Attorney Says a Black Man “Schooled” a WVA Cop After an Unlawful Stop. In Reality, the Black Man Had to Obey Authority b/c There are No Real Choices in the Free Range Prison. "Rights" Protect Nobody
/RIGHTS and LEFTS. In the video above The Civil Rights Lawyer claims that the Black man schooled the white cop about his rights. Here, the attorney has confused “freedom” with an authority giving you permission to do something – master’s favors best described as adherent rights.
adherent rights – privileges disguised as so-called “rights” created by men via deceptive word-manipulation in written form called “symbolaeography,” and legal documents. 2) privileges granted by an apparent or putative authority at the expense of one's inherent or unalienable ‘rights.’ (See: Inherent Rights & Rights) - FUNKTIONARY
The Civil Rights Lawyer writes “February 13, 2023, Jacob Jackson is walking down a public sidewalk in Beckley, West Virginia. A uniformed sheriff’s deputy pulls up in a marked police cruiser and activates his emergency lights. The reason? He has civil service papers to serve related to an eviction proceeding. Jacob asserts his rights. The deputy asserts what he believes to be his rights as a police officer. Can a police officer forcibly detain you, ID you, search you, put his hands on you, just because he has civil paperwork to serve on someone? Even if you’ve done nothing illegal?” The attorney goes on to explain that the initial stop was absolutely unlawful because it violated Mr. Jackson’s 4th Amendment Rights - he was not engaged in a crime and the white cop had no rational reason to believe he was. The cop also had no reason to touch him, interrogate him, demand his name and continue to detain the Black man against his volition.
But he did though. His imaginary rights didn’t protect him, nor did they stop the cop. At some point during their forced interaction the Black man realizes that he’s not actually having an arms length conversation with an equal member of society. He’s talking to his public master. The cop will let him go if he so desires and the cop will be the decider of all things decided during their argument and the black man will be required to obey. Mr. Jackson seems aware that he has no meaningful choices and no independent opportunity to secure a different outcome by continuing to talk to the cop. He can either 1) obey authority or 2) go to jail or face physical violence. Within 10 minutes Mr. Jackson is coerced into complying with the cop to avoid the fuckery; he tells the cop his name and accepts service of the court papers.
The Civil Rights Lawyer is correct about Constitutional legal truths inside law books. But all truths must give way to reality. Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a rational argument that so-called constitutional rights provide any real protection from cops or the government in general. The only thing upholding the 4th Amendment is your belief in it. You only have rights if an authority says that you do or agrees that you do. Your possession of "rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your master, is cult belief. In reality, as explained by Dr. Blynd, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” Authority is force. Jeremy Locke explains, “There is no authority on earth that can rightfully govern your life. Born to this world, you and you alone control your eyes, your ears, your tongue, your hands and your mind. All authority which claims to be able to dispose of you and your abilities is deceit. . . Anyone who tells you that you must yield your mind, your body, or your possessions to authority is evil.”
Rights are myths or a device to conceal the true nature of relations between the government and its citizens.
The legal system is based entirely on physical coercion. In general, all laws or commands are backed by the threat of violence against those who do not comply – here, violence means forced confiscation of property [payment of fines] or arrest or prison. Said threat of violence includes the ability and willingness of authorities to use deadly force against those who disobey. Michael Huemer spells out the mechanics of it,
‘force and violence are the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.” [MORE]
Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.“ [MORE] Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement.
In the video Mr. Jackson knew he couldn’t walk away from the police. He had no choice but to comply with authority and he did. FUNKTIONARY calls this a “Hobson’s Choice – you can either get with this or nothing at all.” Obey or go to jail or die. In fact, The Civil Rights Lawyer would make the same legal arguments about Mr. Jackson’s so-called 4th Amendment rights if he had been paralyzed or shot to death by the cop while resisting the unlawful stop. Said “constitutional rights” protect no one.
The video speaks for itself when it’s viewed through the lens of reality not the abstraction of “authority.” It shows a white man approach and stop a Black man who was minding his own business. The white man wore a blue costume and the Black man did not. The Black man posed no threat to the costumed man. The costumed man was not acting in self-defense of himself or another person or in defense of property when he stopped, non-consensually touched and forcibly controlled the Black man’s freedom of movement. Nor was the interaction voluntary and consensual as the Black man was not free to leave without being subjected to violence. It is obvious that if a non-costumed person had walked up to the Black man and done the same thing -demand identification or face violence- then he would be considered a deranged criminal. Here however, both parties are actually engaged in role play: both pretended that the costumed man, a so-called ‘police officer’ had the power to control and direct the Black man who acted as a ‘citizen,’ a person who voluntarily consented to this “optional” arrangement. Both play out their respective roles no differently than children playing “house” or any other make believe games. Both roles are acted out according to their common agreement about reality or what FUNKTIONARY describes as a “consensus reality” in which; the costumed man had power over the Black man because as a police officer he was a representative of a fiction called government, and thus imagined to have powers to do things that citizens cannot do (such as order you to stop on the street) and are exempt from morality, laws and the normal rules of accountability when they do so. Within this consensus reality the costumed man believes he has the power to stop the Black citizen in the street to give him a document (a summons) and the Black citizen believes that although he has the right to be free from unlawful seizures, he still must comply with police orders. The cop believes there are legal or constitutional boundaries to what he can do, but on the street he is the sole decider of his discretionary power. Legal questions only arise out of these roles as set forth in their consensus reality (the constitution, laws). We already know that if the interaction was between two citizens, Mr. Jackson could simply ignore the white man and/or defend himself if the white man tried to stop or threaten him.
The officer’s implied right to rule over and forcibly control the citizen acted out in the video is called “authority.” All people play out the above roles in their daily relations with government agents or representatives of authority in different contexts. Like Mr. Jackson, citizens dutifully fulfill their roles because they believe there is some substantive, actual and valid unarticulated basis for their belief in authority. That is, they believe there is some solid legitimate reason the government is in charge of citizens and some legitimate reason for them to obey government authorities.
However, what if there is no rational basis for authority? What if there is no legitimate basis for the government to make and enforce rules for the rest of society and no legitimate basis for citizens to obey authority?
If there is no valid basis for authority then when the costumed man interfered with the Black man’s freedom of movement and then detained him against his own volition he was engaged in thuggery, not just bad police work. When the costumed man forcefully touched the Black man he committed a criminal assault and when he prevented him from leaving he committed felony threats to do significant bodily harm. If there is no valid basis for authority then the consensus reality that the costumed man can forcibly control the Black man’s movement within certain bounds is actually a form of slavery. Like a prisoner claiming to be the warden of a prison or a child claiming to be the parent, simply asserting that you are a higher authority cannot somehow legitimately endow you with superior power to rule over others. Nor can putting on a blue costume give an individual an exemption from morality or transform a person’s conduct from unlawful to lawful.
FUNKTIONARY describes this role play as delusional and a “deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game” because in reality no one has legitimately acquired the right to rule over them. Authority, which is the basis for all governments throughout the world, is a complete farce, make believe. In reality there is no rational basis for the existence of authority,” it is based on brute force and nothing else.
The belief in authority is a farce because people cannot delegate powers to the government that they do not possess.
All persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law. In contrast, police officers and other representatives of authority have the extra or added “power” to act offensively as aggressors; they have been granted the power to use force offensively on people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. As such, police are permitted to do things “citizens” cannot do, such as, stop individuals, touch them against their will, attack (make arrests) people, interfere with their freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them all because higher authorities have empowered them to do so. In turn, “citizens” are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey all government orders, laws and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states. Authority must be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether citizens agree or not.) [MORE] This hypothesized moral property (authority) is said to make government the supreme authority over human affairs.
However, “authority” does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly is said to come exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens and act on their behalf. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the franchise owner when she carries out his everyday business requests, like ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owner is the principal who empowers and directs her work and is responsible for her conduct. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, the Manager does not have the authority to sell the store unless the owner granted her such power. Similarly, the McDonalds manager could not have the power to do things that the franchise owner has no power to do - such as change the McDonalds logo to a black panther or use another business’ parking lot for storage. Additionally, numbers don’t change anything – a group of McDonald’s owners still don’t have the power to grant an agent the power to use another business’ parking lot either. An agent cannot have more power than the principal because all his/her power necessarily originated exclusively from the principal. Additionally
In the case of government however, the government has somehow granted itself the power to do things that no individual citizen could ever do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence (use force offensively) on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the power to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have.
Larken Rose explains, ‘the people whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do: impose “taxes,” enact “laws,” etc. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live their lives, and punish them if they disobey, So when a “government” does such things, it is not representing anyone or anything but itself.’ As stated, it is a logical and legal impossibility for a representative to have more power than the person he is representing. Larken Rose explains, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” There is nothing complicated about this. Rose states;
“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses. And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”
Rose further explains if
those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.
The point here is not a theoretical discussion about the purpose of government or how it should run. Rather, it is the fact that there is no valid justification for one man (or government) to have supreme authority over another. Although we all assume that there is some valid explanation for why the government should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights if performed by anyone other than the government, there is none.
Other explanations for authority have been thoroughly debunked.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. How about the social contract theory - the idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes? That is, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, if such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract exists.
At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. Decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. It means for instance that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for a failure to protect citizens. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties. [MORE] and [MORE].
Pursuant to the social contract, citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?” There is no contract between the individual and the state. It is device or trick to control the populace.
IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. What about an implicit agreement to obey authority - where we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being a slave subject to another (authority) plantation owner.
AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” For the same reasons no one has an implicit contract with the government. Government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority.
CONSENT BY PRESENCE. How about consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Said theory means governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic as stated by Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” [MORE]
Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.”
It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place.
CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Finally, does consent through participation make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not.” [MORE]
MAGIC WORDS, CAPES & CEREMONIES. It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, special costumes to put on, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over other people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.
—-
Therefore, in summary there is no rational basis for authority, the implied right to forcibly control others. No person(s) or entity has the right to rule over other human beings. No one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.
FUNKTIONARY explains that government means “control of the mind” and “authority is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Trent Goodbaudy describes this is as a “statist delusion.” Statist, within the meaning of FUNKTIONARY means “the belief “citizens” and “states” exist and the memetic thought patterns supporting such beliefs.” Goodbaudy states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.”
In reality, persons do not actually live under “democracies” or “republics” or monarchies or dictatorships. Said descriptions or characterizations are designed to conceal the reality of an elite ruling class and the master/servant relations it has with its citizens. In the United States and everywhere else government exists, Rose states “there is a ruling class and a subject class, and the differences between them are many and obvious. One group commands, the other obeys. One group demands huge sums of money, the other group pays. One group tells the other group where they can live, where they can work, what they can eat, what they can drink, what they can drive, who they can work for, what work they can do, and so on. One group takes and spends trillions of dollars of what the other group earns. One group consists entirely of economic parasites, while the efforts of the other group produce all the wealth. It is patently obvious who commands and who obeys. The people are not the “government,” by any stretch of the imagination, and it requires profound denial to believe otherwise. For example, it is also claimed that “the government works for us; it is our servant.” Again, such statements does not even remotely match the obvious reality of the situation; it is little more than a cult mantra, a delusion intentionally programmed into the populace in order to twist their view of reality.”
Within the “consensus reality” (a consensus manufactured through programming and the social conditioning of the masses) various other fictions and devices are used to disguise the reality of the master-servant relationship. Devices such as “consent of the governed,” “we are the government,” “democracy,” “representative government,” “majority rule,” and “constitutional rights” etc. According to FUNKTIONARY these ‘fictions lead only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality.’ Dr. Blynd states, “discussion and debates about fictions such as “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense?”
As explained by FUNKTIONARY,“Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. “While there are varying degrees, “government” very simply is “one man violently controlling the life and property of another man.” Governmental rule based on authority cannot be voluntary or consensual.
The legal discussion of whether Mr. Jackson had any “rights” in his relations on the street with his public master will be ultimately decided by higher authorities (judges, police chief, prosecutors) who are in control of us because they said so. In fact, the head of the state police was forced to resign over the incident and now the Governor and the feds are involved and may take action (to maintain our belief in the existence of rights) as said higher authorities see fit. If you still have doubt about your status as ‘a citizen’ ask yourself the following question: If another person, such as a police officer, is uncontrollable by you, unaccountable to you, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service” to you that cannot ever decline, isn’t he your Master? Dr. Blynd states, "The child who is taught to believe the law will be his protection is the child who will become the victim of its own beliefs." "Unquestioned beliefs own you."
FUNKTIONARY explains that although there are different brands and flavors of “government” across the ideological spectrum, it is more accurate to describe such systems as “free range plantations” or “free range prisons.” The inhabitants of such “jurisdictions” are “free range slaves” or “free range prisoners.” Some prisons or plantations are more restrictive than others but all “citizens” within them are subject to an implied authority. Slaves or prisoners in the Free Range Prison may face greater or lesser restrictions depending upon their income, status or race but none are free.
Whether individuals choose to be willing slaves (citizens) or unwilling slaves (denizens) depends upon how aware they are of their true reality and their response to it.
Nevertheless, there is no need to revolt against authority. Authority is only a belief that must be dropped. FUNKTIONARY states, ‘there are no tyrants only tyranny exists. How can one man or woman rule a multitude against their will except through mind-control and word-conditioning control?’
“The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.” FUNKTIONARY explains, “We don’t violently overthrow government, rather we silently and organically outgrow it in its current form as we know it. Where there is no energy for conflict upon which to feed, it starves itself into oblivion or becomes malnourished to the point of ineffectual irrelevance.”
Where a critical mass of individuals see authority for what it is – an irrational, self-contradictory, evil, granfalloon, contrary to civilization and morality that “constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed”- they will drop it like a wooden coin or unwanted vaccine.
According to Dr. Blynd:
"rights" - useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction ("government") have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about "rights" merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any "right" and who will benefit from the pretense. "Rights" are separated into two categories—those flowing from "negative liberties" and those flowing from "positive liberties." In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a 'thing' is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma'at & Justice)
rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is no: involved or revealed. [MORE]
consensus – the hypnotic communal cultural trance—the collective psychosis. 2) a common agreement about reality. 3) an artificial overlay or semantic screen (filter) that obfuscates the clarity of our subjective reality. 4) a search for an acceptable myth. 5) an opinion or position no one really likes, but everyone is seemingly able to live with it or through it. It is impossible to ever find (or experience) reality by consensus. Consensus is the art of conning the group—Con-Sense-Us— you con. Consensus has nothing to do with census, but with common sense, albeit mostly manufactured through programming and social conditioning of the masses. In consensus, the participants take part in the decision-making process on an ongoing basis and exercise real control over their daily lives. Consensus fosters and upholds freedom and accountability while allowing each participant to retain his or her own autonomy. Autonomous individuals can cooperate without agreeing on a shared agenda, so long as everyone benefits from everyone else’s participation without constraint, coercion, conformity, fear or submission. Consensus can be as repressive as democracy unless the participants retain and exercise their own respective autonomy. (See: Consensus Reality, Symbiocracy, Freedom, Split-Mind, Mirrorealization, Predictive Programming, Conformity, Autonomy, Anarchy, Self-Ownership, Aggression & Funnel Vision)
