Article #1: Transmuting: sWORD // WORDs

TLDR: I am currently hearing lots of talk about (lack of) privacy in bitcoin and as a result, state sponsored attacks. I do not hear anyone discussing how to defend against the likely attacks, which is what I will attempt to do – high level – in a series of short articles. Bottom line is, the state has no evidence to support their claim that the rules apply to me or a citizen. For non-state sponsored attacks, buy a gun.

Introduction:  Welcome to this series of articles attempting to clarify the nature of reality for the purpose of navigating, and ultimately being able to verbally defend one’s self in any situation. This guide is not meant to be an “authority” on the subject; it is my humble attempt to initiate bitcoiners into the Court Game and to sharpen independent thinking. Bitcoiners are one of the most mentally strong group of people I know, so much of what I present in the first few articles may be nothing new. If that is the case I welcome your critique of what I present, and input on strategies as we progress. The knowledge that will be presented originates from many sources and I take no credit for discovering or creating it.

At the time of writing, privacy is lacking on the bitcoin network and new “laws” are being introduced in an attempt to control bitcoiner’s behavior. Some poly-tics are attempting to define bitcoin as “money” while others are trying to define it as an “asset” or “property.” Almost all believe bitcoin is something that can be owned, when in reality, we know a person can only control unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) on the network, which operates on free open source and permissionless software. The dangerous consequences of these man-made “laws” being created is people who use bitcoin will be attacked, taxed, and tracked by the group of people who desire to control others. We must challenge these man-made laws and force them to clarify their claim on the record and in their court.

Satoshi and the Cypherpunks created bitcoin as a tool for people to opt of out of the parasitic nature of the current system, which has been controlling money and people for a very long time. I am pointing this out because the ability to opt out will all be lost if bitcoiners capitulate to the demands of poly-tics and 3rd parties. We must challenge anyone and everyone who tries to encroach on this new liberating technological tool.

To me, bitcoin is a tool that enables freedom, both on the material plane and on the mental plane. On the material plane it allows an individual to store value and interact with others anywhere in the world, without permission. On the mental plane, for those motivated, bitcoin educates users on vast fields of knowledge or adds clarity to the nature of reality.

I should also clarify what I mean by “freedom”. I define freedom as being able to take personal response-ability for all aspects of your life, including actions and interactions with others. The more someone outsources their responsibility to Trusted Third Parties (TTPs) the fewer choices and options they have; and we know TTPs are security holes. Freedom becomes this paradoxical problem where trusting no one will require nearly all your time and ultimately reducing your options. On the other extreme end, taking no responsibility and trusting a TTP like a government to provide safety/resources will result in similar reduced options and ultimately rektage.

The mystery traditions will tell you not to become polarized and to strike a balance. How can we strike a balance and not outsource responsibility to TTPs? When considering freedom, a requirement for success is Independent Thinking. We must OWN our mind. Someone who does not think for themselves is a low conscious being, simply reacting to stimuli. The controlling class knows what stimuli to introduce to cause the non-thinkers to react how they desire. As long as we think for ourselves, when we do trust others, we will be aware of the vulnerabilities or security holes for doing so.

Back to man-made laws, poly-tics, prosecutors, judges, and lawyers.. I get it, going into court and challenging these people’s foundation is dangerous and can be stressful. It may not be for everyone. However, if one chooses to have a state licensed lawyer re-present them, it is important to know the trade-offs and vulnerabilities. For instance, a state licensed lawyer takes an oath not to challenge the courts foundation; with the foundation being the Constitution. Lawyers risk having their licensed pulled and barred from working in the industry if they piss off a judge, by using a strategy in a gray area for instance. Third, they speak for you, period (“power of attorney”). Sure, you can fire them and hire someone else to try to reverse the damage, but that will cost time and money. Worse yet, if you have a public pretender re-present you, they are paid by the same people that are prosecuting you, and the same people who pay the judge. It is common knowledge that most criminal defense lawyers’ strategy is to try to convince the defendant to plead guilty, and most defendants do. 

My intention with these articles is to present the key concepts, tactics, and strategies used to defend oneself against the final boss, a Judge in a court room. These are strategies a typical state licensed lawyer will not attempt, for the reasons mentioned above. It is worthy to note, if one is able to defend against a judge, all other situations will feel like child’s play. I think one of the biggest threats to bitcoiner’s freedom is people who call themselves “government.” Most serious bitcoiners know about the US government confiscating gold in 1933 via “Executive Order 6102,” and we would be naïve to think they will not try again with bitcoin. As I write this, poly-tics are dreaming up new rules to force upon users of a tool in an attempt to reduce freedom. We must challenge these attacks when they come, and not outsource the response to lawyers, who require permission from a fictitious entity known as the “State” to re-present you. No state licensed lawyer will ask the judge to clarify what he means by “1000 dollar fine” – what’s a dollar and where do they come from? This may seem silly, but it is not, and may violate one of their rules about a punishment not involving a 3rd party.

The topics or ideas that I will be sharing will involve but are not limited to psychology, philosophy, communication, and game theory. The format will be in a step wise fashion, with each article building upon the previous ideas presented, and hopefully connecting some dots. My plan is to write and publish once a week and I will often include reference or source material for the reader to further examine. It is important to note, I will be acting as a curator of sorts, and cannot possibly condense a 200 page book into a 2 page summary and do the knowledge justice. I have found summaries to be useful for myself, but they are no substitute for the work needed to deeply comprehend some of these ideas.

The next few topics I will be presenting are the Socratic Method of Investigation, as it is one of the main underlying strategies, followed by analyzing the concept of Authority which doesn’t really exist and is used to control others. Before getting into the actual strategies in defending against bureaucrats, I will discuss the importance of Mind Set and the mental framing required to be successful. Then some game theory before I finally walk you through a high level timeline of what is involved in defending one’s self against a state sponsored attack for a non-violent victimless “crime”. The weeks following the walk through will be a deep dive into each of the events in the timeline to examine what forces are at play, the strategies used to navigate, and possible outcomes.

Once this strategy is mastered, it can be used to defend against any “law” that attempts to criminalize bitcoiners. If a bitcoiner has their wealth properly stored out of government reach, they have huge leverage when defending in this manner.

I welcome feedback and critique. I want these ideas to be challenged and I welcome being wrong. A lot of what is presented in the Court Game is a result of people going into court, trying a strategy and then reporting back to others to analyze what happened, why, and to further strategize. Shout out to Marc Steven’s “parking ticket challenge” to gather information from around the world! It’s important to remember that life is fluid and in a constant state of change, so some of these best practices and strategies may change or evolve over time. There are discord servers dedicated to discussing and sharing ideas and experiences related to the Court Game. If you are interested, I invite you to participate and you will find a link in the related material section to one of the discord servers. We do have a few “haters” who hang out and play the other side, so if that’s your thing, I welcome you as well.

My style will be to try to communicate in as clear and simple language as possible to reduce confusion. I see no value in speaking legalese, either in the court room or in discussions. Due to the deepness and variety of topics presented in this series, and the lack of time to fully communicate the details and nuances, I hope you leave a comment asking for clarification when needed. Depending on the level of clarification needed, I may revisit some topics and go into detail or nuance to clarify; although my intention is to give a high level understanding and hope to motivate those seeking more knowledge to join the discord servers and start engaging as these ideas and concepts are easier to communicate in a voice chat. There used to be regular voice chats with a dozen people practicing and strategizing.

5 Replies to “Article #1: Transmuting: sWORD // WORDs”

  1. You write articles with similar form and verbage to CIA people. I’ve seen this writing style before; it appears to be using psychological tricks to manipulate the reader; normal people just don’t communicate like this. Did you work for the CIA or are you following their guidelines for some reason?

    Its also one of the “ins” for CIA people who are infiltrating a group to begin to try to recruit others so that they “appear as one of the more faithful and active members of the gang because they’re trying to grow the numbers”.

    This deception positions them perfectly in the group to be able to easily recruit other CIA agents and troublemakers. Then they work together with the other agents to rally the group to attack and lead the removal of those troublemakers to gain a leadership position in the gang.

    Then they use their newfound respect to gain a leadership position, and begin to peer pressure or manipulate the group, either to control the group, or to cause internal strife so that they can run power plays to discredit and disempower the original leaders. Thus gaining total control.

  2. “(…)I welcome your critique of what I present(…)”
    Do you really honestly want critique? Well I’ll give it to you.

    Whether you are a manipulator or not I’m going to break down what I see so people can understand why I asked about it.

    The main reason being, if someone explains the manipulation to people it won’t work on them. The metaphor would be,”If I explain a magic trick to people they know the magician did not create a rabbit out of thin air, he is simply hiding a rabbit in his hat.”

    “(…)the resources page and see Marc Stevens, Larken Rose, and Mark Passio would laugh at the thought.”
    Anyone can list them as resources. These people haven’t endorsed you. I’m looking at the “resources” you’re providing with this article, and all I see are word play manipulations.[listed below]

    “(Listed Quote): re-present, man-made laws, poly-tics, defendANTS (LQ:…):”
    This strange wording is something you often see sheisters and other charismatic opportunists using to get you interested in a scam. Its not an indicator of a scam, but rather a clue that the person presenting information is very creative and interested in their wording and
    usually very capable of subtle manipulations with word play.

    When a reader notices it they should be alert for weasel words, false equivalencies, or other
    wordplay manipulations by the writer/speaker.

    “(…)initiate bitcoiners into a higher plane of mentality where they rule and are able to create
    outcomes they desire.”
    “Bitcoiners are one of the most mentally strong group of people I know,(…)”
    If they’re the most mentally strong, why must you initiate them into a higher plane of
    mentality? Praises reader and offers to help you rule in order to get your confidence up and grab your attention; Then it implies the writer is even smarter than you because only through them can you be “initiated in” and thus get into something special that lets you rule! comical

    “privacy is lacking on the bitcoin network and new “laws” are being introduced in an attempt
    to control bitcoiner’s behavior.”
    This essential says “Pay attention! you’re vulnerable!” despite just a bit earlier they claim you’re mentally strong… you must just be vulnerable because you’re uninitiated into this “higher plane of mentality”? Haha! Hardly…

    “The more someone outsources their ability to respond to others (Trusted Third Parties –
    TTPs), the fewer choices and options they have. When we consider the Principle of
    Polarity, we know that freedom is on a spectrum with ‘lack of freedom’ – call it slavery – so we
    can conclude that ultimate freedom often resembles lack of freedom. If you decide not to
    trust anyone in life, you will spend the majority of your time, if not all plugging or monitoring
    security holes; which feels a lot like slavery.”
    Sublty saying,”… but you can trust me”(the writer)
    False equivelency doublespeak;
    (not trusting anyone is like slavery?)
    (freedom resembles lack of freedom?)
    (outsourcing limits your options?)
    There’s little substance to what is being said. Reminds me of a friend who misquotes confucius.

    quote from discord(not in article):
    “Bitcoiners are very sharp, clever, and curious; and they understand game theory and
    incentives (…)”
    No, not particularly, not at all actually. They tend to just be people who range from tech savvy nerds who took the tiniest financial risk and got some for fun, to the trendies who just like the
    idea of using “credits” for currency. I know many bitcoiners who got their inheritance early
    from granny only to invest it all into bitcoin when it was at 15k, or some alt-coin because they had the ridiculous belief it was going to magically skyrocket to 100k by the end of the year and they’d all be millionaires.

    What the author is likely doing with their obviously misplaced praise is fishing for people who are overconfident who have bitcoin savings. These people should be wary of supporting the author with bitcoin.

    “We do have a few “haters” who hang out and play the other side, so if that’s your thing, I
    welcome you as well.”
    Why are you welcoming troublemakers? Why does this this whole article fit the CIA method of operations so well? Like I said before the CIA purposely invites problem people and then attacks them to gain respect within a group.

    If you really wanted to invite people who had doubts, wouldn’t the way to say this be,”If you have an issue you want to bring up and/or disagree please feel welcome to come and discuss your thoughts with us at any time.”
    No… you specifically worded it encouraging troublemakers to join.

    reposting this quote again:
    paraphrase: ~No I’m not CIA and~ “(…)the resources page and see Marc Stevens, Larken Rose, and Mark Passio would laugh at the thought.”
    I don’t think its laughable at all when I’m critically reading what you wrote and your response is to hide behind the credibility of other people. Thats like saying,”I’m not CIA, I work for CNN or NBC.” (google operation mockingbird)

    Readers skim through his article again and ask yourself, exactly what resources does it really give you? I’m looking through it and all he’s providing with this article and all I see are manipulations. I expect more of the same from this author in the future and so should you.

    “I will be acting as a curator of sorts”
    Nobody wants a curator. People want Either
    -A historian-scholar aggregators who collect bulk data on a specific topic and tag it with keywords so that specific parts can easily be found when searched for by normal people, OR
    -Analysts who compile quick FAQ style rundowns that have linked keywords throughout the short article that link directly to the raw supporting data during the article’s summary of it.

    Reader, ask yourself, isn’t that what you actually want? Real information that is properly aggregated and tagged, and short quick articles that link you to the raw data. Sounds like its high quality info served to you on a silver platter because someone did 95% of the footwork for you! Nice.

    Curators tend to be cancerous bureaucrat manipulators who serve as gatekeepers and prevent non-standard, dissenting opinions from getting any reach, OR specifically pursue the position so that they get to pick the winners they want to win and choose the ideas they want to push. Why would you ever want to be that? Icky, Bleck!

    1. “The main reason being, if someone explains the manipulation to people it won’t work on them. The metaphor would be,”If I explain a magic trick to people they know the magician did not create a rabbit out of thin air, he is simply hiding a rabbit in his hat.”

      Right, I am explaining the way people manipulate others with words. The Court Game is suppose to be a place where logic, reason, evidence, and justice is had; however, the people involved like the Judge, Prostitutor and Public Pretender play word games using manipulation tactics.

      “Anyone can list them as resources. These people haven’t endorsed you.”

      Not yet. My point is, why would a CIA agent present the work of people who have been exposing the state to the masses for years?

      ”This strange wording is something you often see sheisters and other charismatic opportunists using to get you interested in a scam”

      Yes, you get it! This is the very nature of legalese and what I am trying to point out. Words are very tricky, especially in a court room.

      ”If they’re the most mentally strong, why must you initiate them into a higher plane of
      mentality?”

      This was written to those who do not come from a place of freedom and independent thinking already. I still see elements of CUCK mentality in regards to the state with lots bitcoiners. Some think other men have a higher claim to their life, liberty, and property than they do.

      “This essential says “Pay attention! you’re vulnerable!” despite just a bit earlier they claim you’re mentally strong…”

      Right, if you are on bitcoin twitter you will see all of the cry babying bullshit about what to do when the State Attacks. The proposed solutions range from running like a little bitch (political arbitrage), hiring lawyers, bribing poly-tics, practice perfect opsec, etc. I don’t see one other person actually entertaining CHALLENGING THE STATES CLAIMS.

      “Sublty saying,”… but you can trust me”(the writer)
      False equivelency doublespeak;”

      Don’t Trust Verify is a meme for a reason. What am I asking people to trust me with? I am writing articles about the concepts about a very niche thing, looking for a few more people who have the balls and the brains to properly challenge the state’s claims.

      “No, not particularly, not at all actually. They tend to just be people who range from tech savvy nerds who took the tiniest financial risk and got some for fun, to the trendies who just like the idea of using “credits” for currency. I know many bitcoiners who got their inheritance early
      from granny only to invest it all into bitcoin when it was at 15k, or some alt-coin because they had the ridiculous belief it was going to magically skyrocket to 100k by the end of the year and they’d all be millionaires.
      What the author is likely doing with their obviously misplaced praise is fishing for people who are overconfident who have bitcoin savings. These people should be wary of supporting the author with bitcoin.”

      The bitcoiners I am writing for are probably a small percentage of the total amount of people who identify as one, and they HATE the state. They are in bitcoin to separate Money from State and are actively working on it.

      RE: Money Fishing: I have spent 100s, maybe in the 1000 of hours in the chats working with others in the Court Game with no expectation of payment and I have donated money to the cause. I do this to combat the criminal state. Again, this is laughable for anyone who knows me or has spoke with me during strategizing sessions.

      “Why are you welcoming troublemakers? Why does this this whole article fit the CIA method of operations so well? Like I said before the CIA purposely invites problem people and then attacks them to gain respect within a group.”

      I am not welcoming troublemakers; anyone who causes trouble is muted or excluded. I welcome haters because we do have some lawyers who come through and try to poke holes into the strategy or tell us why we are wrong. It is useful to have alternate views and they are also helpful for roleplaying judges or prostitutors. Shout out to Juan Galt! Divide & Conquer strategies are nothing new, we are aware of them and they are not tolerated.

      “Readers skim through his article again and ask yourself, exactly what resources does it really give you? I’m looking through it and all he’s providing with this article and all I see are manipulations. I expect more of the same from this author in the future and so should you.”

      You are commentating on the Introduction article where I attempt to state my purpose and goal; did you read article #2 about the Socratic Method of Investigation?

      ” Nobody wants a curator.”

      How do you know what other people want? I am writing these articles for a reason.

      “Curators tend to be cancerous bureaucrat manipulators who serve as gatekeepers and prevent non-standard, dissenting opinions from getting any reach, OR specifically pursue the position so that they get to pick the winners they want to win and choose the ideas they want to push.”

      I can identify as a gatekeeper of sorts as I have been the guy to greet people at the door, but I have no authority over any of this information; its all out there on the internet, free to access for anyone who desires, and I will be linking it all in the Resource page. Most of the experts don’t want to waste anymore time on noobs who don’t even have the basics. This website can be a place where the noobs are pointed to if they show they don’t comprehend one of the foundational ideas/concepts.

      The real question for you xslthos is, do you know of any evidence to support the State’s claim that their rules apply to anyone? If so, what is it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *