The Search for Truth, and a Reflection on the Rabbit-Holes Explored Along the Way

Even as a teenager, I always suspected the world was not as it seems. I knew I was being lied to and deceived, yet had no way to prove it. As a young man I was very angry and spiteful at the world.

This attitude started an epic journey that began with embracing the radical ideas of communism. I attempted to discuss the virtues of communism with my father, a man that served 20 years in the United States Marine Corp. As a Vietnam veteran that had been awarded two purple hearts (courtesy of commie shrapnel both times), my father didn't have much patience for my ignorant views. My approach was far from diplomatic, so I blame myself for failing to establish a respectful dialogue where we could both discuss the merits and pitfalls of communist ideology. Both of us were heavily emotionally invested in our positions to the point where a calm rational discussion wasn't possible. Luckily, another huge influence on my life would open my eyes to the horrifying pitfalls communism has. An eccentric high school history teacher enlightened me to the suffering, death, and destruction caused by totalitarian communism. She explained the horrors the people of Red China and The Soviet Union endured, and the severe lack of freedoms that the people of The United States seem to take for granted.

Having realized human nature made the mythical collectivism where everyone has an equal outcome was impossible, I pivoted to another flawed collectivist ideology: Socialism. Once again, my history teacher showed me the dangerous tyrannies that can thrive under a collectivist ideology, by teaching me about Hitler and how he rose to power in a country he wasn't even a native of. Utilizing scapegoats to unite his citizenry behind him, which in modern terms is called identity politics, Hitler terrorized his neighboring countries under the premise of making Germany great again. I also started to realize bureaucracy even in my own government was woefully inefficient at helping the less fortunate, and that money flowed much more quickly and efficiently from private charities to help those in need. Not all charities, just the ones that minimized the existence of an inherently parasitic administrative bureaucracy. That being said, it seemed preferable to have an inefficient private charity that people voluntarily gave to rather than an inefficient government that coerced it's citizens with threat of force to pay taxes. At least there was a chance that a private charity could be efficient. I was starting to understand that even the most benevolent of governments would attempt to preserve it's place in society by encouraging dependency upon it. At the time, I considered this hard truth a necessary evil, so I once again searched for an ideology that could make the world a better place to live.

Still buying into authoritarian ideas, I went on to explore conservativism. I opened my mind to Republican Party ideas, and found some of what was being preached to be valid. I agreed that government should be as small and efficient as possible, so that people may maximize their prosperity. Fiscal conservatism seemed like a no-brainer at this point in my life, but I soon realized not many Republicans actually embraced that idea. This was around the time Neo-cons, which weren't really fiscally conservative at all started to gain power in our country. I was horrified to realize the out of control military spending wasn't much different than the out of control social program spending Democrats advocated. This was the moment I realized we were all being subjected to a false dichotomy, as both major parties were not fiscally conservative, were not interested in preserving liberties of the people they serve. They were essentially two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

I also never truly embraced the ideas of social conservatism. It seemed to me if we were going to call ourselves the land of the free, we shouldn't be intolerant of people that have different values. As long as people expressed themselves peacefully, I saw no harm in alternative lifestyles. It amazed me that conservatives would always drone on about the virtue of free markets, yet had no desire to apply those free market principles to the realm of ideas. The way I saw it, if the nuclear family was the best way for humans to organize themselves, that's exactly what we would do naturally, without coercion from government. This prompted yet another shift in political beliefs, which regarded the right as authoritarian warmongers, and the left as authoritarian hatemongers. The right always seemed hell-bent on foreign interventionism, while I wanted us to mind our own business. The left was starting to embrace identity politics, which I knew led to a divided more easily controlled citizenry. The dire words of warning from George Orwell in Animal Farm and 1984, as well as Ayn Rand in Anthem, had also caused me to reject authoritarianism altogether, while simultaneously helping me realize why so many people embrace it.

The next political ideology I explored was libertarianism, which seemed to embrace everything I agreed with from both major parties. Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and socially tolerant. They embraced many values that I do, such as the non-aggression principle, the smallest government possible, and the idea that there can be no crime without a victim. This also gave me my first exposure to the intriguing ideas of anarchists like Lysander Spooner. I wanted very much to embrace anarchism, but I soon realized human nature made those lofty ideas impossible to establish in the real world. I've elaborated on this thought in a previous blog called "Why Anarchy is Just as Much of a Pipe Dream as Communism."

My exploration of libertarian and anarchist ideas led to many awakenings about the world in which I live. I was starting to teach myself legalese, and study codes and legislation. I was trying to find a way to liberate myself from the authoritarian society I had been born into. Then, one fateful night while channel surfing, I came across a local cable access show called Info Wars.

This was not the Info Wars or the Alex Jones we know of today. This was back when Jones had just made a name for himself by infiltrating Bohemian Grove, capturing video of elitists participating in weird pagan rituals like the cremation of care in the shadow of the 40 foot tall stone owl. His infiltration video is still on YouTube if you're interested in watching it.

Jones was the first man I saw willing to question the origin of terror attacks and the validity of the official story. I credit Jones for my understanding of false flag operations, how they work, why they work, and that our government has admitted to engaging in them. I'll never embrace Alex Jones and Info Wars as I once did, as Jones seems to have transformed himself into a character that contradicts himself. The Alex Jones I first discovered never would have embraced Donald Trump as much as he does today. When I first discovered him he seemed to understand the more powerful and ever-expanding federal government was an ever-widening avenue for tyrants to rise to power. For whatever reason he seems star-struck by the current administration, and more than willing to "kiss the ring." The reason I bring Alex Jones up is to acknowledge the influence he had on me to question authority, question sacred cows, question the system and its purpose. He gave me the ability to see the rabbit-holes, and also made me realize I would need to explore them for myself. Taking his word as truth for anything was just as foolish as taking the government's. It was up to me to figure this world out, and that's a lesson I desperately needed at the time.

The first rabbit hole I decided to explore for myself was the sovereign citizen movement.  I was ignorant at the time how oxymoronic the term sovereign citizen is.  I studied, but never tried their methods, because I couldn't find anyone that had used their methods successfully.  This is where I really got serious about studying legalese, because while sovereign citizens failed in court, they did seem to understand at least some of the deceptions of the legal society's language.  I was surprised to find that the "strawman" sovereign citizens refer to was real.  This deception can be more easily understood once you know the legal definition of the word "person."  The mistake the sovereign citizens make is to try to eliminate that person, which basically exiles them to a life outside of any modern society.  

I found fantastical theories in my explorations.  One theory I've found unprovable is that the entire world is owned and controlled by the Vatican and/or the Monarchy of England.  The premise was that we are controlled by 3 independent city-states.  For financial control, the city-state of London, for spiritual control, The Vatican, and for military control, the city-state of Washington D.C.  It was an interesting rabbit-hole, but did nothing to help you free yourself from this supposed tribunal of tyranny.

The next rabbit hole I explored was the Cestui Que Vie Trust, or CQV Trust for short.  This was an intriguing method I did see some men use in court, but I never found evidence that they succeeded in what they were trying to do.  The main idea requires basic knowledge of trust law to understand.  Each court case is a constructed trust created by the court clerk, and by giving that trust the same name as you, the court was tricking you into accepting the responsibility as trustee when you answer to your name.

Another method I explored to liberate myself from government administration was the Socratic method.  I found courtroom audio and video of anarchists utilizing Socratic method in court to challenge jurisdiction.  It's a method championed by Marc Stevens, and has seen limited success in courts.  While I believe these methods may be valuable, they require intense preparation to execute, and quite a bit of courage.  I've never attempted to try these methods myself.

Finally, after all of this exploration, I stumbled across the story and teachings of Karl Lentz.  Lentz is a proponent of common law theory, and seems to have a realistic and principled method for dealing with government intrusions.  He had the state take his child that was born with Down syndrome on the presumption that he didn't want the child.  He lived in a shipping container for 6 years so he could throw as much money as he could at attorneys to resolve the matter.  Finally, he decided the attorneys couldn't help him, and figured out how to stand as a man.  He realized property was merely what is properly exclusive within a society to an individual.  As the creator of his child, he realized claiming his child as property in court was the action needed to end his 6 year battle with the state over custody of his child.  This is because government is supposed to protect rights, including property rights.  He also realized that if you stand as a man instead of a person in court, the court must bow to their creator.  Lentz has countless videos (mostly audio only) of his teachings on YouTube and other places on the web.  I share those videos on this channel frequently, in the hopes that others will embrace the idea to stand as a man instead of a person.  

Unfortunately, I've found evidence that Karl Lentz is not an honest man.  While I don't think that invalidates many of his teachings, it does cause me to question why he would lie at all.  Was he in this game simply to make money?  I'll let you see the evidence here and judge for yourself.

That's my journey so far.  There's no telling what the future may hold, and how many more rabbit-holes I'll find worthy of exploring.  I do my best to remain open to new ideas, as the journey to seek truth may not have an end.  I believe it's a noble path to walk though, so no matter who you are or what you believe, if you're in search of the truth, you are truly an asset to humanity.