Take a word that describes a natural condition, reassign your own meaning while retaining the original defining aspect of the word. This is how the State manages to brainwash so many people.
Example, Law. Gravity is an immutable Law, as are all natural Laws. In the minds of the people, Laws are absolute and therefore can’t be broken or subverted. Make up your own rules, label them Laws, always refer to your rules as Laws and the people will start to believe that your rules are actually immutable laws instead of what they actually are, which is a series of contrived rules given authority by consent.
Another Example, Crime. A crime is an act of injustice where there is some form of injured party. The State refers to every breach of it’s rules as a crime, even though there may be no injustice or injured party. So all the State has to do to maintain absolute power is convince enough people that a breach of it’s contrived rules is a crime and the people will not only surrender their free will to the State’s dictates, but even bite the ankles of their fellow man for lack of subservience.
Rather than ask if an act is illegal according to government rules, ask: am I causing an injustice where the rights of another is being violated.
Do I have the right (just claim) to impose my will on you without your consent?
Do I have the right to delegate such an act to another?
Does being part of a majority of people give me the right to impose my will on you without your consent?
Do I have the right to impose my will on you without your consent by delegating that act to an institution?
Do I have the right to impose my will on you without your consent if I, along with a majority of others, delegate that act to an institution called government?
Asking the questions in this order to someone who dogmatically believes in coercive governance may induce cognitive dissonance. Be prepared for emotive responses such as: Libtard, Conspiracy theorist, If you don’t like it move, and the old classic: if you don’t vote you can’t complain.
First they came for the Whistle Blowers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Whistle Blower.
Then they came for the Independent Journalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an independent Journalist.
Then they came for the Activists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Activist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
Miko Peled was born in Jersusalem into a famous and influential Israeli Zionist family. His father was a famous General in the Israeli Army, of which Miko also served his time. When Miko’s niece was killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, you may have expected the family to put Palestinians at fault, but surprisingly they blamed the state of Israel, and their violent torturing and persecution for driving people to such sadness that they would take their own lives.
Through his father’s deep knowledge of the Israeli war of terror, together with his own research, Miko Peled ruins the myths surrounding the Israel and Palestine situation, and delivers a truth so damning that many Jews and Israel supporters will not be able to bear it. He reveals facts such as the original expelled Jews are not the ones returning, and they are not their descendants either, covers the double standards regarding the right of return, which doesn’t apply to Palestinians, and dispels the myth that there has been a conflict for ages by producing proof that it was peaceful up until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal attacks.
Miko is just one of the many modern day Jews against Zionism and the state of Israel, and with the information he delivers in this astounding talk, it is not difficult to see why more and more Jews are rejecting Zionism and calling for the dismantling of Israel. It is a true eye-opener for anyone who has for too long been blinded by the fake misinformation given by the mainstream media, and the truths come straight from the heartland where he has spent many years documenting the real story.
One can consent to authority but authority, by it’s definition, has no legitimacy outside of that consent. The use of force against the will of another, unless in self defense or the defense of another, is neither legitimate nor lawful, it is merely the use of power without authority, which is criminal.
Power is the “ABILITY or STRENGTH” to do a thing.
Authority is the “RIGHT to exercise powers”, and the “JUST CLAIM”, i.e. right, to exercise powers over others can only be acquired by their individual, voluntary “permission”.
An individual, or some group of individuals, may have POWER over you, but they can only gain lawful AUTHORITY to exercise that power via PERMISSION, i.e. CONSENT, from YOU.
 Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
] Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.199), page 133 [Emphasis added]
 Ibid., page 1324
 Ibid., page 133
 Permission. A license to do a thing; an authority to do an act which, without such authority, would have been unlawful. An act of permitting, formal CONSENT, authorization, leave, license or liberty granted… Ibid., page 1140 [Emphasis added]
Larken Rose explains the inherent flaws in voting that the average voter refuses to acknowledge.
“The “rulers” actually don’t matter. They are vastly outnumbered by the people like you and me. The problem is those who legitimate the “rulers” with their votes, remaining silent when the “rulers” commit evils in their names.”
“Most of them do not feel bad about that. Many of them even cheer and applaud their “rulers” while defending the crimes they commit.”