Monday, 27 June 2016

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.



Saturday, 18 June 2016

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.

Friday, 17 June 2016

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.


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.

Monday, 13 June 2016

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.

Saturday, 11 June 2016

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.


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:


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 30th 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:

Are we living in reality or a dream world?

When I read what people share, post or write in various facebook groups or forums, what strikes me the most is how firmly we seem to be stuck in the conviction that everything we see and hear and are surrounded by, is real and true.

So I'm going to keep repeating the main line running through this blog. Maybe if I say it in different ways over and over again, it is easier to understand. I know of course that many already understand, but we need to be many more than we are today, if we are to get anywhere.

If there is one thing we humans are good at, it's making things up. We get ideas and we convince others of the value of these ideas. Ideas can be incredibly powerful. They have changed history. They have created prosperity and peace, and they have led people to slaughter each other like animals. They have created new civilizations and they have brought down empires.

But what all ideas have in common is that they are a phenomenon of our minds. They only exists in our heads.

These ideas can then manifest in the tangible world, by our actions and what we create. The idea that "it is best if we all drive on the same side of the road" is an idea - the fact that we do so is a result of this idea or this agreement. When many adopts a certain idea and act in accordance with it, we have an agreement.

In the same way, I can come up with an idea of ​​how I would like to build a house. If a house should results from this, this house would not be my idea - it would be the physical result of it. Now you might very well yawn, dear reader and say "For Gods sake, that's obvious. Don't you have anything better to say? ".

But if I were to say that "There is no other real law than the laws of Nature" or "The Government does not exist in reality, it is only a ghost in our minds." then there might be a different response.

"But if I break the law, I can get arrested, convicted, fined or imprisoned, and that is real. Therefore, the law must be real." No, the man (or woman) acting as a police officer, the man who acts as a prosecutor, the man who acts as judge and all the other people involved (usually yourself included) are all acting with the same conviction or agreement regarding a particular idea - for example that it is wrong to strangle mother in law. The law that says that you shall not murder, only exists on paper (which is the recording of an idea) and in our minds. Most agree that it's best if we do not kill each other, and therefore it was written down as a human agreement / law. But this "law" has no physical traceability, unlike the Law of Gravity or the Law of Cause and Effect. People actually kill each other all the time, all around the world, so is not a Natural law. Now I picked murder as an example here. It could just as easily been income tax or TV license.

The same goes for the Government. "But it is real" I hear someone say. The people who are acting in different positions in the government are real. Their clothes are real. The buildings they use are real. The computers, staplers, pens, telephones, etc. are real - but the government itself is nothing more than an idea which has many followers. These people are just people like you and me (maybe just a little more brainwashed or dishonest).

One can't see the wood for all the trees, it is said. It is not easy to see anything other than what you think you see. Whatever one is doing or is involved with, is what is most real to oneself, for the time being. When I first came to my regiment when I did my military service, I thought, "These people are crazy." But after a few weeks, I stomped in the line like everyone else, and played in their games (although I might have been a little more of a rebel than most).

Now you can of course say that "Reality is what we agree on, or regard as real" and I suppose that is in a way true. What I mean when I say "real" here is "A physical reality." Most agree that, that which can be seen, touched and otherwise perceived, is more real that a product of the mind alone.

But let's take a look at how we as people arrange our lives and use fictions (ideas, convictions, beliefs, agreements, etc.) in our daily lives and in our interaction with each other.

Why not start with your name. Are you your name? If a police officer is holding up paper with your name on it and ask "Is this you?" What will you answer?
The name is a fiction, which was conceived so that we in our language (also a fiction) could distinguish one from another. It is a symbol or label we carry around. But we are not the label or symbol, neither in the form of a sound combination or letter combination. We are who we are. We are like a joker in a deck of cards - we can play any role in the game of life - limited only by our own thoughts and considerations (and perhaps some physical attributes and IQ).

If we were telepathic, we would not have to go through these unwieldy constructs - language and names. If we mastered telepathy fully, I would be able to convey all the images, sensations and feelings I wanted to a receiver. I would not have to say a person's name to make clear who I mean. I could convey how the person looks, smells, moves, thinks, laughs, and sounds. The recipient of my communication would have a much more accurate picture of who I meant than if I just said a name.

Right now, practically everyone, sees the present society as something big, something established, something firm, something very real and tangible. But is it really so?

Look at all the former empires, kingdoms, religions, trade empires, forms of government, etc. They all ceased to exist one day (perhaps with the exception of a small minority of people, who still carried a faith or belief). That day was the day when almost no one believed in it any more, and it had lost all practical importance.

No one, or very few, still believe in the old Nordic Gods, or that they are going to Valhalla when they die. But not so long ago this was very real and true for most Scandinavians.
Nor does the Persian Empire exist today, or the Ming Dynasty. People stopped believing in them long ago. The Romans Trading Empire is no more (some claim it transformed itself into a religion, and continued to exercise it's power through the Catholic Church, but this would in that case be a newer "Empire" in a different form). It slowly fell apart from within (those who previously believed in that idea and agreement, stopped doing so) and it could not find enough "believers" to keep it all together.


Today we have a society in decay. It is approaching slowly but surely the point where enough people will want to get rid of it, or at least drastically reform it. Here are some points that I believe will lead to this:

  1. Over Taxation of the people and waste of public funds, or the use of the people's money to finance things that the people have no interest in or doesn't want to be part of.
  2. Stealing the people's common property by the State by selling land, mineral resources, etc. to private or foreign companies. One can not give away or sell what one does not own. The state is supposed to be a trustee of, not an owner of our nations resources.
  3. Our public servants that we hired to take care of certain functions in our society starts to behave as if they are our bosses or slave-owners. Officials are acting as if their words and will are all the law that we have today. They decide how much we have to pay to a private company to drive on our own motorways that we already paid for and still pay for with petrol taxes. They fill Government Offices with staff that are not getting their jobs done, because computers and copy machines are broken for lack of money – but there always seems to be money to pay all these staff. We are treated like immature children without rights, responsibility or common sense.
  4. We are moving rapidly towards a society where people are no longer needed, as machines can do what we do better and cheaper. We already have self-driving cars that have been tested for hundreds of thousands of miles in the United States. They do not get tired, they will not be distracted and they have less accidents. It is only a matter of time until most commercial traffic and a fair bit of private travel, will be managed by trucks, buses and cars that drive themselves. Factories populated by robots and maintenance staff. Nanotechnology and 3D printers will provide many essentials and gadgets in our homes and offices. The rich need us no longer as labour. Few things upset people so much as when they are not needed any more - especially if they can not earn a living any more.
  5. When the protection of the law and the principle that everyone has the same freedoms and rights and are equal before the "law" no longer seems to apply in practice, then the authorities, the police and judiciary becomes instruments of oppression, rather than a guarantee of justice.
  6. The monetary system is designed so that the debts, interest and turnover must grow all the time for the wheels to continue to go around. A small elite have manipulated things so that they now control the economy, and are earning obscene amounts while most are getting poorer today than they were ten or twenty years ago. This leads to an imbalance that can derail the whole society. Our money system today, where "money" is created by issuing loans, which must be paid with interest, which there is no money for, (as the money for the interest is not created) means that more and more loans need to be issued all the time. Mathematically, this means that our money system is designed to burst one day. That day is probably not far away.
  7. The real power in today's world lays neither with the people or the governments they allegedly elect, but with those few that control world finance and trade. The IMF, Bank of International Settlements, The Crown Corporation of the City of London, The large Multinational Corporations, to mention some. They control the governments, the Courts, the National Banks, the making of laws, education, health care, media, the military, licencing, etc. They care not for the people of the World, but only for themselves and their owners.
I could go on, but I think you can see what I mean.

When an idea, such as a society no longer benefit the majority of its supporters, it will soon be abandoned. Force it on people, and it will end very unpleasant.


What I want to make people realize is that everything we have in the form of organization of society, is nothing more than ideas. These ideas have no physical presence. They exist only in our heads and in writings on paper or in computers. Therefore, they do not exist without us and our consent.

You and I were created by Nature, God or some other creative force, which we do not fully know or understand. We are our Creators Creation. Laws, governments, municipalities, courts, police, military, money, corporations, UN, IMF, etc. are all our creations (created by man). The Creator is always superior to the Creation. Therefore, logically speaking no human fictions can be binding on a person without his or her consent. See other posts in this blog if you do not understand what I mean here. For example: "The difference between you and yourself" "What is South Africa" "A different ID document" and "Open letter to "Authorities".

Freedom begins, like everything else, with an idea. The idea that you are your own master, and no one else is so. Now you can act according to that idea and start taking control of your life and try to find other like-minded people and get a "freedom ball" rolling, or you can choose to remain a voluntary slave, to people who neither deserve or are entitled to our submission . We all have different circumstances. But if no one is throwing off its chains, it will not get any better. And if one day you find yourself powerless and controlled like a machine, remember that once you had the choice to not let it go there.

I hope you will come with us, and begin to learn how you can cut the shackles you and your parents put on your legs. It starts with seeing the difference between reality and thoughts and to realize what and who you are.

Saturday, 4 June 2016

What is South Africa?

This may at first glance seem like a stupid question. Of course, we all know what South Africa is, it is marked out on all maps.

But once we start thinking a bit deeper about this, is the answer that simple? What REALLY is “The Republic of South Africa”???

Is it a land mass with its territorial waters, or is it something else?

If you were a tern flying between the South Atlantic and the North Atlantic in your annual migration patterns, would you be aware that you were over a certain country at different times during your move, or would you just see the land and the sea below you? If you were an Eagle who lived north of Upington, would you know that at times you flew over Namibia and other times over Botswana?

I think we can all agree that a country is a human concept, without manifestation in nature.

Before we had the political countries we have today, people lived in groups, with different traditions and perhaps different languages, and if they lived in peace with the surrounding similar groups, they would like some predator have their turf, which they saw as their land. But there were also people who lived completely nomadic, moving over large unpopulated areas and only moved on when the lack of food or wanderlust drove them on.

I have no desire to go into detail on how we came to have what we today call countries. The fact is that we now have a country we call South Africa. But the land itself has been here a lot longer than the human concept “South Africa” and most likely will still be here long after mankind has passed into oblivion. Maybe one day there will be just one Government for the whole planet. Then too, South Africa will be gone, or just seen as a province.

What I want to show here is that South Africa is not so much a land mass as an idea commonly held by a group of people.

If South Africa was the ground we walk on, how can South Africa have laws? Can the ground write laws?

We sometimes hear politicians say things like "In this society," or "our modern society".
The dictionary defines "society" as: "A group of individuals standing in mutual, voluntary, often regulated relationships to each other and acting in the common interest of all members". So does it not seem like South Africa, is more a society, rather than a land mass?

The Dictionary says the word "Country" means:
A: A nation or State.
B: The territory of a nation or state, land.
C: The people of a nation or state. .

So, it is not so much the land mass as such, but the claim a group is making upon it, which makes up one aspect of a country. To find a comparison in the animal kingdom, the land mass a pride of lions considers its territory, has nothing to do with a pack of wild dogs territory - even if they overlap. Their territory is the only relevant when it comes to other lions or wild dogs. And these animals are not concerned about what we humans consider to be our “territories” (unless we put up a fence they cannot pass).

So, if a nation is basically an idea or thought that is held in common by a group of people, is it not a kind of imaginary thing, created by the human mind? If South Africa is a society as defined above, can you not then leave this society if you would like, without leaving the land mass?

What would happen if, say a few million South Africans suddenly said, "We have had enough of being robbed of a large portion of what we produce, by taxation and getting very little in return for it. We are sick of seeing our taxes ending up in private pockets while a simple thing like getting a new passport or ID seems to be next to impossible to get. We have had enough of paying for an overgrown state apparatus and millions of employees who seem unable to deal with anything but the most routine tasks, and who in many cases seem capable of little more than drawing a salary. We are sick of blackouts, broken traffic lights, potholes, strikes and seeing out money getting worth less and less on the world market. We are sick of seeing our natural
resources being sold to foreigners, when we could develop them ourselves and create jobs and wealth for our people.
We could create a better society outside of or separate from, what we call the Republic of South Africa. We can create our own currency, which is based on real value, and not like the Rand, created through loans where the money for the interest is not created (which means more and more money must be borrowed all the time - until the bubble one day burst) . We can create our own laws which are simple and sensible enough for everyone to understand. We can do better ourselves! "

If a large enough group decided to do this, it could work, because in the group we would have all the skills and professions represented in order to have our own exchange systems / currency and all goods and services could be provided within our own “alternative South Africa”. The rest of the population would then have two societies to choose from and if ours is perceived as better by most, it would soon become the dominant society.
This may work in a place like this. South Africans are used to make a plan and find solutions one way or another, when those who should really do the job will not do it. Maybe if this started in smaller towns (Like the Ubuntu Party idea) where people all contribute a few hours per week in exchange for electricity, water, sewage, roads, etc. If that worked it could build on from there.

If we were to compare the Republic of South Africa with a company, say, Coca Cola South Africa. If you worked for this company, you would be expected to follow all the rules that apply within the company, when you are at work! When you do the gardening or are taking a walk with the dog, the rules of Coca Cola's has nothing to do with you, for you are not now an employee holding a position and who gets paid for what you do. You are a private man or woman (I try to avoid the word "person" as it has legal meanings of something else than a living being, but rather a role or capacity played out within the fiction of REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA).

If you went around at the headquarters of Coca Cola South Africa, you might see a map somewhere, with the same boundaries as the country of South Africa claims, and with local sales districts plotted in different colours. Does that means that Coca Cola South Africa owns the land that is marked on the map? No, it means that in these lands, we sell the drink Coca Cola. Perhaps for practical reasons Swaziland and Lesotho could be on the Coca Cola South Africa map too. It is simply a map that is used internally to describe the area in which the company operates.

The same applies for the company the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. How can a human idea, expressed on paper, own a piece of Mother Earth, which we share with hundreds of thousands if not millions of other life forms? Is it not rather so that as a society we say that we conduct our business on the demarcated land mass? At the end of this article, I have provided links that seems to prove that THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA is in fact a corporation.

Here is something of local origin, where it is mentioned that South Africa is a  corporation.
This from Thuli Madonsela:- One of her most important findings reads: ‘It is my considered view that the president, as the head of South Africa Incorporated, was wearing two hats, that of the ultimate guardian of the resources of the people of South Africa and that of being a beneficiary of public privileges of some of the guardians of public power and state resources, but failed to discharge his responsibilities in terms of the latter.’

Here is what is allegedly excerpts from US Court Rulings in the past, showing our relationship with the State:

a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction,
and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other
artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance,
is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The
legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law,
agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than
corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."* S.C.R.
1795, **Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall.
54;* and,

b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as
Corporate Entities:

c. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union,
are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an
"individual entity"",* Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed.
1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
So we as people are not really seen or recognized by the government – because fiction cannot see reality (but reality can imagine or “see” fiction). We are seen as PERSONS (read: “juristic person”) and identified as such (one definition of “Identify” is “Make the same as”. From Latin “idem” meaning “same”) with Passports and ID books or cards.

There is both good and bad with this system. The purpose of this article is more to educate about these matters than to judge the system. Whether a system is good or bad mostly depends on the intentions and actions of the people who control it. We could have an utopian society, with the same system if it was run by people that had the good of all in mind.

When it comes to the internal rules and regulations of the company REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, one could easily get the idea that the board of this company tries to get us to believe that we are always on the job and that we at all times, wherever we are, are acting as employees or agents of the company, so that the internal rules that apply in the fiction REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA now always apply in our lives and to whatever we do.

But how can that be? Were we not created by nature, by God (or, as some scientists seem to believe - by a lightning strike in a mud puddle at one time) or whatever it may have been that created the universe and life therein. Didn't people (like you and me) create our nations and societies? How can we in this case be completely devoured by our own creation, to the point that we are constantly in it and must always be subject to it?

But ask yourself this - if I am seen to hold a position within the company REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, where's my salary? If we have to do things without compensation, are we then not slaves? Is not slavery prohibited? Has SOUTH AFRICA not signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, where slavery is a crime against human rights? If we are not slaves, how can anyone or anything to be our master? How can we be anything other than in utter possession of our bodies and our lives, if we are not slaves?

The only other possibility is that we out of our own free will gave up our sovereignty and agreed to do all kinds of things for free for the “juristic person” SOUTH AFRICA and allowed it to fine us when we did not follow all it's crazy rules and regulations (even if our “transgression” did not cause any harm to anyone or anything). The only problem with that is that for that to have happened lawfully we needed to be fully aware of what we did and all the consequences such a decision would have. If that was the case, one should be able to tell When, Where, How and Why such a decision was taken. Can you answer that?

So, if the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA is man made fiction that only exists in thought and words and which is supposed to serve us in certain situations or activities, should it not be a very small part of us and our lives? If you and I sit and talk, it only involves the two of us, and no one else - right? If I help you fix your car as a favour because you helped me with the computer earlier, is it not a private deal between the two of us? But say that I have done more for you than you have done for me, and you ask if I want something for helping to fix the car, and I said, "If you want you can give me a couple of hundred Rands." Then the company called SOUTH AFRICA might be able to say "AHA !!! You use the medium of exchange in force in SOUTH AFRICA, therefore you are seen to be acting within SOUTH AFRICA - so you must comply with all laws and regulations applicable within the corporation the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA and pay a certain percentage of the transaction to the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA for the privilege of conducting business in SOUTH AFRICA (tax ). In addition, as the car is registered in the REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA and thus partly owned by SOUTH AFRICA (you have access rights, but not full ownership - more about this in other sections) the car falls within the jurisdiction of the SOUTH AFRICAN corporation.

Now you might say that we are all registered as SOUTH AFRICAN citizens, and therefore we are all state property. No - our person could possibly be viewed as state property, but how can we, as living thinking people of Mother Earth be so? I would say that it is our person that is registered, and not us as living breathing men and women of this Earth. We may however be seen as the surety for the Person, or the one responsible for it. Like a man or woman performing the duties of a position in the Government. But then we just have that little issue of “What are my scheduled hours?” and “Where is my payslip?”

So if we are not acting in the capacity of our person, but manage ourselves in our private lives, then the legal fiction SOUTH AFRICA cannot argue that we must follow all it's idiotic laws, rules and regulations at all times day and night.

Let me also point out that I do not do what I do to spread anarchy or the “law of the jungle”. When lots of people live close to each other, as in cities and town some agreements will be needed regarding our conduct and what is acceptable and not. There is also a thing that some call Natural Law. Under this heading would fall things that most people see as obvious. For example, "do not murder, do not harm others or their property, do not betray your neighbour, honour your agreements, we all have equal rights, until we lose them by not honouring the rights of others, treat others the way you would like them to treat you, etc." If everyone were honest and responsible, this would be all the law we needed, plus some rules how we behave in traffic and when we do business with each other.

But what we have today in the corporation of SOUTH AFRICA and most other companies that call themselves nations, are millions of rules about everything between Heaven and Earth, which are too many for any single individual to be able to memorise even a fraction of. And you can be forgiven for getting the impression that a lot of these regulations are made to create income opportunities for the SOUTH AFRICAN corporation and its subsidiaries, (municipalities, courts, police, etc.).

I think it is important that we are aware of these things. If you do not understand how something works, you can't do much about it. If you know how cars or computers work, you can fix them yourself if you want. If we know how society works then we can fix it too.

I came to the conclusion some years ago, that if no one says STOP, then within a few generations we have people being totally enslaved - with less freedom than the slaves in the Roman Empire or in the cotton fields in the Southern States before slavery was abolished. Since then I have been looking for answers and solutions. I have come a long way, but still have a long way to go. I just want this to share with you what I learned so far.

That's all for this time. See below on SOUTH AFRICA as a corporation.


I am sure many reader have said to themselves as they read the above “But South Africa is not a corporation!”

Here are two links to pages on the US Securities and Exchange Commissions website, showing REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA listed as a company. What does this mean – why not do some research yourself. Other articles in this blog touches on this and some of the links on the “Conspiracy” page.



C OF SOUTH AFRICA (Filer) CIK: 0000932419 (see all company filings)

IRS No.000000000 | Fiscal Year End: 1231
18-K/A | Act: 34 | File No.: 033-85866 | Film No.: 161573637
SIC8888 Foreign Governments

Here is a video for those who want to research the statements in it.  If the Crown of the City of London is a Corporation, chances are that the "Nations" serving under it are too...

Here is an excellent little video that says in a clear and simple way much of what I try to point out above. Well worth a few minutes of your life. Stefan Molyneux, Words: