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.

Normal is FAR from sanity

And Accepting Bad Government is INSANE

For this article I’m using ‘not delusional’ as the definition for ‘sane’. I suppose I should provide a definition for ‘delusional’ too. For this post, delusion means something that only seems or appears to be real.

What is reality? Touch yourself. You have physical form – you are real. The physical world is easy – it is real. Concepts are more difficult because they only really exist in the mind. What you perceive of the physical world is also real. Look at yourself in a mirror. Your eyes see yourself as existing and your mind interprets your own being as real – and it is. But let’s tackle a slightly more difficult concept.

Look at the flag flying at your local courthouse. Your eyes detect a colorful tablecloth fluttering at the top of a big metal stick but your mind then attaches a number of concepts to it. You automatically interpret the symbol as representing the nation or the state but that is a trained response – the flag is just a garishly colored cloth attached to a pole. Equating a nation with a flag is not intrinsically rational. But for society to function, some concepts have to be accepted as quasi-real or a condition of chaos might exist. So let’s examine that.

The flag is flying at the courthouse. Is law a delusion that must be deemed as sanity? Absolutely NOT! Law is the WORST delusion that is currently defrauding our troubled world. For one thing, law is FAR to warped and subject to misinterpretation. The twisted logic one’s mind needs to boggle through to arrive at law and bad government is utterly insane. Let’s break it down.

1. The mind has to deem the non-existent nation represented by a flag, as having legitimate authority to pass judgments and enact punishments against people.

2. The supposed authority is a function of another dubious concept called ‘the social contract’ where people relinquish their natural born freedom in return for protection. But this ‘social contract’ isn’t an actually existing document either. It is just a theory postulated during the mid 1700′s. And frankly, it is garbage because law does not ACTUALLY protect people. (See the next item for further explanation of this non-protection concept). Even if a social contract did exist, the government and law are in breach of it, so it should be null and void.

3. Supposedly a court is deciding on an appropriate response to an action that one person performed against another, but the illogical concept of law presumes instead that a theoretical manifestation of the law itself was hurt/broken/damaged. Instead of protecting the people as promised in this highly touted social contract claims, in fact the obtuse rule of law only protects itself from having it’s laws fractured and it also preserves a bad government’s ability to illegitimately withhold our natural freedom.

So here is my point. If you are a ‘law abiding’ citizen, then you are insane because you are believing in some delusional, and patently untrue concepts. Interestingly, one definition of ‘abiding’ is ‘putting up with something bad’. The insane rule-of-law concept certainly does qualify as heinously BAD! I though, am quite sane, or if you suppose that ‘normal’ is sane then I am hyper-sane because I know that law does NOT exist. Neither does the ‘social contract’ that our bad governments use to squash our freedom. I do NOT abide with law and neither should anyone.

I wish that you were sane like me. Then we could overturn the bad governments of today and return sanity to the world. We will all be much better off when that happens.

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]

“We fight for the rule-of-law!”  The politician hammers his fist on the podium and shouts.  “The rule-of-law is our way of life.”

“Freedom rules,” a young man in the audience shouts at the top of his lungs, “and law drools.”

The politician’s security squad hustles out, tackles the youth, and they drag him away.  The other folk in the assembly are uncertain of how to react.  The heckler had said ‘freedom rules’ and that was a concept they’ve been taught to cheer, but he had finished with a slur on the rule of law.  His message was mixed and so is the general reaction.  Some hope the lad is severely pummeled by the burly security guards, and he doubtlessly will be.  Another group feel compassion and wonder why youth is so rebellious towards a rule-of-law system that protects them (the rule-of-law really doesn’t protect anyone).  The third segment of the crowd is unsure of how to feel, so most exercise apathy and push the confusion to the back mind.

[private_Chevron]There two opposed concepts in the young man’s criticism of the rule-of-law.  The first was ‘freedom’ and the second was ‘rule’.  One cancels out the other.  You can have freedom or rule but not both.  To suggest otherwise is illogical.  I know that you’ve been conditioned to believe the rule-of-law equates to freedom but it doesn’t-period.  Rule is (obedience, non-freedom, slavery) and freedom is freedom.[/private_Chevron]

Right now, your brain is likely screaming “ANARCHY!” Because that’s how your trained to react. But that’s also false.  The opposite of the Rule of Law needn’t be Anarchy and Chaos, just as the opposite of a PC is not ‘no computer’.  The opposite of rule of law could be, and should be social order keeping by a method that isn’t the rule-of-law, just as the opposite of ‘no PC’ can be, and is ‘Mac’.

[private_Chevron]Those who favor the rule-of-law, do not want you to believe that an alternative is possible: they don’t even want you to think clearly and rationally about a different system than law–so the society you live in has been stuffed full of pro-law propaganda.  Your brainwaves have also been saturated with the false belief that; the rule-of-law protects you (it doesn’t: the rule-of-law only protects itself), without the rule of law there would be chaos (without any public order keeping there would be anarchy but the rule of law isn’t the only way to keep chaos at bay), and that the rule-of-law and law makers are addressing the social problems that seem to be growing despite all efforts (In fact, the rule of law is CAUSING most the ills in society.)

The solution to the problems with the rule-of-law: Get rid of the rule of law in favor of a better method.  There IS a far superior alternative but you’re not even going to be able to comprehend that unless you can overcome your societal programming to think logically and clearly about the rule of law issue.[/private_Chevron]

Don’t rob a bank, harm anyone, or drive irresponsibly: that’s not what I mean by breaking the law.  To break the law we need to break the slave grip the law has on people and we will thereby save the world.

Law is a horrible and STUPID concept.  We are idiots for adhering to the rule-of-law’s slavery.  There IS a much better way of providing public protection and justice.  [private_Chevron]Breaking the law, breaking the law’s hold on us would save our world.  No.  I’ll say breaking the law WILL save our world because it’s going to happen.  The rule of law WILL fall and good F**king riddance when the heinous rule of law is finally gone.

People are conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to bow, scrape and obey the law, even when it is utterly stupid to do so.  For example, If a street is closed for repairs and barricades are up to stop traffic, there will be no cars driving down that street.  So on the crossing avenue, the traffic light is completely redundant.  Yet what happens when that light turns red?  The stupid drivers stop and wait.  For what?  There is NO crossing traffic.  There are barricades.  You morons are trained to obey law, even when it is completely brain-dead to do so.  And that complete acceptance of abject stupidity is precisely why our world is a such screwed up place.[/private_Chevron]

Wake up your brain: wake up your subconscious and feel it's awesome power

How many tons of carbon are dumped annually into our environment by cars idling at an intersection, when there is no crossing traffic, but where the light is red?  The answer is in the millions!  STUPIDITY! Break the law, free the people and save the world.  This is simply one aspect of how retarded the rule of law is and how moronic people are for accepting such an inept method of social order.  There IS an better way than law but to see that, you need to be free, or at least have the capacity of thinking free.

“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. [private_Chevron]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.[/private_Chevron]

[private_Chevron]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.[/private_Chevron]

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

Blame the Rule-of-Law for Police Corruption – Everywhere

People and the Western media like to point fingers and offer nasty exposes of the police corruption in Asia and Latin America. The west puffs up and boasts: “Here we have the rule-of-law”. To burst your bubble, they have your ‘rule of law’ in developing nations too and yes, there is police corruption in Asia and Latin America, but it is of an honest sort of police corruption. IE. The police are open and straightforward about the corruption. They hold a hand out after a traffic violation and a driver hands over some cash and it’s a done deal without the courts, lawyers and the pernicious system becoming involved.

Now let’s look at the police corruption in supposedly “civilized” Western nations. [private_Chevron]The police don’t stick their hands out seeking cash bribes—BUT—there are other forms of payments and one is career advancement. The police officer that meets his/her quota of revenue generated with tickets gets promoted and a pay raise. A ticket ‘quota’ is a government’s crime against its citizens and it contributes to the hidden but still nefarious police corruption in the West.

But ticket quotas aren’t the only form of police corruption in the supposedly civilized parts of the world. Another way police are ‘paid off’ by western governments is with an entrenched protection against prosecution for crimes the police commit—and they regularly commit MANY. Some police crimes are taking sex from prostitutes/speeders in lieu of ticket issuance or arrest and taking money from criminals in return. Police are NOT subjected to ANY investigation either individually or the whole department, except by themselves. Similarly, the entire justice system is NOT up for internal scrutiny, except as looking in a mirror. Let me put it this way. [/private_Chevron] Nobody polices the police and supposed justice is not held to justice. This is NOT a healthy situation. It INVITES police corruption and it rewards corrupt police.

Become an Expert Persuader

[private_Chevron]‘When you point at something, there are four curled fingers pointing back.’ That’s a well-worn expression but it is utterly poignant in respects of police corruption. Asia and Latin America do have corrupt police but the corruption problem there would be easier to solve because it’s in the open. The more difficult cure is where everyone knows the police are corrupt but on society’s urging, all pretend to think otherwise. There are corrupt police all over the world because the corruption problem is systemic. The rule-of-aw is a horrible system of justice that facilitates and encourages corruption. We need to replace the rule of law with a better system of keeping public order. Only then will police corruption come to an end.[/private_Chevron]