On the Anniversary of George Floyd’s Murder by Police “Journalists” are Asking 'Has Anything Changed?' Of Course Not. Police Still Have the Uncontrollable Power to Use Force Offensively Against People
/
FREEDOM CANNOT EXIST IN THE PRESENCE OF SO-CALLED AUTHORITY. On the Anniversary of George Floyd’s Murder by police officers in Minneapolis mostly neuropean “journalists” are provocatively asking, ‘what has changed since his death?’ Can you make a mirror out of a brick?
First of all the operating system of racism white supremacy is thriving - as it goes on continually updating and refining itself while most Black sheople are oblivious to its existence, continue to live in a reactionary state and have become politically powerless, “complicit in their own political emasculation,” and kept in a continuous state of checkmate. The quality of Black citizenship is so low that; no matter what the law says Blacks are prohibited from possessing guns and Blacks are subject to omnipresent interference by cops with their freedom of movement and their right to be left the fuck alone. Police exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos and any protection from them is incidental and random. [MORE] Their goal is to place Blacks & Latinos in greater confinement. Said factors exist in a legal context in which law enforcement is uncontrollable by citizens, generally unaccountable to them, can’t be hired or fired by citizens and it has irresponsible, limitless power to take life on the street as they see fit while providing a compulsory “service” that citizens have no “right” to decline. Dr. Blynd observes, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers."
Most importantly however, nothing can ever change with regard to police brutality so long as police have the power to use force offensively on “citizens.” In fact, despite the falling violent crime rates since 1993, police killings have increased. According to Mapping Police Violence, “Police killed more people in 2023 than any year in more than a decade. Police have continued to kill at a similar rate in 2024.“ Police killed at least 1,247 people in 2023. Black people were 27% of those killed by police in 2023 despite being only 13% of the population. Thus far, there have been only 9 days in 2024 where police did not kill someone. Black people are most likely to be killed by police and are three times more likely than whites to be killed by police. 33% of Black people killed by police were running away, driving away or otherwise trying to flee. Regardless of race, there is no accountability: 98.1% of killings by police from 2013-2023 did not result with officers even being charged with a crime. [MORE]
Petitioning puppeticians for reforms, or begging them to enforce the status quo by punishing police for conduct that is already illegal or begging them to defund or lower police department budgets can have no effect on the extraordinary police power to use force offensively on citizens. Said non-reformable and uncontrollable power to initiate the use of unprovoked violence on people is called “authority.”
As you will see, if you indulge BW here, due to the fact that "authority" is immoral and unjust and there is no legitimate or rational way to account for belief in its existence, the legal system is entirely based on physical coercion or violence. In other words, we are not free.
Political “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral and legal obligation to obey.’ [MORE] Authority is the basis and operating system for all governments throughout the world, regardless of type, function or characterization. As so-called representatives of authority, police officers (among other authorities) are empowered to use force offensively against citizens who are legally and morally obliged to obey authority.
However, all use of force offensively is immoral and evil. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by “citizens” are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by government agents. Putting your hands on another human being, not in self-defense but offensively, without their consent and ‘manipulating their body in disregard of their volition is evil’, whether its done by citizens or representatives of “authority” wearing blue costumes. Larken Rose explains, “authority is permission to commit evil – to do things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them.”
To be clear, all persons have the natural, inalienable 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 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; higher authorities have granted police 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, kill people, interfere with their freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (that is, ‘detain and transport’) or imprison them 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 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) believed to be possessed by all governments is said to make government the supreme authority over human affairs. Subconsciously we know and understand that ruling over other people through violence is irrational and barbaric. [MORE]
There is also no legitimate or rational way to account for our belief in the existence of authority.
“Authority” does not come from people nor is it derived from any rational or natural source. All governmental power allegedly is said to come exclusively from the people. It is believed that citizens delegate their individual power to the government and it’s representatives for government to represent citizens and act on their behalf. Such political 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 and the owner is the principal who empowers and directs her work. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, the McDonalds 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 its storage. Additionally, numbers don’t change anything – a group of McDonald’s owners still wouldn’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.
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. When citizens commit such acts it is considered unlawful and/or criminal. Citizens cannot possibly delegate rights they don’t have - so it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the power to forcibly control others to the government and its agents. Larken Rose explains simply, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” [MORE] and [MORE] He 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 correctly 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.’ He 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.”[MORE]
Thus, there is no rational basis for the belief in authority or rational way to account for its existence as a legitimate basis for government. Other explanations for authority have been thoroughly debunked, here is a summary:
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.
All pretenses of civilization and “human progress” aside, the legal system is primarily based on physical coercion (violence): comply with authority or go to jail or die. There is no “free government” anywhere. Government does not rest on our voluntary consent, it is a system anchored in violence. As explained by FUNKTIONARY, “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. 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 but mandatory and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement.
All “Laws” in actuality are threats backed by the ability and willingness to use violence/force against those who disobey. An individual can choose not to comply with a law or an order, which will subsequently lead to another order/command or threat of a worse sanction, but in all governmental systems, at the end of the chain of orders or worsening sanctions comes a threat that the violator cannot defy. Michael Huemer states, “The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices. That anchor is provided by physical force.” Huemer explains, “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. Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion.’
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.
Due to fact that there is no legitimate basis for belief in authority or legitimate basis for government, then citizens are in actuality slaves or prisoners of authorities within a free range system of slavery or within a free range prison. FUNKTIONARY states, “citizens can come and go when they want and therefore have the illusion of true freedom—called “free-range slavery.”
SYSTEM OF POWER SUPREMACY. 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 said “consensus reality” created by elites, various other fictions and devices are used to disguise the reality of the master-servant relationship. These devices include concepts such as “consent of the governed,” “we are the government,” “democracy,” “representative government,” “majority rule,” and “constitutional rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your public master that gives and takes 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 frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense? . . Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. . . and “While there are varying degrees, “government” very simply is “one man violently controlling the life and property of another man.”
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?’
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.”
Dr. Blynd states, ‘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.
