Russell Twyce

Read the Akashic Records

Imagine a book where everything that has EVER happened or WILL happen is clearly written. Now convert your imagined book into a reality where you can read it. That is the Akashic Records and they ARE there to be read.

Gordon the lawyer died of colon cancer. Here is his afterlife quest for eternal life.

People who didn’t like him suggested he had really taken it up the butt too many times in his unrealistic political aspirations. The real truth is there were many people who didn’t like Gordon the lawyer – because he was a lawyer but that really isn’t part of this story.

Against the onset of his death, Gordon the lawyer had invested heavily in his church in unreal hopes of buying a first class ticket into the eternal life. As the lawyer would soon find out, it was money poorly spent because in truth, a church has no sway whatsoever in the real eternal life people face upon death. But now Gordon was dead and it was too late to sue the church for unreal claims in their eternal life advertising – and the star witness lawyer was now too dead to testify in a court of law.

Lawyer Gordon arose from the hospital bed where his body had died. He looked down the hall but could see no people. A gurney rolled through the deathly silent ward but there was no patient in it and no orderly pushing it. The lawyer scratched his head in puzzlement.

“Real life goes on,” a disembodied voice said, “but you are not currently part of it.”

“Where in eternal life do I go from here?” The lawyer asks. He walks out of the hospital where he died.

What Do Men REALLY Want?

“Life and afterlife are real. Both are eternal. To move on, you must come to understand what is real and what is unreal. Your onwards path is before your feet.”

“But there is a stone wall around this intersection.” The hospital sidewalk had a dead end. Above the wall he could see the traffic light was red. Crossing now would be against the law but Gordon the lawyer would be willing to forgive himself the transgression of crossing against a red light – but here was this real big damned wall.

“I’ve already told you that your afterlife mission is to understand what is real, as opposed to that which is unreal.”

Gordon the lawyer cast about. It was disconcerting having a voice that seemed to come from the thin air. Then his eyes fell on a sledge hammer in a glass cabinet. A sign read ‘In case Laws, break glass’.

“Am I supposed to hammer down this bloody big wall?” Gordon the lawyer exclaimed. It seemed a real big task that would take him half his eternal life to accomplish.

But there was no answer to Gordon the lawyer’s question. He would have to figure it out on his own.

History Quiz in the Year 2099

Short Fiction By Russell Twyce

A teacher stands before her class of Junior High School students. The fashions and hairstyles have changed much over the last ninety years, but the arrangement of desks and the faces flushed with life of the children remains as it is today. The history teacher is holding a paper for a pop quiz.

“Quiet now.” She holds up a flat hand to call for silence and attention. “Now who can tell me what the three main era’s of the previous 2000 years were called?” She chose one from amid the small wheat field of raised hands. “Jilvian?”

“The first was the dark ages,” a girl answered, “of which not very much was recorded with full accuracy.”

“Correct. And who will tell us what period came next? Rodagar?”

“Yes mam.” A blond boy stood up to answer. “Then came the age of feudalism and serfdom when people were owned by the land and where the land was owned by the nobles.”

“Very good.” The teacher smiled. “What was the third? Jacqeleze?”

“Industrial Age.” A timid girl answered quickly. Then she saw the imploring look on her teacher’s face and expanded on her answer. “It is also known as the second age of feudalism and serfdom.”

“Thank you.” The teache said. “Now can someone tell me the difference between the first and second ages of serfdom? Barklane?”

“In the first, the nobles owned the land and the land owned the people. In the second, the lawyers, police and politicians owned the law and the law owned the people.”

“That’s close, but you missed something important.”

“Nations owned the land and the people?”

“Yes.” The teacher nodded. “In order for it to be considered serfdom, human bondage needs to be involved and that was certainly the case when nations were thought of as all-powerful. Who can remind us of what other overly powerful entities people had to overthrow before they gained real freedom?”

“The corporations that had been given super-human status.” A boy answered after the teacher nodded at him. “They had huge revenues and they bought and sold politicians, lawyers and judges. I think it should be called the black age of corruption and greed. How were people stupid enough to abide with it?”

“As we covered in the lesson, populations under the two Nazi regimes were repressed mostly by the harsh police action, economic blackmail and a mass media that pumped out propaganda. Adstell, will you tell us how the two Nazi regimes differed?”

“The German Nazi government was anti-Semitic and the American Nazi government was pro-Semitic. And while the German Nazis called themselves Nazi, the American Nazi government used the names Democrat and Republican.”

“Fazette, can you elaborate on why the American Nazi government was not named for what it was?”

“The Americans fought the German Nazis during World War Two and so a stigma was attached to the term. However, the American Nazis were just as racially intolerant of all non-Americans as the German Nazis were. The American Nazis were also as violently expansionist. They felt that their strong economic and technical abilities entitled them to crush ‘inferior’ nations, cultures and people.”

“Well done.” The teacher beamed. It seemed like her whole class of students were likely to score well on the formal test. “So for a final question in this quiz, who will describe what finally ended the Nazism and serfdom to give us the wonderful civilization we enjoy today? I’ll point and you can each offer an answer.”

“People started using rockets to colonize the planets, instead of to deliver bombs.” Shouted James.

“We finally understood that law was only making lawyers rich. In return for the slavery to it, law was only really creating even more crime.” Answered Elsebeth.

“People demanded true democracy and the party dictatorships were abolished.” Added Seanne.

“National governments were turned into public administrations.” Intoned Zaig.

“Justice became based on human rights, instead of on a ruler’s supreme power.” Said Burgret.

“Excellent!” The teacher applauded. “Next week we’ll be starting our next module. That will cover the history of economics. We start at the gold standard and finish when the criminal greed practices like the commodity futures market and debt based currency were abolished. Have a great weekend!”

The Akashic Records Hold the REAL Future Answers – Click 2 Read

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.

Law is a lion

A social order fiction for your search for stories

A psychopath had positioned himself at booth selling briefcases. He had bought a few dozen cases and then had a couple of posters made up, that suggested he was as a legal needs marketer. Using a fictional company name and the logo ‘Law is a lion’, the killer had rented a space at a lawyer’s seminar. Along with cases and brochures, he had smuggled in some weaponry.

When the show was at it’s busiest time, on Saturday afternoon, the psychopath put a placard on his ‘Law is a lion’ table reading ‘out conducting business’. Then he took out his guns and mingled with the conference attendees. And fifty-three people died in one of the worst mass murders in history. After expending all his ammunition, he set his small arsenal aside and sat patiently waiting for the police to arrive to reestablish the social order.

“Law is a lion.” He said to the first policeman. “These lawyers heard the lion roar.”

The swat team responded with a Miranda warning, while roughly cuffing him.

“Law is a lion.” The prosecutor repeated. He had responded immediately to be in full participation during the interrogation. “What did you mean by that?”

“I suspect you’ll be intelligent enough to figure it out.” The psychopath responded. The killer then proved cooperative by answering all the detail questions of where he procured the guns and how he set up for the killings.

“Why did you kill lawyers?” The state’s attorney asked.

“I didn’t kill anyone.” The murder said with an impassive face. “I evoked the lion’s roar and the law murdered it’s own. I deemed it appropriate to use lawyers. The law is a lion and lawyers are lawyers. The law lion bit down hard on its own tail.”

“Hundreds of witnesses saw you in your act of murder and nobody but you reported the presence of any escaped zoo animals.” The prosecutor scoffed. “I recommend strongly, that you call a lawyer, but you’ll end up as a caged animal anyways.”

“Of course you would feel that way.” The psychopath mocked back. “Because you’re a lawyer. I neither need nor want a lawyer representing me with untruth.”

“You allegedly committed the heinous murders and either with or without a lawyer, you’ll be spending the rest of your life in jail.”

“I didn’t kill anyone,” the psychopathic killer repeated, “and you’re more than welcome to put me to a polygraph test.”

“The results would be suspect. Psychopaths are purportedly able to beat them.” “Why do you suppose that is?” “Psychopaths are generally of above average intelligence.”

“And do we out-think the machines?” The killer laughed at the absurd statement. “I’ve read extensively on psychopathic traits and frankly, you know next to nothing about us. Truthfully, I suspect you do know more but you’re repressing it because our ‘above average’ intellects have told us something that you don’t want those of lesser intelligence becoming aware of.” The psychopath leaned as far forward as his restraints would allow and he whispered. “The law is a lie and it’s why psychopaths commit crimes. But the psychopath never actually hurts the victim: he breaks the law and the law then forwards the harm on. That’s how the lion law works.”

“In your mind,” the prosecutor guessed, “the law is lying and that sounds similar to ‘lion’. I’m supposing that your saying ‘lawyers are lawyers’ was meant as ‘lawyers are liars’ because those two words also have a similar sound.”

“I knew you’d be smart enough to figure it out.” “A court seeks for truth.” “Horse manure!” The psychopath snorted. “Your law court will be determining if I broke the state’s law against murder, multiple times. And breaking the state’s law in protest is precisely what my full intent was. If I could’ve spectacularly broken the law without people dying, I would’ve preferred that, but the murder law requires a human sacrifice. The law should stand in the docket with me: if law wasn’t deemed to exist, then I wouldn’t have broken it, and those who died would still be alive.

“Anarchy is the alternative to law!”

“That is lion law’s biggest lie!” The psychopath resolutely said. “A social order keeping philosophy that isn’t rooted on lies, is law’s true alternative. Psychopaths are the vanguard of an army of truth that will tack the law’s lying lion skin to a shed.”

“I personally feel that I am protected by law.”  A person said to me in a discussion

“But you are deceived by your learned perception of law’s function.” I answer.  If you can push the propagandized training aside and examine inner working of the system of law with straight logic, a different version emerges. The ‘supposed’ intent of the rule of law is to protect, but the system of law does NOT actually do that. Law protects only itself from being broken – it is against the law to break a law.

Instead of protecting you, (which the law doesn’t do but which ‘deterrence’ does), the rule of law law has set you up as a target for people who want to break laws. The rule of law makes it possible to ‘lash-out’ at society as a whole by breaking any law, even when it hurts only one person.  It’s logical to surmise that ‘some’ crime would not occur if a law was not there for a malcontent to strike out at (and an innocent person would not be harmed in that instance just because someone hated the government).

And the ‘deterrence’ that ACTUALLY does the protecting could easily be accomplished with a system other than law. And Police could function and courts could work using a different rationale than the asinine theory that a person’s wrongful action has caused damage to a theoretical item. And as a result the crime level would have dropped by the amount that the crimes were previously being committed just to spite the authority, and the deterrence previously meted out by the rule of law, would still be in effect through the non-rule-of-law justice system (based on protecting human rights and safety, instead of on an imaginary rule-of-law king’s theoretical power to issue edicts).

Whether you like it or not, the rule-of-law is dead.  It simply doesn’t know that its head has been removed.  As a society, we really need to start discussing the logical replacement for the dark ages system of law, that really should have died a hundred years ago.

I’m personally manifesting for the rule-of-law to fall.

An alien is on trial for sedition  -  Short Story by Russell Twyce

“My words and actions in this courthouse,” a man acting as his own defense council said to the jury in his opening statement on the charge of sedition, “will be what they are. You’ll view what I say as sedition if you will. But to me, this trial is an opportunity to share my truth. I suppose that I’m really signing my own death warrant. By a paradox, your finding me not guilty of sedition would be absolute evidence of my guilt because convincing you of my innocence can only be accomplished by my committing further sedition in front of you.”

The Unexplainable Store

Then the accused turned sharply on the heel of his wheelie sneaker, and glided on back to his seat. “I’m done,” he said to the prosecutor.

“The young man who stands accused,” the government lawyer orated in his turn, “has brought this all on himself.” He went on to describe the alien’s actions of going into a police station and confessing his crime. “Neither the police nor the district attorney’s office had any option but to bring this charge, because he was continuing to commit sedition in both the police station and in all interviews with him since.”

“Calling the accused as a prosecution witness is highly irregular,” the judge stated for the record: his main concern wasn’t for how injurious the defendant’s testimony might be to his own case, but rather in preventing an appeal from besmirching his judicial reputation, “but as the defendant has suggested it, I’ll allow it.”

“You’re an alien.” The prosecutor began. “Why would you choose to practice your sedition here, in a state that isn’t your own and which employs the death penalty?”

“Your question is illogical to me on several points. The first is that I’m not an alien by any definition. I don’t ‘belong’ to any other states: both my body and mind are for my soul’s free use in experiencing life. I’m from here just as I’m from everywhere on earth. My death experience showed me that I, and all of us, really come from a place existing in the gap between matter and time, I ‘belong’ to that place but it isn’t a state.” The accused young man then pointedly directed his next words at the judge. “I wasn’t originally born in this part of the planet you’ve put a border around and arbitrarily called a state—which you wrongly profess has some authority.”

“I’ll have no more seditious talk in my court!” The judge hammered his gable.

“The second,” the defendant ignored the magistrate’s outburst, “is that the term ‘sedition’ isn’t anything that exists. A state has no form in reality: it’s a concept some deluded people have agreed to think of as real. ‘Sedition’ is defined as conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against a state’s authority. The ‘state’s authority’ is a piñata that exists only in your unreal vision of reality. Opinions I state are of what I see truly existing in this material world and your mind’s eye interprets my words as being a fiesta stick aimed at damaging your fictional papier-mâché treasure trove.”

Instantly Attract Women

“Which like Pandora’s box,” the judge retorted, “would spill evils into the world.”

“It would disgorge the true freedom that is our human birthright and which your delusion of statehood, rooted on your lust for power, has stolen from us.” The youth smiled. “But my absolute liberty can’t actually be taken away, so I’ve taken it back.”

“Yet you’re here in custody,” his honor stressed the ‘in custody’, “and awaiting the decision of this authority on whether you will live or die.”

“And I arrived here of my own free accord,” the accused quipped back, “while fully cognizant of all the potential outcomes.”

“Uh.” The prosecuting attorney had been biding his time. He hadn’t wanted to interrupt the judge. “You haven’t answered my questions yet. Why here? You’ve placed yourself in a life or death situation because sedition is still punishable here, by death.”

“That’s another notion of yours which is utterly incorrect. Death isn’t a penalty. Death is a soul’s reward for having completed its life mission. Spending my lifetime incarcerated in a penal institute would be a torment for me. I’d rather put myself to a mortal hazard. I’ll be found not-guilty and walk free, or be found guilty and die.”

“If this court sets you free,” the judge angrily interjected, “it would be guilty of the sedition that you are charged with. The justice department would be undermining its authority to keep citizens safe from criminals. Crimes are real things that happen to actually existing people and cause true-to-life harms.”

“But slavery to the rule-of-law isn’t the only way to address those issues.” The man in the witness box stated emphatically. “In fact, rooting a real need for public order keeping on a series of unreal tenets is the worst possible method. It causes some crimes to be committed, exacerbates others and contributes to the motivation of all crimes. I’ve come into this court charged with sedition for inciting people to rebel against an authority that is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity.”

“Crimes against humanity!” The judge’s face went blood red as he ejaculated.

“But the court holds itself as immune from prosecution for the wrongs it commits so I’ve brought the matter before the bench by an alternate route,” the young accused spoke directly to the jury box, “in having myself put on trial for sedition against the state’s law.”

“Will you enlighten us,” the state’s prosecuting lawyer inquired: he was seriously interested because he often felt in his innermost psyche, that law was inserting a measure of ruination in some peoples lives that his conscience felt responsible for. ‘Might there truly be a better way: one that wasn’t just anarchy?’ But he used a mocking tone of voice so as not to openly betray his oath to law, “of precisely which crimes the law has been complicit in and how an amazing new form of policing would work in practice?”

“Overruled!” His honor snapped, though none but he had objected to the question. “My court won’t be the soapbox for the rants of a fanatic. He has already shown his contempt for society’s welfare and freely admitted to his sedition. Were this a trial without a jury, I would be ready to hand down my decision right now.” Further to this, the judge would’ve eagerly ordered the bailiff to perform the execution on the spot: so that notions even more threatening to his way of life couldn’t spread to the death row cells and into the general prison population.

“As the magistrate is ready,” the young man in t-shirt and jeans stood and faced his peers, “then you must be able to deliberate now too. I’m not permitted, and likely not able to concisely describe my vision of our wonderful future, free of law. I also doubt that a person still enslaved to the notion of law’s rule could envision it yet, so I’m quite happy that I’m not required to elaborate. I can emphatically state that I am strongly convinced and the statements I’ve made leading up to my charge of sedition were born in my freedom of beliefs and uttered with a right to free expression — whether you understand or agree with my opinions or not. My turning myself in to the police, in a state that retains the death penalty, and openly displaying so-called sedition in this trial are undeniable proof of my faith’s conviction. So decide now if freewill is more important to you than an imaginary state’s theoretical authority.”

“I will determine when the jury should begin deliberating!” The judge screamed.

“Then do it.” The youth challenged. “I’ll wave my defense. I’m prepared to sum up my case to the jury.”

“It seems to me,” the prosecutor intoned quietly, “that you just did that.”

“I took the tirade as that too.” The judge said. “But to satisfy formalities, I’ll call for those now. Wrap up your case for the jury.”

“Thank you.” The young man leaned back slightly on his wheelie shoes and rolled to a position in front of the jury box. “The crime of murder, which shares the ultimate penalty with sedition, is far different from the one I’m accused of. A murder is an act done to a person, yet the court deems that a wrong happened to the law itself. Had I killed someone, you would be asked to decide if I’d broken the law against murder, instead of deliberating on whether or not I killed someone. That concept is murky when thinking of a murder, because a human did wrongfully die.”

“With sedition on the other hand,” he continued after a slight pause, “no one person can be shown as having received a harm. The victim is the theoretical state and all supposed damage done to it, or intended to it, is entirely subjective. Your choice is to deem that my actions and words hurt the entity that you see embodied by a flag.” He pointed. “Yet I see that as a tablecloth on a stick: it doesn’t represent anything that truly exists, it’s only the symbol of a notion—a false impression. In my defiance against the non-existent state, and in my inciting others to rebellion, I didn’t damage the one physical item that presumably represents it.” An index finger had remained targeted on the nation’s banner. “In other words, I’ve not done anything in the real world to be construed as a wrong, I’ve only challenged an ideal I believe is untrue. Have you ever allowed your consciousness to realize that the law against ‘sedition’ was enacted in a direct contravention of a constitutional right of free expression? I would rather be dead than accept and feign obedience to such a dishonorable rule system that embraces obvious absurdity and fakes it off as truth.”

“I see your decision hinges on only one factor.” He took a deep breath. “Is your view of the world, and the judge’s take on society, worth intrinsically more than mine is? Is my death necessary to muzzle a philosophy that you don’t want to see explored?”

The prosecutor’s wrap up included the predictable platitudes about society’s needs over the desires of an individual, but his full fervor was conspicuously absent. The government’s lawyer was thankful that he wasn’t on this jury duty. An obligation to his profession would’ve compelled him to vote one way, when the entire essence of his being was yearning to cast an acquittal on the sedition crime.

“You’ll now be sequestered, until you’ve reached a decision.” The judge growled and with a glance at the defendant’s satisfied expression, he knew that the verdict of no importance. The alien had already achieved the victory he’d sought and in fact, a guilty verdict and his death at the hands of the state would gain his ideas even more exposure. In either eventuality, his precious court was defamed by the soon to be condemned man’s last question. ‘Is my death necessary to muzzle a philosophy that you don’t want to see explored?’

Readers, you’re the jury. Please voice your verdict in a comment. A life is in your balance.