Ge inte upp!

Jag har bekännelse att göra. Jag slösar bort en hel del tid på facebook. Ungefär som andra slösar bort en avsevärd del av sitt liv med att titta på TV eller spela dataspel.

Något som slår mig när jag sitter och ögnar igenom allt som folk (mer eller mindre vakna) delar på fejan, är hur mycket av det som är dåliga nyheter, ”false flag events”, krig, oroligheter, våldsgärningar, våldtäkter, korruption, samhällsförfall, masskjutningar, kommande krig, etc. etc. De positiva inläggen är en minoritet jämfört med allt ”jämmer och elände”.

Om jag kommenterar, att detta är att bidra till eländet och befästa det, så får man ofta mothugg eller blir anklagad för att vara blåögd eller blind.

Jag är fullt medveten om hur vissa har manipulerat historien med krig, religion, pengar, revolutioner etc. Det är samma grupp(er) som styrt allt detta i hundratals om inte tusentals år. Deras mål är världsherravälde och de har i det närmaste uppnått detta med det nuvarande systemet där allt ses som bolag, stiftelser, företag, konton, kontrakt, etc. inklusive dig och mig. Och gemene man har blivit så programmerad från barnsben att han inte ser något fel i detta system eller att det kan finnas bättre alternativ.


MEN, alla deras program funkar inte alltid. De försökte ta över världen med Kommunismen. Det gick inte så bra. Kanske var Nazismen också ett sådant försök.


Idag har vi ett stort uppvaknande - både när det gäller hur saker ligger till bakom kulisserna och i andlig eller existentiell mening. Detta är heller inte enligt deras planer, då de tycks gör a sitt bästa för att fördumma, försvaga och droga allmänheten och pracka på oss så mycket teknologiskt skit att vi snartt förlorar vår mänsklighet om detta fortsätter mycket längre.


Men de verkar i det lägre vibrationsområdet, med rädsla, hot, hat, ilska, skräck, oro, panik, etc.

De som vaknar , är först arga övar att de bedragits hela sina liv, men brukar oftast skaka av sig ilskan och koncentrera sig på aktiviteter som vibrerar lite högre, som kärlek, heder, ansvar, mod, sanning, etc.

Känslor smittar. Se bara hur de kan höjas i olika gruppaktiviteter. Gå till en konsert eller föreställning av en artist du gillar, och hela salen eller arenan fylls av en gemensam positiv anda och glädje. Eller se på en demonstration som spårat ur där en pöbelmentalitet sprider sig och uttrycker sig i hat, aggressivitet, vandalism och kanske våld. Genom att sprida huvudsakligen det negativa, problem och elände, så verkar vi på samma nivå som ”eliten” och agerar faktiskt som deras agenter eller förespråkare – även om det inte är vår avsikt.

Om vi istället för att göra vad vi kan för att förbättra situationen, säger "Åh nej! Det kommer att bli KRIG! Alla kommer att ha ihjäl varann, vänner kommer att bli fiender, alla kommer att lida och allt kommer att gå åt helvete - och ur askan av det hela kommer att resa sig en global teknologisk totalitärstat vars like den här planeten aldrig skådat. Allt är förlorat, ve och fasa!" så vibrerar vi på de låga nivåer som "fienden" vill att vi skall hålla oss och på ett andligt plan så främjar vi deras plan och bekräftar att det värsta scenariot kommer att hända - innan det ens hänt.

Hur många krig har inte stoppats, av goda människor som vägrade trycka på knappen? Som med risk för sina egna liv gjorde val som gagnade alla och gick emot elitens planer.

Just nu verkar vissa starka och inflytelserika stater sätta sig emot elitens planer (om det är så eller detta bara är ett annat skådespel, får tiden utvisa) som Ryssland och kanske Kina och Indien. Det som talar för att det är verkligt är att eliten genom sin väpnade avdelning (USA och NATO) håller på att provocera Ryssland och genom sina media-kanaler och marionetter i olika regeringar (som Sveriges) kör en förtals kampanj emot Ryssland.

Det verkar som om eliten håller på att bli desperat, eftersom de tycks överge sitt långsamma "en bit i taget" program och trappar upp false flag event, masskjutningar, flyktingströmmar, lagstiftning, finansiellt förfall, etc. för att dra in oss i en stor kris i en nära framtid. Detta visar att de är rädda och desperata.

Även om det blir en rejäl kris eller ett stort krig, så betyder det inte med säkerhet att de kommer att vinna. Kanske är det något sådant som behövs för att väcka de sovande massorna. Bara för att det blir ett krig, så vet man inte med säkerhet vad som blir slutresultatet och vem eller vilka som kommer att stå segrande i slutändan. Jag stöter ofta på folk som fattat hur allt hänger i hop, men som inte engagerat sig eller gör något mer än att prata om dessa saker. Men som troligen skulle ansluta sig till motståndet om det skulle bli en kamp mellan de rådande makthavarna och dem som vill leva i större frihet och självbestämmande.

Det man har sin uppmärksamhet på – det förverkligar sig normalt i ens liv. Detta är lagen om attraktion.

Lägg märke till att den inte säger ”Det man säger sig vilja ha, kommer att uppfyllas” eller ”Det man önskar sig, kommer att hända.” utan ”DET MAN HAR SIN UPPMÄRKSAMHET PÅ”.

Om man är fattig och önskar att man skall få det bättre ställt, men för det mesta oroar sig över att man inte har råd med det ena eller det andra och tycker synd om sig själv för att man har det så dåligt ställt, så har man sin uppmärksamhet på BRIST PÅ PENGAR, vilket är vad man manifesterar i sitt liv, enligt denna lag. Nu är väl detta inte en absolut lag, och jag har mött folk som svär att de gjort allt rätt, utan att ha haft någon framgång. Men för många tycks den verka på ena eller andra sättet.

En annan ”lag” är den pessimistiska ”Murphys Lag” (Om något kan gå fel – så kommer det att göra så). Jag är ingen större anhängare av denna, men har märkt att ofta så föregår den egna tanken andras agerande eller sakers utveckling. En pessimist som inte har förtroende för andra, kanske på något sätt påverkar andra att göra misstag eller får saker att gå fel (bara en hypotes). På samma sätt kanske man kan påverka ett positivt resultat. Om man i förväg tänker ut svar eller lösningar på eventuella uppkommande problem eller kriser, så verkar det som de har en benägenhet att inte hända lika ofta.

Om jag tar en cykeltur utan att ta med pump och punkteringssats, så verkar det som om man är mer benägen att köra över en glasbit eller tagg som ger en punktering. Om man skall träffa någon som brukar förringa eller förlöjliga andra och tänker ut några ”svar på tal” som kommer att täppa till käften på personen i fråga, så blir man ofta överraskad av att personen uppför sig när man träffas.

Detsamma tror jag gäller hur man ser på en framtida eventuell kris. Ha gärna attityden att det goda i människan kommer att förhindra de allvarligaste konsekvenserna, men ta gärna steg som skulle mildra en sådan kris för egen eller de närmastes del. Ha ett lager med mat som kan lagras en längre tid. Ha en vattenreserv eller medel att göra vatten från vattendrag drickbart. Håll dig på god fot med släktingar på landet och kanske gör något avtal med dem om att kunna flytta dit om allt går åt helvete ett tag. Skaffa lite camping prylar så du kan laga mat om elen försvinner. Etc. etc.

Sätt dig och tänk dig att samhället faller samman för en tid, och att du inte kan räkna med att det finns el, vatten, värme, mediciner, mat, hushållsartiklar, hundmat, etc. tillgängligt eller att köpa. Ta sedan åtgärder som skulle hjälpa i en sådan situation.
Så duka inte under för alla invitationer till hat eller rädsla, utan var positiv och hitta andra som är likasinnade i din omgivning. Men var på samma gång inte så naiv att du inte tror att något ont inte kommer att hända. Pumpa reservdäcket, så att säga.

Ett annat alternativ om du inte känner att du nödvändigtvis måste bo där du är, är att flytta till ett ställe där du troligen skulle vara tryggare. Inom eller utom Sverige. Själv bor jag i Sydafrika nu. Det har sina problem med fattigdom, brottslighet, hög mordfrekvens, opålitliga regn, etc. men när jag ser det som sker i Europa och mellan USA, NATO och Ryssland, så är jag faktiskt glad att jag inte är där längre.

Låt oss hålla oss positiva och verka för en bättre och rättvisare värld. Det kan lika gärna gå åt det håller som åt det andra – om vi bygger i den riktningen, både i tanke och handling.

Kent

PS. Här är en videosnutt som talar om hur mänskligheten är mer medveten idag än någonsin. Jag är ingen större Alex Jones beundrare, men detta är inte hans ord så mycket som en tjänstemans.

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.

Make your own ID

This is about how we can identify ourselves the way we like – without stepping into some presumed or assumed role within the fiction of THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, or wherever we happens to be. Se the article “The difference between you and yourself” if this seems confusing.

I have written a bit in this blog about how we have two sides to us. One which really is us - a living man or woman (hereafter I will use “man” to mean a member of mankind, which includes women) who can do all sorts of things - which can be seen and touched, and an artificial Person who exists only on paper and in the man-made fantasy world that only resembles reality, and which only contains things dreamed up by man, which we hopefully agree with.

.

One could illustrate this by mentioning the laws that say what you can and cannot do in traffic. The laws exist only on paper. They have no basis in reality. They are dreamed up by people. When people later act in accordance with these laws on our physical roads, this is then something that takes place in the physical reality. The law is a theory, the practising of it, is a real action.

Your passport, driving license, ID card, etc. are all papers that identifies your artificial "Person", and connects you to it. Since your "Person" has a name that seems to be the same as your name, most people think the artificial person and they are one and the same thing. But if you think about this a little bit, I think you will realize, this is not the case.

I listened once to an interesting program about children who had been taken care of by animals. One case was a girl born to drunken parents in Russia. One day she crawled away and was adopted by some wolves and lived with them until the age of 4. As a wolf-child she had no name or social security number. She could not talk, but probably understood the wolves' language. She was a human being but not a person (perhaps there was a name of a missing person somewhere in some archives - but as long as she lived in the wild with her wolves there was no connection.

THE PERSON EXISTS ONLY WITHIN THE FICTITIOUS HUMAN SOCIETY!!!

I do not want to be seen as a person within the artificial society, but rather as a living, breathing man of nature, which only temporarily parttake in the game which takes place within the artificial world of credit, commerce, documents, titles, laws and regulations, etc. - when I choose to do so. I realized that Dean Clifford was right when he said, "If you show an ID card issued by the government, you therefore acknowledge that you exist and operate within that artificial world and all its laws and regulations apply to you."

Therefore, I got this idea to create my own Identity Document. I have a paper like the section below, in the car, or which I take with me to court hearings, to assert my special position, if I feel the need to. I do not take it to the tax office, or when I go to open a bank account - because then I am acting as my Person within their system and can only be seen as a "Person".

And when I write to authorities or companies trying to blackmail me into giving up some cash, I often include a copy, to make clear that I am addressing them as the man I am and do not subject myself to their supposed "authority".

I have used the ID below mainly in correspondence in the UK, but also in one interaction with the police and in Courts. It has been seen by lawyers, Clerks of Courts, Judges and various police officers. Not one has ever challenged it or the data in it. Some has commented on it, but most prefer to ignore it. They ignore it because they are acting within the realm of fiction, and this document asserts my standing and rights, with me standing outside their world.

Here is my own ID documents. A little longer than an ID card, because I do not want any unexpressed assumptions in the picture:

DECLARATION OF IDENTITY

All words carry the meaning assigned by undersigned.

I am an immortal spirit who is present on the Earth and in the realm of the tangible through a male body of the species Homo Sapiens.

I am “Me” as defined above. I am not a name. I am not my body. I am not anything man made.

My body is the product of Life/Nature/God. Allegedly birthed by my mother the 30^th day of March 1956 in a taxi somewhere north of Gothenburg in Sweden. My mothers name is Lizzy and my fathers name is Bengt. Them as well as me, are of the family line that bears the name “Bengtsson”.

The name my parents gave me was Kent, and as a backup Erik.

These names are not to be confused with the name of the Legal Fiction/Corporation/Trust/Juristic Person Mr. Kent Bengtsson, KENT ERIK BENGTSSON, Mr. K. BENGTSSON, or any other name, spelling or capitalization variation thereof. It is my understanding that I am the chief creator of that entity and the one with the paramount interest in same – the Settlor & co-Beneficiary, or Main Shareholder, depending on the law form it is seen in.

As a man created by Nature and acting in the realm of the tangible Universe, I recognize no power superior to me, other than which created me.

Since I was not created by any man (Man: A member of the Human Race, no matter what sex or race) or man made group, I do not recognize any man or man made fiction (such as man made Law, a Government or any International Organization, such as the European Union or United Nations) to have any authority over me (except by express agreement) as long as I do no harm and respect the natural rights of my fellow man. Nor am I aware of having entered into any agreement, willingly, voluntarily and knowingly, with any man or such a fictitious entity, to be subject to his or it's asserted authority, rules or laws at all times.

If you claim authority over me, please produce proof of claim or a damaged party (in the form of another fellow man) that I have harmed through my action or inaction, for whom you are acting.

If you have a claim against the Legal Fiction/Corporation/Trust MR KENT BENGTSSON, please provide proof that I was involved in the action that led to the charge and that I acted as this legal entity at the time of the alleged offence, and not in my sovereign capacity as a living man.

If you violate my natural inalienable human rights without producing proof of claim or an injured party, you are causing me harm, and may be dealt with accordingly.

I seek to live in peace and balance with my fellow man and other life forms with whom I share this Earth.

As a creature of this Earth, I understand it is my right to travel this Earth freely, whether on land, water or in the air, by any mode of transport I chose, as long as I do no or minimal harm to my fellow creatures of this Earth. I do not see how any man made fictitious entity, such as a Government, has any right to interfere with my right to roam the Earth, and believe no such right exists.

Please Turn Over

This is a picture of the face of my body:                          This is my body's right thumb print, made in                                                                                                            it's blood:

                                                                                           No permission is granted to extract DNA

                                                                                           from this blood.

These are samples of how I may sign

my autograph:

The above is true according to my understanding at the time of autographing this Declaration.

Sworn and autographed under my own private unlimited liability, this ________ day of _______ 2016 (Two Thousand and Sixteen, AD) :

Before these two witnesses, who knows me:

- - - - - - - - - - -

You may copy this document in order to make your own, if you like.  Just make sure you delete all data that are referring to me or my person.  Feel free to alter it to suit your beliefs and views of the world.

And last, as well as least,

and for no particular reason,

some music: