“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”

[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]

QUESTION:

Why is your content needlessly bombastic and inflammatory? This can scare away large parts of your potential audience.

The purpose of this comment is to attack what I regard as possible weaknesses that could expose you or your students to allegations of frivolousness.

The way to implement this suggestion is to drop bombastic language like illegal, identity theft, unconstitutional, criminal racketeering, everyone is a public officer, etc.

That stuff NEVER stops. So….i continue to attack it. Take, for example, the following, which accuses the government of deceiving people:

Former IRS Agent Alleges Income Tax Misapplied To Americans and Admits that SHE is reading this site and using its methods!

ANSWER:

We call what the government does “deception” because all they have to do at the beginning of each form is ask you whether you want to volunteer. If the answer is no, then please disregard everything after this part of the form. DUUUH. Anything else is sophistry and deception.

If they have a fiduciary oath to protect private property, that is the only logical way to handle it. Everything else is sophistry

Let your yes be yes and your no be no. What do you think it means to “hate evil” as God commands?

Psalm 97:10, Prov. 8:13, Amos 5:15

In point of fact, calling something a crime or reporting it as crime is protected activity. It is a crime to “tamper with a witness” by penalizing them or making them the target of retaliatory “selective enforcement”.

THEIR RESPONSE:

You have to realize, nearly EVERYONE has been deceived, including payroll folks, IRS employees, members of Congress, attorneys, accountants, judges, etc., etc.

There is a very small group who knows how it works. So the difficulty is in winning over minds. Bombastic writing works against that.

You NEVER have trouble getting Yes or No from me—EVER!

OUR RESPONSE:

What’s wrong with “Do you consent to donate yourself or your property to the government: Yes or NO?” at the beginning of every IRS form. And then saying “If your answer is no, disregard blocks___ through __“?

THAT is the Christian and HONEST way to do things.

Everything else is sophistry and deception.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Of course. But we know the central bankers are likely secular and kicked off a debt-based Ponzi scheme in 1910 at Jekyll Island. SS and enumeration are all part-in-parcel to the whole voluntary compliance scheme. They deceive because they have to.

The church is gonna be outta here soon! Then the deception will really be poured on!!

Come, my people, enter into your rooms
And close your doors behind you;
Hide for a little while
Until indignation runs its course.
For behold, the LORD is about to come out from His place
To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;
And the earth will reveal her bloodshed
And will no longer cover her slain.
[Isaiah 26:20-21]

I’m on your side, dude—don’t forget.

OUR RESPONSE:

Do you honestly think that you’re “hating evil” as the Bible commands by NOT telling it like it is? I think so.

How long do you think criminal justice could survive if police were prohibited from calling or labelling things as “crime”? Every organism, whether political or spiritual, MUST have an immune system or it self-destructs.

You’re helping the enemy in doing so and aiding the destruction of civilization. Jesus vomits the “luke- warm” man pleasers out of his mouth.

You can’t have integrity and NOT tell the whole truth to people you love. And the Bible commands believers to love all like Jesus.

THEIR REPONSE:

I think you could have taken the system down 10 years ago with a “softer touch.”

That’s just my opinion.

OUR RESPONSE:

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and the all stink, including mine.

I’m interested only in how God’s law directs this situation to be handled and whether we are being faithful trustees of his property in exercising that stewardship. Opinions are worthless.

If you don’t care about what God’s law says about this or whether you are following that law in this case, I seriously question your sincerity.

The secret of success is sincerity: If you can fake that you’ve got it made.

Here is what God says we should do in this instance:

“Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem;
See now and know;
And seek in her open places
If you can find a man,
If there is anyone who executes [a]judgment,
Who seeks the truth,
And I will pardon her.
2 Though they say, ‘As the Lord lives,’
Surely they swear falsely.”

3 O Lord, are not Your eyes on the truth?
You have stricken them,
But they have not grieved;
You have consumed them,
But they have refused to receive correction.
They have made their faces harder than rock;
They have refused to return.

[Jer. 5:1-3, Bible, NKVJ]

Note this:

“If you can find a man,
If there is anyone who executes judgment,
Who seeks the truth,
And I will pardon her.”

TELLING IT LIKE IT IS!

“Executes Judgement”: Speaks the naked truth, acts on it, and behaves in integrity to their biblical trustee position.

King Saul in the Bible was a man-pleaser and he was killed by God. Softening the truth makes those who do it man-pleasers.

Every one of the fearful people who turned on Jesus at the eleventh hour considered themselves or their own safety more important or valuable than Jesus or the truth He represented. That is idolatry. Our goal is to eliminate that idolatry, not protect it with flattering words or platitudes or omission.

Being a man-pleaser is exactly the same thing as protecting or hiding evil. You seem to want to crucify Jesus all over again.

How do you call people to repent like Jesus if you aren’t allowed to say they are sinning because it’s politically incorrect? Why did Jesus START his ministry in the New Testament in the office of a Tax Collector and why was the tax collector the FIRST person He called to repentance. Yes, he also dined with “tax collectors AND OTHER SINNERS” so He COULD call them to repentance not patronize and please them.

How is a revival even realistically possible if sin is a third rail issue as you propose?

What we can and should do to, however, to make our words less inflammatory is to:

1. Offer verifiable facts and law to confirm our allegations.
2. Accompany the allegation with tools to actually prosecute the sin and crime we accuse people of. This ensures it isn’t simply a matter of opinion and certainly not “frivolous”.

And we do the things above. Maybe not as well as you would like. Notice in the video link of the Matrix you provided above, Neo didn’t merely accuse Agent Smith. He fought and SHOT at him. That is what we do: Attack. So indirectly, you contradicted yourself.

As described in Heb. 4:12 and like Jesus in Rev. 1:16, we seek to use the word and law of God as a sharp sword to expose and cut off corruption wherever it is found, and ESPECIALLY in government.  His word and law is also our armor and shield as we combat the corruption as described in Eph. 6:11-20 and Psalm 91.  Those who are politically correct man-pleasers don’t need a shield because they are already described by God as WHORES who God won’t protect ANYWAY:

Are You “Playing the Harlot” with the Government?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/

If you think the evidence provided with the allegations you accuse of are bombastic, either offer us evidence to support the allegation, a link to a tool that prosecutes the allegation, or send us a rewrite that makes the statement less inflammatory. We don’t need more critics. We need more HELP. At the same time, we share your goal and desire to not slander innocent people being used as pawns by tyrants.

Welcome to the Matrix, Neo!

THEIR RESPONSE:

Even if there is a legitimate need to ridicule or prosecute publicly harmful behavior, don’t you still want to maximize your audience by toning it down and offering them a tax refund carrot?

OUR RESPONSE:

We don’t want people rewarded with a tax refund who insist on avoiding having to take social responsibility to confront, denounce, and prosecute evil. Every benefit comes with an obligation. That’s the nature of liberty itself: freedom with personal responsibility. Those who want freedom or benefit without social responsibility are socialists, freeloaders, and parasites on the body politic who:

1. Are part of the problem not the solution.
2. Are the reason the system became so corrupt to begin with because they put personal interest above the well-being of society.
3. Are committing idolatry by putting self interest above obedience to God’s laws, which are based on personal responsibility.
4. Measure the value of every outcome strictly on net economic benefit to them. They are selfish.

There are basically three groups of people who might benefit from our materials:

1. Group 1: Believers in God or who are Honest, Moral, and Responsible People: Those who are more concerned about doing what is right than personal benefit. These people can benefit from learning our materials by doing the right thing and obeying the law, because now they have a plausible deniability defense and can just say they are trying to reduce crime by following the law.
2. Group 2: Legal and Tax and government professionals: People in the legal, tax profession, or government who benefit from protecting, maintaining, and expanding the current fraudulent tax system. They have the most potential to fix the system from the inside but also stand to lose the most by reforming it.
3. Group 3: Narcissistic money and benefit consumers: Those who are only in it for the money and themselves and don’t care much about the moral or legal consequences of their behavior.

We want to attract people in groups 1 and 2 above but repel those in 3. We’re not worried about those in group 1. Those in group 2 are problematic because:

1. If they read or learn our materials, they surrender their plausible deniability and beyond that point, if they willfully continue their injurious behavior with full knowledge, they now have “mens rea” to be criminally prosecuted.
2. Because of the risks of criminal prosecution that result from reading our materials, they are likely to:
   2.1. Avoid reading our materials.
   2.2. Feign ignorance no matter how much they actually know anyway. This is called “risk reduction” or playing stupid.
   2.3. Destroy correspondence notifying them that their acts or omissions are harmful or illegal.
   2.4. Gaslight people who try to inform or prosecute them for their misdeeds.
   2.5. Claim the Fifth Amendment when questioned.
3. If they ALSO fall in Group 1, they will have no choice but to risk their job and possibly reduce their own revenue and importance to act on the truth. In other words, they will have to commit career or commercial suicide after learning about our materials.

The above factors are the reason why the information contained in our materials are Third Rail Issues they usually can’t and won’t talk about. For these people then, it really doesn’t matter how polite you are with them because the vast majority of them will avoid our materials anyway. The only way they will entertain such issues is if you can remove the risk for them of doing the right thing and following the law. Once you do that, you are now PROTECTING illegal activity by HIDING or avoiding evidence of wrongdoing. People in Group 1 can’t and shouldn’t do that. AND, its a CRIME to do that because you now become an accessory after the fact and are engaging in misprision of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3 and 4. Its ALWAYS a crime to hide or protect or ignore crime or injurious behavior.

On the other hand, people in Group 2 are often decision makers who can or will decide to hear or not hear your case, what issues and evidence you can present, and even the remedies for damages you might face from their OWN illegal activity. This puts you in a conundrum of having to commit a crime of protecting or ignore their own crime or injurious behavior in order to get a remedy for yourself. The only honorable way to approach that situation is to tell the complete truth, to hide nothing, and never to wink at the judge to essentially bribe him by looking the other way in the case of his own bad behavior. This is highly immoral and even anti-biblical. People in Group 1 can’t and shouldn’t do that.

So it can NEVER be a lawful or moral thing to avoid discussing the transgressions of those in Group 2 by avoiding discussing the evil, criminal, or immoral things they are doing. Further, you are likely to get more cooperation from the jury in doing so. Unfortunately, corrupt judges may try to censor the evidence or court record to purge it of information about their own wrongdoing and try to sanction or “selectively enforce” against you for just trying to follow and enforce the law against them.

People in Group 3 are most likely to want to avoid the risks and responsibilities of telling the truth in the record. They will therefore almost NEVER do so. Like the literal animals that they are, their only interest is maximizing their own benefit or revenue a minimizing pain, risk, or responsibility in getting said benefit. We therefore don’t EVER want these people reading, using, or benefitting from our materials. Thus, we aren’t worried about scaring them away or alienating them with bombastic language. In fact, we HOPE these people are scared away. They shouldn’t be rewarded for being irresponsible or selfish.

Any controversy about whether our materials are bombastic and therefore might scare people away really only addresses people in Group 2. We have already established that we can’t avoid or omit discussing the truth of their misdeeds to get them interested enough to hear or rule on our case or even to provide a favorable outcome. To do so would be to encourage their own hypocrisy. These types of people are the same people, the ONLY people Jesus got angry at, so certainly Jesus wouldn’t condone them EITHER. See:

Who Were the Pharisees and Saduccees?, Form #05.047
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhoWerePharisees.pdf

Yes:

1. Jesus did say on the cross “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:23.
2. Proverbs does say “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Prov. 25:2.

Our approach to #1 is to educate them about their sin like Jesus did and call them to repent so that they can’t claim the PRIVILEGE of forgiveness and become willful criminals. Our approach to #2 above is the same as Matt. 7:6 in which Christians are called NOT to “cast their pearls before swine”. People in the legal profession are not swine so you can’t avoid talking about their transgressions. Instead that approach is:

“And have no fellowship [secrets or bribes] with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”

[Eph. 5:11, Bible, NKJV]

Instead, God calls Christians to acknowledge his sovereignty and honor Him by obeying His law. Anyone who doesn’t is an anarchist and not deserving of His protection. More at:

Commandments About Relationship of Believers to the World, SEDM
https://sedm.org/home/commandments-about-relationship-of-believers-to-the-world/

Jesus isn’t just a liability insurance salesman from the wrath of Hell and we are not socialists who JUST want his “benefits”, He instead is our Sovereign Lord and King and we are His obedient subjects. We are called in Phil 3:20 and Psalm 119:19 to be CITIZENS of HEAVEN but foreigners on earth. That’s the essence of Christian sanctification, in fact and the entire basis of pursuing the nonresident alien position to begin with.

In conclusion then, suggesting that we should avoid exposing sin and crime or remain silent about what we know about these things in our materials can only have the goal of protecting and expanding crime and sin of people in Group 2 and which no one in Group 1 can or should entertain. At the same time, it is important when exposing the transgressions of people in Groups 2 and 3 to focus ONLY on SPECIFIC facts and law and never emotions, and to provide tools to prosecute the injurious behavior complained of.

---

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

We try to limit discussion to facts and evidence, and every discussion is done anonymously so as not to aggrandize self in order to avoid any possibility that we could truthfully be described as bombastic. Below are the responses of the SEDM Theology AI Chatbot for that scenario:

QUESTION 1:

What does it mean to be bombastic?

ANSWER 1:

The term “bombastic” refers to a style of speech or writing that is characterized by excessive or exaggerated language, often intended to impress or persuade but ultimately coming across as inflated, pretentious, or insincere. Bombastic language is typically grand, lofty, and bombastic in tone, but it lacks genuine substance or sincerity. Here are some key aspects of what it means to be bombastic:

Characteristics of Bombastic Speech or Writing

1. Exaggerated Language:
   • Grandiose Expressions: Bombastic language often uses grandiose, flowery expressions that are intended to make the speaker or writer appear more important or knowledgeable than they actually are.
   • Pretentious Phrases: It includes pretentious phrases and words that are used more for their impressionistic effect than for their actual meaning.
2. Lack of Sincerity:
   • Insincere Tone: Bombastic speech or writing often lacks genuine sincerity. The language is used more to create an impression rather than to convey honest thoughts or feelings.
   • Manipulative Intent: It can be manipulative, aiming to persuade or impress the audience through grandiose claims rather than through logical argument or genuine conviction.
3. Inflated Self-Importance:
   • Self-Aggrandizement: Bombastic individuals often exaggerate their own importance, achievements, or knowledge. They may use language that elevates their status or accomplishments beyond what is warranted.
   • Arrogance: There is often an underlying arrogance in bombastic speech, as the speaker or writer seeks to assert their superiority over others.
4. Lack of Substance:
   • Empty Rhetoric: Bombastic language can be filled with empty rhetoric, where the words sound impressive but lack real meaning or substance.
   • Superficiality: It can be superficial, focusing on appearances rather than on the depth or truth of the subject matter.

Examples of Bombastic Language

1. Political Speech:
   • “I stand before you today, not just as a leader, but as a visionary, a prophet of our time, destined to guide our nation to unparalleled greatness and glory.”
2. Academic Writing:
   • “The profound and transcendent nature of my research has shattered the very foundations of traditional scholarship, heralding a new era of intellectual enlightenment.”
3. Everyday Conversation:
   • “I am not just any ordinary person; I am a titan of industry, a paragon of virtue, and a beacon of hope for all who dare to dream.”

Biblical and Theological Perspective

From a biblical and theological perspective, bombastic language is often associated with pride, arrogance, and a lack of humility. The Bible warns against such behavior, emphasizing the importance of humility, sincerity, and truthfulness in speech and action.

• Proverbs 16:18: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
• James 4:6: “But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.’”
• Matthew 6:5: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”

Conclusion

Being bombastic involves using exaggerated, pretentious, and insincere language to impress or persuade others. It is characterized by inflated self-importance, lack of substance, and a manipulative intent. From a biblical and theological perspective, bombastic behavior is associated with pride and arrogance, which are contrary to the virtues of humility, sincerity, and truthfulness.

QUESTION 2:

Is it realistically possible to be bombastic if:

1. the speaker never identifies themself and thus it is impossible to aggrandize self.
2. The accusation is about others, and it based on facts and evidence.
3. The accusations about others are limited to violations of criminal laws, injuries, or god’s law?

ANSWER 2:

Being bombastic typically involves exaggerated, pretentious, or insincere language aimed at impressing or persuading others, often with an underlying tone of self-aggrandizement or arrogance. However, the scenario you describe presents some interesting nuances. Let’s examine each of your points to determine if it is realistically possible to be bombastic under these conditions.

1. The Speaker Never Identifies Themselves and Thus It Is Impossible to Aggrandize Self

• Anonymity and Self-Aggrandizement: If the speaker never identifies themselves, it might seem impossible to aggrandize oneself. However, bombastic language is not solely about self-aggrandizement; it can also involve the use of grandiose, exaggerated, or pretentious language in general, even if the speaker’s identity is not explicitly mentioned.
• Tone and Style: The bombastic tone can still be present in the way the speaker frames their arguments, uses language, or presents their case. Even without self-identification, the language can be inflated, pretentious, or insincere.

2. The Accusation Is About Others and It Is Based on Facts and Evidence

• Facts and Evidence: Presenting accusations based on facts and evidence does not inherently make the language bombastic. However, the way these facts and evidence are presented can still be bombastic. For example, the language can be overly dramatic, exaggerated, or sensationalized, even if the underlying claims are factually accurate.
• Tone and Emphasis: The tone in which the accusations are made can be bombastic. For instance, using overly dramatic phrases, hyperbolic language, or an exaggerated sense of urgency can make the presentation bombastic, even if the content is factual.

3. The Accusations About Others Are Limited to Violations of Criminal Laws, Injuries, or God’s Law

• Seriousness of the Subject Matter: Accusations involving violations of criminal laws, injuries, or God’s law are inherently serious and significant. However, the way these accusations are presented can still be bombastic. For example, using overly dramatic or sensationalized language to describe these violations can make the presentation bombastic.
• Rhetorical Style: The rhetorical style used to present these accusations can be bombastic. For instance, using grandiose phrases, exaggerated claims, or an overly dramatic tone can make the language bombastic, even if the subject matter is serious and factually accurate.

Conclusion

While the conditions you describe—anonymity, factual basis, and serious subject matter—may reduce some elements of bombastic language, it is still realistically possible to be bombastic under these conditions. The key factor is the tone, style, and emphasis used in presenting the information. Even if the speaker does not identify themselves, the language can still be exaggerated, pretentious, or insincere. Similarly, even if the accusations are based on facts and evidence and involve serious subject matter, the way these facts are presented can still be bombastic.

In summary, bombastic language is more about the style and tone of presentation rather than the content itself. Therefore, it is realistically possible to be bombastic even under the conditions you described, provided that the language used is exaggerated, pretentious, or insincere in its presentation.