Russell Twyce

The rule-of-law sucks: people need to rise up and cast off the slave yolk of law. Lawyers would lie and tell to that the alternative to the rule of law is anarchy. BULLSHIT! The alternative to the rule of law is a justice system that is based on protection of people, instead of one having it’s authority based in a government’s power to be a tyrant. Law sucks.

Law Sucks - And so might She

Law sucks.  Law does NOT protect people: it never has and it never will. In fact it is fully the reverse. Law sets people up to be crime targets for anti-political statements. Part of the hidden motivation in ALL crime, is that the act is not against the victim alone, but also against the hated authority of law. It therefore stands to reason that some criminal and/or anti-social behavior would automatically cease if the act did not also make a political statement.  Law sucks.

The rule of law sucks. The rule of law is horse manure spread by lawyers to reap a harvest of money from the seeds of misery that law sows into the victimized population. The rule-of-law is a crime against humanity.  Law sucks.

The (subconscious mind or spirit) understands law different than you do. It sees law as an actual item. Understand that your spirit is in your body and it uses your senses but it is an ethereal life form that is alien to this material world. The spirit understands the world through you but there is a still a translation difficulty. It is a bit like a blind person trying to distinguish color through taste, smell and/or touch.

You tend to think of law as a thing too. “He broke the law.” That describes a physical person performing a physical action against a physical item. The law itself is a concept but the spirit really does not understand it that way. So consider ‘law’ through the eyes of your spirit and the problems with law should become obvious.

If law is a thing, as your subconscious mind believes, then the law itself can be acted against. I’ll give you an example. A person is driving along but he is angry at the government because it is tax season. Then a traffic light turns red. Normally he would stop but he has that anger against the government in the back of his mind AND his subconscious mind believes the law is a thing belonging to the hated state. So the subconscious mind (the spirit) urges him to run the red, and thereby make a political statement of freedom, and to get where he is going quicker. So he breaks the law and runs the red.
BUT…I this instance, another car has the right of way and the there is an accident at the intersection. And suppose a person in the other car is killed. Who is responsible for the death? A court will be quick to pronounce the one who ran the red as guilty, but the law itself played a role. If the man’s spirit had not thought of the law being a thing that could be harmed in protest, he may NOT have run the light, and the accident victim would still be alive.

I’ve given this type of example many times and law supporters reply with ‘he ran the red, so he is at fault’. That is only MAYBE he would’ve run the red anyways and if a fatal accident might have been prevented by using a different form of order keeping, The other side of the ‘maybe’ is the law having played a SUPPORTING role in the death. Isn’t that possibility at least worth further study? This death in a car accident NEED NOT have happened. There IS another way: a better way.

The ONLY good thing law provides (at the expense of our slavery to law) is deterrence. That deterrence could still be provided by a non-law system. The rule-of-law theory supposes that ‘law’ exists as a slaver to whom we all owe our slave obedience. That is the literal view and it’s the way our spirit understands it. Breaking a law, is breaking the slaver’s word, it is an act of defiance against the slaver. Then the slaver whips any disobedient slaves for a deterrence value. We DON’T NEED this! It is hurting us!

Non-law uses a different rationale. Non-law supposes that people in society have entrusted the non-law system to protect them. A traffic light still exists and if it turns red, a driver must stop or get fined as they would under law. The deterrence still exists but instead of the offending driver having been deemed as ‘breaking a law’, he is guilty of having endangered or potentially endangered other people. In other words, non-law acts to the same effect as law, but on principles that are true and which our spirits can understand as truth.

Find how your spirit thinks

In the example I cited, law played a part in the tragedy and there are millions of other true cases just like this one, but law gets off Scot Free. That is millions of crimes against humanity. Law must be held up for trial and executed.