Russell Twyce

WHY?

“Because the murderer is a whack job!”

Yes, he is a whack job but that doesn’t answer why.  Every person, crazy or sane, has a reason for their actions.  There are two distinct reasons ‘why’ but they are obviously connected.  [private_Chevron]The first is that the subconscious mind is self-destructive.  (Proof of this self-destructiveness can be witnessed in smokers, compulsive gamblers, suicide, AND in subliminal advertising that features death).

The second is that the murderer wants to make a political / social statement – ‘I don’t want to live in this world and I don’t want my family to have to live in it either’.[/private_Chevron]  The more heinous his crime, the more brightly his blood graffiti message will shine up in the media – “the rule-of-law SUCKS and that is REALLY why I did it!”

“The rule-of-law SUCKS and that is REALLY why he did it?”

Yes.  Odd as it sounds, the rule-of-law is why he killed [private_Chevron]and the law against murder actually enabled him to side-step his good conscience to kill.  Law is slavery.  People get angry when I say that, but it is the truth and you know it.  Law is based on the slavery principle of ‘obey or be punished‘.  There are a lot of flowery quotes and rationalizations around law to assuage a conscious mind and to make you accept the slavery of law as ‘freedom and protection’, when it is neither.  But your subconscious mind certainly knows that law is slavery and that is one big reason why the subconscious mind is self-destructive.

The murderer strikes at the law that he hates with every fiber of his being: he does not see his beloved family standing behind the law.  Then like a bullfighter’s red cape, the law moves away unhurt, and the death blows fall on the victims.  The law did NOT protect the mass-murder’s family: the law made crime targets of them.[/private_Chevron]  The rule-of-law was the co-murderer!

The IS another way!

[private_Chevron]A law operates like this: Killing a person is an act against the state. Killing a person is breaking an edict that belongs to the state. Killing a person is directly disobeying the government. And killers will be PUNISHED, not punished for killing the person but for disobeying the government’s law. Using any of these definitions, a persons level of animosity towards the state or government has to factor into his decision to commit the act.

Non-law operates like this: Killing a person deprives them of their human right to life. Others in society are threatened by a killer who has demonstrated a murderous nature. The justice system WILL take necessary actions to protect people by jailing or other.

Non-law keeps statutes, police, courts and jails fully operational but it eliminates the cancerous parts of law, like slavery and the illogical view that the state is harmed by a crime.[/private_Chevron]

Do you remember Reaganomics?

Or I suppose for the younger audience, I should say, ‘do you remember learning about Reaganomics?’  An unusual theory was presented and then proved – ‘Government revenue could be INCREASED, by LOWERING the tax’.  It seemed strange to many people but it worked.  Now think about the guy who first thought of the idea.  Imagine how he must have had to bash his head against many walls before a few saw what he was talking about.  That is where I am now.

I know how to end terrorism, how to eliminate the spectacular and seemingly pointless mass killings like Columbine, Virginia Tech & Fort Hood, and simultaneously reduce the actual crime rate across the whole spectrum of everyday robberies, rapes, & murders.   And the solution is both simple and painless!  [private_Chevron]In fact, the cure would benefit society in countless ways, it would even solve things like ‘schoolyard bullying’.  It is as easy as Reaganomics was: it just takes a slightly different way of looking at how/why we manage our society.  Courts, police & jails would still operate but even better than they do now.[/private_Chevron]  This might sound Utopian, but like Reaganomics was, it is just logical.

[private_Chevron]The terrorist’s real intended target is the government.  The mass-murder’s real intended target is society as a whole.  Both the terrorist and the mass-murderer are able to strike their targets by hitting ordinary people BECAUSE the law is the direct linkage between government/society and the everyday people.  The mechanism of law, is that the government theoretically takes each crime onto itself.  According to courts, a murderer is really on trial for breaking, or acting against, the government’s law prohibiting murder.

By simply changing the enabling theory of why courts / police / jails are authorized to operate, we could erase the path that links the government to the people.  The government continues to exist and do what it does now (although some terms like ‘governance’ would have to be slightly redefined to fit a new reality.)  But the population target that is currently under the terrorist’s and the mass-murder’s cross-hairs would be effectively removed from the scope’s view.

Law = [Individual or group mad at a government or society] –> [Aims gun at a law] –> [Bullet hits people] –> [Political and /or Anti-Social Agenda IS Satisfied]

Non-Law Justice = [Individual or group mad at a government or society] –> [Nothing Here to shoot at] –> [Nobody Dies] –> [Political/Society Agenda IS NOT Satisfied]

Or

Non-Law Justice = [Individual or group mad at a government or society] –> [Shoots Person or Persons] –> [We try and jail for killing a person or persons and depriving them of their right to life] –> [No Political/Societal Satisfaction]

When a Politically or Socially motivated killer is unable to satisfy political or social agenda by killing people, then he or she will probably NOT kill at all – and terrorism is eradicated with just the stroke of a pen!

I think it is long passed time that we people evaluated at our political reality anyways.  ‘Law’ evolved from the untrue notion that a noble had the right to inflict his word onto the serfs that he owned.  The post magna charta ‘law’ suggests that the law-giver is a concept that is owned by the people, but it still equates to a noble (albiet an elected one) inflicting his word onto the serfs of a different definition.  It need not be this way.  Justice could be rooted on society’s duty to protect human rights, instead of on a noble’s, or a conceptual state entity’s authority – and justice really SHOULD be rooted on human rights.

Almost every existing law statute could be amended to read and function as a non-law.  (And the few that can’t be amended really shouldn’t be used anyways because they obviously DON’T protect human rights).  All of the law apparatus could be easily retooled to non-law with a simple base theory amendment.  And this could be done with absolutely NO DISRUPTION to protective service.[/private_Chevron]

Like Reaganomics, when this revolutionary theory of public justice takes root and is really looked at and understood, it will prove out to be the right solution for the times.