are you accuse me of a conflict of interest ???" answer politely "Oh no, I just wonder how it is NOT a conflict of interest. I reserve my conclusions for when I heard the answer to that question")

"Can I get a fair trial if I do not understand what is going on here or what is meant by what people say here?" (If they say No to this question, you can then ask for clarifications, definitions and explanations for all eternity until someone gets tired)

"Was the crime which I am said to have committed, committed in South Africa?"

"The law/regulations I am accused of having violated, where does that law or regulation apply?" (in South Africa)

"When you say "South Africa" what exactly do you mean? do you mean the land mass, which in common speech is referred to as South Africa, or is it the fictional man made political or commercial entity which also goes under the name of SOUTH AFRICA?" (If the answer is landmass, ask if the landmass wrote the law, you are said to have violated. If they say the political unit, ask how one can be physically present in something that only exists in words, thoughts and on paper.)

"On what grounds can this case be closed?"

"Is a lack of evidence sufficient basis to close this case?"

"Is a lack of qualified witnesses sufficient grounds to close the case?"

"Can anyone here present irrefutable evidence, or someone with first hand experience, who can testify, that I was physically present in the fictional man made political unit South Africa, at the time of the alleged crime?"

"Can anyone here present irrefutable evidence, or someone with first hand experience, who can testify that I acted as South African citizen / driver / taxpayers / etc. (These are all positions within the legal construct or corporation REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) and not as a living, by nature created, private man, at the time of the alleged crime?"
If you get the cop that gave you a ticket on the stand, ask a few innocent questions first, then the ones about where the law or rule applies, then ask if it his opinion that you were present within South Africa at the time of the alleged crime or offence. Then ask him "Legally speaking, what is The Republic of South Africa?" He will probably stumble on that one and most likely the judge or the prosecutor will jump in and declare that the witness is not qualified to answer such a question. You then say "Fine, in that case I want all legal determinations done by this police officer stricken from the record. The Judge will most likely agree to that. Then you qualify that with "Including the legal determinations done in issuing the ticket in question."  Check mate!

They usually try to get you to testify against yourself by asking if you did so and so. Reply with something like "Are you trying to make me incriminate myself?"  or  "Is it not a Maxim of Law that one does not have to bear witness against oneself?"  Insist that they produce someone you actually did damage or who's life or property you put in danger, so that you can make good your error privately, before this becomes a matter for a court. If they can't, demand that the matter is dropped.

The questions above regarding being slave or born free and with equal rights, etc. can also be used here and followed up with: If I was not born a slave, mustn't then all interaction with other people or with human fictions be voluntary and according to mutual agreements?

If so, when, where and how exactly I was part of a deal in which I knowingly and voluntarily agreed to submit to myself all laws rules and regulations of the fictional political construct South Africa?

Just a little word of warning about the Courts, anything can happen there. You are up against people who convict people day in and day out. They have lots of tricks up their sleeve in getting you off  balance or to come off your point, and instead answering to their point. My attitude in dealing with them has always been "I am doing this as practice and to learn. I need to learn to feel relaxed in that environment and think on my feet. By placing myself there in trivial matters like traffic violations, I am gaining experience that hopefully will give me a fighting chance, if I ever get dragged in there in handcuffs accused of something serious." Do not assume you will win, just try to do better each time you go there. 

Dealing with the Police:

First, say:

Before we go into anything else, I just want to inform you that I am right now acting as a private man/woman who was created on this Earth by Mother Nature/God, and as a creature of the real tangible natural world, and I exercise my natural/God-given right to travel freely on my home planet. Do you understand? (Use your phone or some other device to record the conversation. Even if the police do not understand what this means when it comes to “The Law", you have informed him and a judge will understand what this means, but will probably try to ignore it.)

Have you observed me cause anyone any harm or with my actions recently put someone's life or property in danger?

If not, why did you stop me?

You will be asked to identify yourself. If you use a government issued or approved ID, you have identified yourself as their “legal person” to which all legislation applies. Better to make your own ID. See the article “A different ID document” in this blog. Refusing can lead to all kinds of unpleasant interactions.

If you are recording the interaction, and you have no own ID to use, say something like “I have this thing (showing drivers licence or ID card/book), but it is not mine. It belongs to the Government and it does not identify me, but rather an entity that I believe represents me in the fictional world of politics and commerce. I am however not acting in the capacity of that entity at this very moment, so cannot say that this is me. I furthermore do not authorise you to identify me as this entity.”

Some questions of law can also be converted into questions for the police.

Most of us in South Africa will be dealing with traffic cops stopping us for something we did wrong in the traffic or to see if they can solicit some business.
I have personally found it much easier to be nice and friendly with them. Ask them some questions if you like to drag out the conversation. I use this as a distraction when they start talking about the fines or having you come to the station. It usually ends up with a small amount of money changing hands or just a warning.
Also bear in mind that this  man or woman could one day be saving your life, by dragging you out of a burning car or taking a dangerous car off the roads. So treat them with the respect any fellow man deserves.

And last, but not least: The Tax Man

Here are some questions the Tax Office is dying to answer:

Are all people tax payers?
What makes someone a taxpayer?

Are those who have have not graduated law school qualified to interpret the Income Tax Act?

If not, how can I be expected to fill out an Income Tax Return form with information and then testify in writing that I have done so correctly, when I am neither qualified to interpret the legislation it is based upon, nor have the right to do so? How can I do this, when I, legally speaking, can't understand the law that is the basis of this action? Is SARS trying to make me commit perjury?

Am I a slave?
If I am not a slave, then do I not have the right to enjoy the fruits of my labour?
If I am not a slave, would then not the paying of tax have to be a voluntary activity?
When, where and how did I volunteer to pay income tax? When where and how was I informed that this was a voluntary arrangement?

What proof or witnesses with first hand experience in the matter, do you have that confirms that I am a Taxpayer?  Who in your organisation makes the claim that I am a Taxpayer or owe you any tax?

I am going to make a separate page on this blog regarding tax, where I will have more information and resources. But this should serve as a start.

I hope you will give this a try. Practice on family and friends or run such conversations in your head when you have some mental down time. You should be able to come up with good questions for different situations.

Another good response when given a random order is “Why?” and “By what authority?” then ask more questions as prompted by what the response will be.

An advice for those who want to try this. Start by doing this in writing. The worst place to start is with an irritated policeman or judge. Let the traffic issues to be until you get really good at this, and you have removed all implied contracts that you are considered to be bound by as a motorists. 

This list could be much longer, and I hope you come up with your own questions or change them to suit the situation you find yourself in.

Much of this has been inspired by Marc Stevens and Dean Clifford, as well as others. Below I have posted some videos, which I warmly recommend. They are well worth a listen and will most likely make this approach more clear than I have done above.

Good luck.

                                         

                                          

Do's and Don'ts in dealing with "Officials"

Once people start to wake up a bit and begins to see Banks, Police, Lawyers, Courts, Tax Offices, registration Offices, Councils and the Government, as more than just honourable people doing "What is best for our society", some get an urge to challenge the system.

I hope to give some advice on how to do this without getting yourself in too much trouble, as well as doing it fairly effectively.

This will just be some simple principles that can be applied anywhere, and no legal mumbo jumbo.


First I want to stress the fact that we will never deal directly with the people causing whatever we are not happy about. We will be dealing with some poor soul who is just "doing my job" and getting paid for the time he or she puts in. It is nothing personal, so do not make it so, and do not be unpleasant or disrespectful to these people.

I am sure you have noticed that when people treat you like shit, your willingness to be accommodating or helpful, goes out the window.  Treat others like you would like them to treat you.


Then you need to know that "The facts are on the moon".  It is next to impossible to prove anything. Have you ever tried to prove to a very religious person that "God does not exist" or if you are religious, prove to an atheist that "God exists"?  Any luck with that?

When we are dealing with things like "Law", "Regulations", "Money", "Tax", etc understand that we are dealing with fictions. And if you play around in this field for a little bit, you will soon come to realise that this whole society is nothing but a house of cards and it's rules and laws are not watertight, but rather so full of holes that a Swiss Cheese seems solid by comparison.

Therefore most things can be challenged in different ways.

The Systems only power is the convictions of some people that is is real, valid, just and legitimate. Some of these people will have uniforms and guns, or hold keys to cages with beds and toilets in them.  So in essence what we will run into is peoples beliefs regarding what we can and cannot do.

Since it is next to impossible to prove anything - do not make any statements or claim anything positively. Instead use the "innocent weapon of mass destruction" to achieve your goals - a question.

The question is an excellent method for staying out of any claim (where it could be demanded that You provide proof of your claim. Let your opponent do that instead) and lay the burden of proof upon your counterpart.

If you say "Well, the Government is not real. It's just a fiction of human imagination" then someone could say "Prove it!".
If you instead say "Could you please show me The Government? I would like to see what it looks like, what colour it has and what shape it is. I would like to know what it weighs, where exactly it stands, and to touch it." You will have to imagine the rest of this conversation. If one person tried to prove and the other just stayed in the question all the time, and presented any argument in the form of a question and demand of proof, it would soon be clear and maybe even admitted that the Government is not a part of the physical reality, but is a fiction.

If one cannot use a question, one can at least word things in such a way, that the burden of proof still rests upon the other one.  Don't say "I am not Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, I am a living breathing man and I am not liable for anything you claim Mr. KENT BENGTSSON has done".  Instead say something like "As I understand it, the accused in this matter, Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, is some kind of government created legal fiction or juristic person and not the living man you are speaking to now. I have seen no irrefutable proof that I acted in the capacity of this fiction at the time of the alleged contravention, and I believe no such proof exists.".  Again putting the burden of proof on them. Then maybe follow up with the question "Does anyone here, now in this room, have any such proof?" Give them three opportunities to provide it or forever hold their peace, and discharge the matter.

You will also find that people working for various official bodies will come up with all kinds of things you "must" do, or make claims as to how things are.  Just turn it all around on them and counter with something like "OK, I accept your statement - as long as you provide me with a written sworn statement that this is true, as well as a sworn promise that you in you full private capacity will be surety for that claim and compensate me for any loss or injury, should you in any way be wrong in your claim."  Then watch and see them go quiet.

I do not know how many times I have asked officials to guarantee something in that way. But I know how many have done it - NONE!  They know deep in their hearts that is all bullshit and that the facts are on the moon. They probably have enough shit on their plate in their job as it is, without now taking personal responsibility and liability for what they say or do

Another little "trick" is to avoid obeying a direct order. If a Policeman, Judge, security guard, etc. tells you to do something, such as "Step out of the car please", "Stand up",  "Show me some identification", it may become unpleasant if you just refuse, but if you comply, your compliance is likely to be interpreted as you voluntarily submitting yourself to their "authority". So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
A simple, gentle and honourable way to deal with such a situation, without giving away your sovereignty, is to ask them as if you did not hear their command "Would it be alright if I stepped out of the car?", "Do you mind if I stand up now?" or "Would you like to see my declaration of identity?".

That way you are not obeying their order, but rather, your own suggestion. Thus you have not given up your rights and independence. You stay in control of the conversation.  I think it was Brandon Adams of Creditors in Commerce that first came up with the observation that the word "Asking" can be split into two words "As" and "King". So when you ask the questions you are acting "as King" and you retain your sovereign position. Who answers questions? Subjects do.

Look at it as a kind of mental Judo. In Judo you take the force of the opponent and use it against him.

When you oppose, when you fight, you are trying to stop something coming at you. Which means you will be hit. Better to kind of step aside and let the blow miss you, while maybe you put a leg out and trip the attacker.  Do it with a friendly attitude and an honest smile on your face, addressing the man or woman behind the title - appealing to their humanity and good sense - and you may have gained a friend instead of a foe.

Hope this helps someone.


Here is an excellent example of how to apply the above. Note that he does not answer questions, but questions back. Also he does not attack the officers personally, just the stupidity they come up with.

New Blog page about Conspiracy Stuff

I just added a new page to the blog.

"Conspiracy Stuff"  see the tabs above.

This blog is not really about conspiracy, but rather what to do to deal with the effects of a larger conspiracy that is being played out on the population of Earth. But it serves us to know what we might be up against or what we may have to deal with one day.

I rather see that you read a book on Contract Law, than all the stuff I have linked to on that page.

But if you feel like putting your feet up and just be entertained a bit, knock yourself out. This beats TV at least.

If you get through all that with your sanity intact, at least there will not be much that surprises you any more.

Enjoy!

PS. As I come across relevant material, I will add it to this page. So if this interests you, it might be worth checking back now and then.

Open Letter to "Authorities"

Below is a letter I put together some years ago in the UK.

The purpose is to get "Public Servants" to reflect over their role and the validity of their belief that their title or job gives them the right to order their fellow man around - especially when that fellow man has not done any harm or violated any agreement.

I put it here so that those who want to copy it and/or alter it to fit some specific situation can do so.

It can also be used to give to unquestioning "Order-followers" or "Law-followers" so  they get something to think about. You know those people, without which there would not have been any wars, false information spread, imprisonment of peaceful people, enslavement, etc.

Here is the letter:

An Open Letter to all that believe they have the authority to command a peaceful fellow man:

You have been given this paper since you seem to demonstrate by your actions or words that you believe that you have the right or authority to command the person who sent you or gave you this

– whether that person agrees or not.

I want you to read and consider the points below thoroughly, and then in your own words explain again how you have the right to do what you claim you can do.

Here is a series of assumptions or self evident truths, that seem to be held as true by most people:

1. All men (man: a flesh, blood and soul member of mankind no matter what sex or age) are created by a creative force or creator, such as Nature or some Divine Entity.
2. All men are born equal and with equal natural rights to life, liberty, peace, free will, interaction with other men, property, self defence, etc.
3. No man is born a slave. The corollary of this is that no man is another man's master. This leads to the conclusion that no group of men (no matter how large or small) can exert its will over another man (or group of men) without his/their consent.
4. Man created fictional things such as man-made laws, Nations, Governments, Municipalities, Courts, Military, Police forces, Corporations, Banks, Trusts, Money, Negotiable Instruments,  etc. to facilitate a functional society. All these fictions are there to serve and protect man, not to rule him or lord over him. These fictions, being words on paper in essence, can in and of themselves do nothing, and are given life by living men playing a role as an actor within that fiction. Thus all responsibility for anything a fiction does confers on the man acting out a role within it. Harming a living man not partaking in the same fictional game, does not alleviate the man doing the harming, just because he happens to play a role within a fiction at the time in question.
5. The Creator is always senior to the Created. The Creation can never be superior to its Creator. The fictions in the previous point are all CREATIONS and as such are subservient to a living man.
6. A man will forfeit his natural rights when he steps upon those rights of another man. Thus he who harms, steals, deceives one or more of his fellow men, has by his actions given up his sovereign natural rights to life, liberty, possession, etc. in that regard, and opened himself to be punished, controlled by the other men of his society or the rules they have agreed upon.
7. A man can by agreement or contract give up his natural rights in certain circumstances, such as when he choose to play a role in one of the fictions listed in the fourth point above. (If he agrees to take a position in a Government or a Corporation, he then agrees to follow its rules and be subjected to the will of those holding a position superior to his own in that organization – but only when he is on the job, performing a function of that fiction and being paid for doing so. When he acts as a private living man outside any such agreements, he is in full possession of his natural rights and is not subject to any man made rules. He is considered to be outside of the fictions if he is not acting under the contract of employment and is not getting compensated for his time performing a function of the office held.).
8. Each man is ultimately responsible for his own actions, this means that no fiction can be responsible for anything. Acts done in the name of a fiction were done by a man acting for the fiction, that man stands as surety for the fiction and is responsible for his own acts and answerable to his fellow man.
9. A fiction is in its essence an idea or belief that only exists in words or thought. It is a product of the minds of men. It has no presence in the tangible universe, and thus is of a lesser standing than anything tangible. A living man is tangible. He is to the fictions in point four, what Nature or God is to him.
10. If you claim I have to obey your orders or any rules you believe apply to me in regards to the matter at hand, please produce the agreement or contract and the schedule of work and the payroll showing I am getting paid for performing what you claim I must do, or some document that proves that I agreed to do what you call for without compensation.
11. A man with clean hands and a pure heart, who have done no harm to another man and who is acting in his private natural capacity outside any fictional office, can not be subjected to another man's will or the rule of any man-made fiction.
12. Since the fictions listed in point four are all subservient to its creator – man, and since they were created to support man and protect his natural rights, they cannot change their form to one where they cause harm to man or violate his rights, and still be considered lawful and valid.
13. A fiction deriving its existence and form from the men that created it, can not gain any right or authority those men did not each one possess individually. As man has no right to harm, steal from, deceive, murder, imprison, etcetera, any other man in full possession of his natural rights, thus no fiction can possess the right to harm, steal, deceive, murder, imprison, etc. any such man.

You have been given this from one man to another. If you believe the assumptions in the points above are false, please explain how that is – using only logic or easily proven points. Remember, as men, you and I are equal and no so called authority applies. Unless you can prove I am a slave and you or someone else is my master.

As regards the matter at hand. I was not acting as someone holding an office or function within a fiction at the time. I was acting in my private capacity as a living man of the tangible universe, answerable to no man or man-made fiction. I did, as far as I know, not cause harm to any man or put anyone at risk or danger at the time, so there is no cause of action for anyone to interfere or meddle in this matter. If you have an injured party in form of a fellow man, please produce it.

In Peace...

- - - - - - - - - - -

Now watch this video to get some more logic and arguments on following Orders or Laws.

This one is also excellent with lots of stuff on this and related matters.