8 Legal rule is not law

Law is not what people believe it is. It is intrinsic natural law and nothing else. Every variant of artificial/manufactured law, referred to as positive law, is hog-tied to the dogmatic belief that no alternative to legal rule exists or is even possible. No one recognises intrinsic natural law as divine law, a superior intelligence, yours when born. Human nature lies abandoned, if not trashed, seemingly irretrievable!

What is Collectivism?

For centuries, the political script has created problems offering a ‘collective’ remedy only. People’s psychological, mental, and emotional imbalance throttles their independent vision, desires, and imagination. The method ‘propagandises that individual concerns are outside the group, therefore selfish, greedy, and inhumane, bordering on criminal.

Not surprisingly, people easily fall into the trap of collectivist language and ideology. They focus on the collective group, humanity, community, species, and ‘we the people.’ Globalists, trans humanists, futurists, Critical Race Theory devotees, or new agers have one goal: termination of our singular essence and independence, thus demeaning the people. Creative power deceptively succumbs to the idiotic notion that personal advancement is achievable only by sacrifice. The words’ we’ and ‘us’ are unceasingly splashed on the front page of our minds.

When based (constituted) on those principles, the State will steal the farm, giving only a few pieces back to those in need, on its terms. Governments know what a ‘free individual’ is, but independence threatens their world of central planning and authoritarian rule. 

Legal Rule 

Legal rule trades on our agreement to play the role of an artificial person in an artificial order, much like a piece of wood is assigned different rights and duties depending on whether the game is chess, checkers, or backgammon. Contemporary legal and political thought glorifies artificial legal orders, whereby fictional inventions inevitably govern reality. Invented or fraudulent distinctions fabricate artificial orders that outright neglect, disregard, or refuse all natural distinctions. By such means, people (whom in colloquial everyday language we refer to as ‘persons’) are artificial ‘persons’ by legal definition. The word ‘person’ has been legally commandeered and bastardised. The phrase’ natural person’ is also appropriated as a legal entity in Australia. People admitting they are a ‘natural person’ agree to act as and for or become an artificial ‘person’ by legal definition.

Such (legal) travesties are crimes against humanity, notwithstanding authoritarians conjure up an idea of law making the non-consensual ‘government’ of one person by another seem entirely ‘lawful.’ After that, they contemptuously refer to the ‘rule of law,’ denying that (true)’ law’ does not and cannot ever ‘rule.’

Law, as in Lex

Past leaders initially translated the word ‘law’ from the Latin word ‘Lex.’ Its original meaning and use came from commanding the mobilising armies and organising military campaigns. The word lex derives from the Latin root verb, ligare, ‘to bind.’ Progressively, Lex came to mean any general directive, rule, or law issued by the highest political authorities over the years. Today, ‘Lex’ refers to authoritative commands backed by physical force. Thus, all statutes improperly named as law originate from the word Lex. The Latin term ‘Lex Naturalis’ was a later attempt to use ‘nature’ to grant moral legitimacy to authoritarian rule - aka legal rule.

French Philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote concerning freedom in the Mid-1700s, but what he said in full was opposed to intrinsic natural law and liberty.

’While freedom is a fact of nature, people should be taught to consider that it is dangerous; whereby they ought to sacrifice their individual nature to the artificial condition of citizenship. Furthermore, natural persons should become artificial persons, that is citizens —wittingly or unwittingly—willingly, or by legal compulsion.

That exposes the foundation of today’s Admiralty Law and Maritime Law. The conclusion is obvious.

‘When people authorise a state to rule them by Force, they deserve all the tyranny their government initiates.’

Law, as in ius

Fortunately, people also translated the Latin word’ ius’ to the word ‘Law.’

• Lex prescribes, commands, or orders an outcome. After that, it threatens force for noncompliance, that abomination ruling people’s minds in violation of their unalienable right to life. 
• In contrast, ius speaks of cooperatively and harmoniously working for a mutually agreed outcome. It accepts other people’s choices to contribute to a shared goal creatively. And so, a natural bond is formed. This bond denies initiated force. Nothing may break the bond or overrule it. Witness that–
• No cell, tissue, organ, or mental faculty instructs, commands, or orders another. 
• Our hearts and lungs bond together to preserve our lives and our choices. So do our two minds. Cooperation and collaboration are mutual. 
• The outcome is synergistic power with harmony.
• Implant that principle into society, and it will function precisely as our biology and consciousness work.
• This bond teaches how to draft and implement a country’s constitution. Expressly, intrinsic natural law cannot prescribe our actions in advance.

Much is spoken about today concerning natural law, which refers to Lex Naturale, not Ius naturale, although both refer to natural law generically. Effectively, Lex seeks a natural (moral) permission for authority to rule. Ius, by contrast, upholds conditions wherein people meet as free and equal individuals, permitting the arrangement of their affairs by agreement, contracts, or covenants within intrinsic natural law.

“Laws are patterns of order. Hence, Natural Laws are patterns of natural order. Thus, Natural Law is the natural order of persons, human beings that are capable of rational, purposive action, speech and thought.” — Frank van Dun, Philosopher of Law.

Intrinsic natural law is not idle speculation but a natural fact of life. ‘Protectorates’ politically maintain respect for the realities of life. People’s respect for natural law is an objective criterion of human action. Disrespect is unlawful and unjust. 

The legal rule (Rule of Law) is founded on us admitting that what we each have a right to do or own as property depends not on what we are by nature, or indeed what we do, but on our status in the legal order instituted as most popularly consented. Therein, we play-act the role of an artificial person in an artificial order, like a piece of wood that is assigned different ‘rights and duties’ depending on whether the game is chess, checkers or backgammon. 

Contemporary legal and political thought glorifies such artificial legal orders, whereby fictional inventions inevitably seem to triumph over reality. Artificial orders derive from artificial or imaginary distinctions, whereby natural distinctions are neglected, disregarded, or refused outright.

By such means, those people whom, in colloquial everyday language, we refer to as ‘persons’ become artificial ‘persons’ by legal definition. The word ‘person’ has been legally commandeered. Moreover, the phrase ‘natural person’ is also appropriated as a legal entity in Australia. Admitting that one is a ‘natural person’ confers one’s agreement to act as and for or become an artificial ‘person’ by legal definition.

Such travesties are crimes against humanity. By denying intrinsic natural law and the natural distinctions that constitute and prove its factual validity, authoritarians conjure up an idea of law that makes the non-consensual ‘government’ of one person by another seem entirely ‘lawful’. So they refer to the legal ‘rule of law’ even though law does not and cannot ever ‘rule.’ 

It should be sufficiently clear that ‘intrinsic natural law’ is not a question of idle speculation but of natural fact. In support of this certainty, ‘Protective bodies’ (government substitutes) are a political means of upholding respect for the facts of life, whereby respect for natural law is an objective category of human action. Human actions that respect the governing laws of nature are lawful and, therefore, just, while those that do not are unlawful and unjust.

What is Collectivism?

For centuries, the political script has been to create problems wherein the only solution appears to be ‘collective.’ The method is to divert your attention from your independent vision, desires and imagination psychologically, mentally, and emotionally and place it within the group, meaning ‘society.’ In practice, the method propagates the idea that your concerns are outside the group and, therefore, selfish, greedy, and inhumane, bordering on delinquency.

Not surprisingly, we easily fall into the trap of collectivist language and ideology. So, our focus is directed to the group, humanity, community, our species, and ‘we the people.’ As individual living beings, we are each submerged into a paradigm having no life of its own. It matters not then what name we use, be it globalists, trans humanists, futurists, or new ager; the dissolution of our singular essence and destruction of our independence is almost inevitable. We can easily become absorbed by the Critical Race Theory ( CRT).

We are demeaned by legal rule while our creative power is compromised, meaning that our lives depend on a collective force over which we have no say. We are deceptively bankrupted by believing that personal advancement can only be achieved by its sacrifice, never grasping that the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ are nothing but mental diversions splashed on the front page of our minds.

When constituted in that fashion, the State will pretend to favour those in need by stealing the farm, thence giving a few pieces back on their terms. Governments fully understand what a ‘free individual’ is, but independence threatens their world of central planning because their social order is their authoritarian rule; all threats are arrested or abolished.

Over the last three years, sociopaths have used the veil of a bogus medical crisis to consolidate their power on an international scale and strip humanity of its unalienable right to life. Crimes against humanity have been committed as never witnessed in human history.

As people awaken to this disaster, they instinctively turn their attention to what they believed worked for their comforts and security in the past, ‘common law’ and ‘democracy’ being at the forefront in their minds. Very few, indeed an abysmally minuscule number, recognise those ‘supposed solutions’ precisely account for today’s tragedy.

Can democracy save humanity?

Every empire, monarchy and ruling government in human history has prescribed that individuals must subordinate themselves to someone else's edicts, commands, dictates, acts, or so-called laws. Yet that rule violates your free will and denies your life. Whatever society robs an individual of the product of his effort, enslaves him, or indeed attempts to limit the freedom of his mind. That is not a society. It is a gang that, by wielding institutionalised gang rule, destroys all the values of human coexistence and thus threatens the people's very survival.

Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism that denies individual rights. It is a totalitarian manifestation, not a form of freedom. Democratic governments are all-powerful.

“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule. a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose. — Ayn Rand

Criminality survives by our consent because we do not arrest tyrants who fraudulently claim moral superiority as leaders or elitists. People are taught to accept that no social orderliness is humanly possible without statute laws backed by force. Precios few people recognise that initiated force is an act of violence, despite it being declared legal and purposefully misconstrued as moral. 

Authority, backed by force, is violence, precisely what it purports to protect from. It is one thing to structure a government to protect individual rights, but if one's right to life is granted/enacted/legislated or ruled by the government, it legislates your life for its protection, not yours. Your freedom to live vanishes, while its freedom to rule magnifies. That subordination is the road to communistic tyranny.

The truth is that force and mind are opposites. Matters of fact and value can be determined only by the voluntary consent of the human mind. Yet the government is essentially a policeman with a gun and club. It settles matters using force, which denies correction through knowledge. Government officials cannot properly decide what is true or false, possessing or lacking in value, while the rule of your life is the deciding factor. Nor can truth adequately be decided by majorities in voting booths.

No government or majority can be permitted to crush individuals who are the source of all new knowledge and improvement. Knowledge and values freely assented to must never be restricted.

Governments relish our entrapment because our forfeiture of freedom supports their tyranny in full. Meanwhile, many so-called 'freedom' groups around the world who champion democracy as their means to freedom are unwittingly doing the oligarch's bidding. No society is considered possible outside of these invented, enforced legalities; thus, no one believes that any alternative might exist. Nothing will change until we awaken to this crime against humanity and eliminate it.

So, where do Governments fit in?

They don't. Governments inject their rules into our awareness before we choose to do anything, and that action overrules our whole mental process. Our free will is denied before we can engage it. Freedom is overruled. We have no remedy because no one knows what consciousness is. The real tragedy is far worse. Governments expect we will adapt to their legal environment as if that were nature itself — as though we are animals. That legal rule is itself a point-blank refusal of human nature. People are brainwashed and don't know it. And they've no (mental) ability to escape it if they did know. People cling to their captors, to the Government, never understanding how they consent to be hostages to corporatised enslavers prized as elitists – whose activities are criminal. Known as the Stockholm syndrome, 99% of the world's population prizes bondage higher than freedom and continually votes to preserve it.

Thomas Jefferson told us —

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was and never will be.

People’s solution and removing all legal rules is the new ‘science of consciousness’ that reveals intrinsic natural law.