Law is Subterfuge

Denise Ward
14 min readApr 15, 2021

My heart breaks everyday. I have expectations that humanity will be free soon. But what I see makes my heart sink. It seems so far from my ideal, humans have been so abused and manipulated and over a long, long, time.

People are used to being enslaved and abused and exploited. It’s mind boggling how ingrained these habits are now, we don’t even notice them anymore, they have become as familiar as the furniture. We talk about law — common law or admiralty law or natural law. And we speak with great conviction because we know what is right and we are rightly strident when we see injustice. However the idea of law is a fallacy. I think I’m the only one that sees this.

I am going to try to explain how I see law and the idea of law.

Call laws what you like they are always restrictions. Restrictions set down by a few people, sometimes people we know about who have names we can identify, and sometimes people we have no clue about, and sometimes people who are dead and have been dead for centuries. If we want to grow up and take charge of our own destiny, we should replace the word “law” with the word “restrictions”. You can bet that laws always talk about restriction, never about freedom. They are said to protect us from the harmful intent of others but that’s a rarity and a smokescreen, usually they are written to protect business and the powers of the status quo.

The status quo always presupposes that you are inferior. Therefore you need to have laws imposed upon you by others who are superior to you, who know what is good for you even though they’ve never met you or even know of your existence. The reason for their superiority is never brought to light, we are supposed to simply accept it.

When I say to people that I don’t consent to the law — they look at me like I’ve got two heads. They think that without laws life would be chaotic and that I must be crazy wanting something like that. And I bet most people reading this think that too. They think it because we’ve never really challenged the idea of law and thus simply accepted what we’ve been told, like good little peons…

I see it this way — if a law was made and didn’t have my voice in it then it is illegitimate. This is pretty simple in my mind. How can anyone justify making laws and imposing them on those who had no say in them? Shouldn’t laws that make decisions on people’s behalf at least get the voice of the people that they purport to be making them for? The usual answer to that is you can vote for a political representative and they will decide on the law. This is where it gets rather hairy because I hold representative government as being just as illegitimate! Again, I had no say in their process. This is the only system I have had in my entire lifetime and I don’t want it thank you. It was foisted on me and I reject it. I can see other ways that would make much more sense. And I want to start talking about them.

Handing over my destiny to people I have never met and never want to meet, is not something I wish to volunteer to. Perhaps not even by force — I haven’t been put in that situation too often so far. I don’t consent to men and woman in silly costumes stopping me on the street when I have done no harm and I don’t consent to their guns. I don’t consent to them getting in my face and asking me questions as I conduct the business of my own affairs without harm to anyone. These are invaders, intruders and it’s a global sport these days. The idea of “live and let live” went out the window for some people, years ago. Well it’s time for a revival.

And I don’t consent to suited numbskulls sitting in congress who know less than a toddler about humanity, the environment and psychology. I don’t care what “laws” they write. They have nothing to do with me because I do not consent to any of them and I do not consent to the system they were made in. The idea of representative government is another fallacy. They don’t try to get the people’s views who they (supposedly) represent. They could be sending questionnaires to their constituents to find out their opinions and vote accordingly on bills. But they don’t. Maybe they do occasionally but this needs to be on every bill they vote on. How can someone represent you if they also represent thousands of others? Surely the “representatives” need to get some guidance from their constituents but they never even seek it.

What is more sure than anything in this world? Some people say death and taxes — well no there is something even more certain than that — and that is change. Nothing is surer than change. Change is going to happen no matter which way things go. Nothing stays the same. But funny thing — laws do. Laws don’t make provision for change. How can laws go on and on when times have changed and are changing all the time? Why do we go by laws that were made before digital technology came in, before cars, or electricity? And why do laws have no provision for change? Maybe the lawmakers don’t want change? Laws if they exist at all, need to reflect society — it shouldn’t be that society had to knuckle under the law which doesn’t change, which doesn’t keep up to the times. It’s cockeyed doing things this way. The framers who originated the law, even though I don’t admire them but even with their best intention, had no idea what kind of issues we’d be facing in the 21st century. They themselves would probably be astounded that we still cling to the laws from that time. They didn’t even have televisions then! Let alone nuclear power, Directed Energy Weapons and Artificial Intelligence. They drove around on horseback!

The first law they did though was about free speech. So the framers must have held free speech as being pretty important. They made it the very First Amendment. That says a lot. That wasn’t by accident. They made it first because free speech is of paramount importance in a free society. Yet what good is pretending that the constitution means anything at all today when censorship is as rife as in Nazi Germany? And the First Amendment is mercilessly trashed by corporations who only have a responsibility to their shareholders and who now are more powerful than government? When anyone can be banned from social media for the most minor opposition, when youtube takes down videos that give an opposite to theirs, when google manipulates data — (even while they’re stealing it) — what kind of free speech is this? The framers couldn’t have seen all this. Let alone the chemical warfare we are constantly poisoned and bombarded with — from fluoride in the water to chemicals raining down on us from plane emissions; from nanoparticles in personal products to GMO foods. So many poisons that make one’s head spin. Not only do these substances poison us but they also poison the environment which we need to live on. Really, only numbskulls could have designed all this.

It takes years to get legislation through and often it goes the unjust way or makes only the slightest difference. Environmentalists would boast some successes to justify adherence to the system that they bow to, but they must have very low expectations because any improvement has been at a snail’s pace and still what has changed in any substantial way? Barely a thing. I thought by now we would be seeing on-site renewable energy sources, local manufacturing using 3D printers, food gardens instead of lawns, awesome public transport, composting toilets, weatherized homes, hemp buildings and hemp insulation. At least these few things! But we are still in the 70’s as far as building codes are concerned.

Hemp is never mentioned in the media. Don’t you find that suspect? The media is calculated mind control, it directs the mass mind wherever it wants it to go. It pumps the mind with sales, it sells a story or a product, a behavior or a belief. It has advantages none of its adversaries have. Imagine if every time an ad went up, there was another ad with the opposite perspective? Ads repeated all day long, all year long, definitely have an effect on our sub conscious, advertisers wouldn’t be spending so much if this weren’t the case.

Everyday the same belief systems are peddled and recycled. The belief in law is subterranean, it goes deep into the part of the psyche, into the subconscious which is the control room of our emotions. The sub conscious is elusive, hard to wrest. It’s beliefs are hidden deep and go back to cultural norms and even to as far back as our infancy. It’s hard to capture our subconscious beliefs, let alone place them into the light of day or into the conscious. It’s only in the conscious that beliefs can be adjusted. Beliefs can be very strong without our even knowing it.

The belief in law is one of these elusive beliefs. This belief causes us to strangle ourselves willingly. Tyrants who want to rule others put something down in writing and no matter what it is, believers will obey it because they believe in law. That’s all it takes for human direction to be controlled. And people believe that if the law wasn’t written then chaos would reign supreme. And they don’t want chaos so they mechanically obey the law. It works very well for tyrants especially, as we can see them enforcing the law no matter how senseless, no matter how brutal.

You’re probably still not on side because you keep thinking that we actually would have chaos if we didn’t have law — right? This is a tough subject but I want to get the narrative right. It’s so deeply embedded that we don’t talk about it and because we don’t talk about it, the threads are fragile. Once we talk more about this, the law will not be so omnipotent. They say location is everything but really the narrative is everything. We see law as something fixed and stable, that should take time to work out and that should not be able to change easily, because we want laws to be dependable and lasting. The word “law” itself has images of strength and establishment. It’s something we rely on without question. However it’s time to turn the idea of law into something more natural, more just, more agile, more satisfactory. The word to replace “law” could be “convention”. Laws are merely conventions, however they are enforced by violence. What if we took the violence out of the law and simply observed conventions?

Conventions could differ amongst the population, unlike with law where everyone must do the same. But having diversity is the most resilient thing. Conventions would recognize that people can be different and if we call ourselves free, then we ought to welcome differences and variety. What kind of a society would we be if we were all the same clones of each other?

Laws have got us to think that way — that what applies to me, has to apply to you — or else the big bad boys will be out to get ya. Well that’s not justice. That’s plodding, knuckle-dragging, pigheadedness.

We could take this mask business as an example.

If you believe in covid and that masks will protect you — well be my guest — wear them if that’s what you think. I personally think they are useless. Many doctors do too. Not that having doctors agree with my stance would affect me entirely. But the doctors that disagree with the media narrative are silenced and their work often taken down. I listen to both sides, and more sides if available, and my research shows clearly that masks don’t work and they are simply a security blanket for scaredy cats. The irony is wearers are making themselves sicker by retaking their exhaust air. The air that we breathe out is a sort of excretion. Our organs need oxygen to be in peak working order. Restricting the oxygen is a very imbecilic thing to do to yourself. And to top it off, they claim they do it to care about others. So they jeopardize their own health for others? They don’t realize this. Thick as a brick.

I don’t believe covid exists so I have no need to wear a mask and I don’t think that viruses act in such a way as to warrant wearing a mask. Viruses are nothing like we think, nothing like we’ve been taught. Viruses are produced by the body to clean up damaged cells, damaged by poisoning (usually). Viruses are like a cleanup crew. They are not considered living organisms and they don’t fly around in the air. They need a host to live on and they are actually good for us. Well this is very different to the narrative we have heard.

They didn’t teach us in schools about objections to vaccines. No other side was ever given. They simply don’t allow a different opinion. Yet how best can we get to any truth — the only way is by hearing various perspectives! They talked about Edison but never about Tesla, and Tesla worked with Edison. They talked about Pasteur but not about Bechamp and they were contempories. Pasteur gave us Germ Theory which the medical cartel bases its entire premise on. Bechamp gave us Terrain Theory but we don’t hear about that. Not even do medical schools mention this theory. Isn’t it obvious what is going on here?

Officials don’t want us to know the truth. They think they are there to protect us. Equals protecting equals — hmm. But what if we don’t want their protection? Is there a choice to bud out? No — they don’t give you the choice. Therefore what a farce it is that we say we are free. What a farce it is that people are being bombed right now because we pretend to be free?

People who believe in the superstition of covid are now coercing us who don’t believe it, into wearing a stupid thing around our mouth and nose. These people don’t even want to know if we are healthy. They simply want us to obey. Obey like they do. I spent my life taking responsibility for my health. I don’t take pharmaceuticals and never have, I eat well and exercise, sleep well and control my thoughts and emotions. Who are these people giving me unsolicited health advice?

Because some group wrote laws that we must wear the mask or get the vaccine, or get a license or do whatever — we think we have to abide. Just because someone, somewhere wrote it down. Without question, the hoards abide. They don’t care if there isn’t good reason for a law or if it doesn’t apply in some cases — if it’s a law, you’ve got to obey. Period. End of story.

These ideas are very debilitating. It means if those of us who are free-thinking, if we let this continue, if way say nothing about it, we will be tyrannized by the obedient ones. They don’t even want to talk about it — they just want their laws to decide our destiny. If I object, they don’t want to talk about it and huff off repeating like a broken record “Well, it is the law”. Really mind bending…

I think order could be done in a much better way and it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out. Laws enforced by violence keep us primitive. We have a tool in our back pocket so powerful we haven’t even stopped to consider our leverage. We need to have a method of laying down conventions that we agree to, that we have a voice in, that we are capable of making change to, that are quickly changeable but that also maintain coherence. We don’t want to drain our lives of years in order to get proper justice in the courts. Justice needs to come up to the times. It needs to be able to be nimble and adapt. It’s a big drudging lump that nobody needs. We need to move on from that now, we are in the digital age.

The technology is right at our fingertips to make “we the people” the jury and the congress. Just like the checkout has been automated, so too can politicians and judges. Justice and politics can be done a better way now — they can be done by individuals in the general public making comments, hearing testimony and evidence, all held in the open so everyone can see proceedings, and voted on at the end by each interested sovereign individual. Kind of like those self-checkouts. Naturally a system has to be designed and implemented to make this a smooth operation.

Let’s face it, judges are expensive and the results of their judgments are often pretty dubious. The verdict of judges are so random that a coin toss would yield similar results. And it would be a lot cheaper and take a lot less of everybody’s time. There is danger in centering such things as justice on so few people. What we need is to seek a broad consensus. And we need to set up the groundwork to be able to get this to happen. Now with all the technology available to us, you’d think there’d be throngs working on this but no, not a peep. I guess there is no money in it because that’s all people seem to work for.

Working for a new world, a new beginning, doesn’t attract too many volunteers. Even at this stage with fascism breathing down our necks and our freedom hanging by a thread.

A solution could be that all who build the new structure, be paid in another currency. A currency that is simple and that only records transactions. Nothing fancy. Ideally it should be open but that’s another level and something that needs discussion. We could get started on this right away by using timebanks. Our goals need to be set for an open society where information is free. Data is what our overlords are after because they know that data is the real wealth.

So we replace law with convention. Conventions would consist of an individual making a proposal. After open discussions, the proposal would have to achieve a high approval after it goes to the vote. This high rate of approval is what gives the proposal system coherence but still allows change to happen promptly. No more voting on individuals. Instead we vote for proposals. The proposal system can do away with the political system as well as courts.

We cannot continue with this antiquated system. Not only is it saturated in patriarchy but it is slow, cumbersome, boring, anxiety-ridden, expensive, unpredictable, brutal and definitely not “just”. It’s like old stinky cheese, way past its use-by date, it’s primitive compared to what we could be enjoying in these technological times. Judges, lawyers and politicians can now be replaced by an algorithm. No more pomp and high jinks. Be done with them. Let them be equal like the rest of us.

Law is a fallacy. The best we can do is replace it with convention and find the things we agree upon widely.