|
|
Law and Order in Gareth Bowen's brand of Satanism
An attempt by me come up with some more useful laws, as Mosses laws sucked, and
Crowley underestimated (specifically didn't care) the stupidity of people to interpret
the do as you will shall be the whole of the law.
- Trust until proven otherwise shall be the foundation
of the law.
- A lie, unless under duress, will be the worst crime imaginable
- Your life is your responsibility and you must be judged by your actions, your freedom
of expression is guarenteed, and no one will inpead you, unless you've proven yourself
to be a danger to everyone around you. [Say what you like, the responsbility to
control your emotions rests on the individual. This is does not extend to tormenting
animals, even though some humans could be deemed as such, so pull your intelectual
blows, once is enough, assuming they heard and understood you.]
- If you know something which is helpful or relevant you must share it uncensored,
unless specifically asked not to. If someone comes to you to be tought, you must
teach them what you know, but have the right to be compensated for it.
- violence with intent, beyond what was consented to is not allowed, unless it is
the minimum required to defend a life from another's hand.
- Theft, Damage to other people property or spoiling their enjoyment of it shall
not be allowed, unless its a matter of personal survival and only then if
it does not jeopardises someone else's survival in doing so.
- Freedom and liberty shall be maintained, and only the minimum action can and should
be taken in respect of the freedom of others. (article 5 and 6 merged perhaps, only
better, tied in with law one for a fair trial)
- Incompetence is not a crime, its a sin, its your responsibility to ask the right
questions, and judge the safety of an issue.
- Worship no one, not even the whore, unless it be for fun.
- respect the environment and take only what is needed, the world sustains
you, so only mess with the devil with the minimum required and help to sustain
its growth and protect it with our needs.
- The remit of the police, and government is to uhold and aid an individuals freedoms
and protect their liberties, and freedom of movement, and come to the aid if they
are put at risk beyond what is consented to, this aid will be defensive, and proactive,
such as double glassing grants or ear plugs if people are being loud, or for putting up barriers
if they need to keep the more rebelous elements issolated to fight it out. This
could be in their own homes, assuming their is sufficent evidence to justify this
was the only way, to safeguard those freedoms.
- Written contracts override verbal agreements, wills must be signed and any wishes
carried out by those agencies, who have to deal with it, when it comes to medical
aid or anything else which does not jeapodise the lives of another person. no one
has a right to your life or your property unless you've explicitly given it. Anything
consented to under duress or in emergancy, is revokable at any time, and anything
deemed illegible will be taken at the courts discretion, and the benefit of
the doubt should be given to the weaker party. confluicting contractual terms shall
be combined, and the ones safeguarding the rights of the injured party shall be
taken into effect. Injured party shall be taken at the courts discretion,
and mercy shown to the ignorant and its up to the courts to inform them, how
to safeguard those actions in future.
- On Writing of the law: If its not explicitly been written in law,
then you can't hold it against them, and on the redrafting of the law.
Amendments will not be tolerated as this is censorship. Any move to obfusicate or
penalise the less knowlegable will be deemed censorship and a crime. The entire
text has to be included, failure to include andy of the previous text shall
be assumed to be the dropping of the law. Any contradictions between seperate laws
will cause the individual in question to go scot free, their can be no dogs law,
and a failure of the legislature will not be held against the people, it is up to
the legislature to close the loop hole, and no law shall be retrospectavly applied.
in short any individual who finds a loophole should be rewarded, and the lawers
advised to pay better attention in future..
- Poor memory or loss of paperwork can not be held against someone,
especialy me and as for any
other financial or paperwork comitments, this has to be done on a contractual level
in return for services rendered. ( see the opt in government
for an explanation)
- people have the right to be pricks, and censor or discriminate if thats their personal
choice, but the rest of the world, has the right and the urge ot verbaly take the
piss, and never let them forget it. You have the right to teach and are encouraged
to express that oppinion openly, but dont expect anyone to take you seriously where
it counts, if you can't string sentances toegether or speak in an open mind.
23/dec/07 4 more laws added, and already they start to contradict, and restrict.
perhaps a rewrite is in order, of the entire system. You should I think be
able to get the entire legal system down on a side of a4. Anything
outside that should be procedure, and best practice not a law. So why haven't we?
beause we wouldn't need lawers? and everyone would be deemed equal?
Reasoning for the change in direction
The Reason for the new laws is simple, society is going down the control angle,
and people don't trust anyone and people no longer are prepared to speak their minds
or listen to people no matter how controversial their point of view. this is wrong,
pointless and it was in my humble view the problem which got us into this mess.
The priests said one thing, while learnt another, education was censored, and people
try and withhold information, emotions and feelings. Ergo the solution to correcting
it as follows, put the emphasis back on trust and the truth shall set you free,
everything else, is a by product of that. Don't take the piss, perhaps should
be in there as well. though some moron, would interpret that as being no to a sense
of humour we've seen where that's got us in religion already, so always be prepared
to take the Mickey out of religion, and these laws, as well as anything in
society, your right to freedom of expression must be guaranteed as part of pluarlistic
integrity. It is the corner stone of democracy, the very foundations in fact, so
just say no to absolutism. which in itself is fine, if its just verbal opinion
touché and on guard, and prepare your debating skills for anything and everything
they may throw at you.
sod it, crowley was right the logical progression is the removal of the law, for
that is all there is to it , love, anyting else is an illusion of god, which is sin,
so fear not the world, and let it no longer bind you in tears, theres a great work in progress, (supposedly)
and that takes us to the dove not the stake, and the devil wins, in the meantime
we compromise with the past, and the evil of the rose, just to prove a point, and
move on, for people are stupid, really stupid, when they refuse the apple, so ignorance
is bliss, but the world suffers for it.
word to the wise
love under will that would be linked to the higher self,
dictating the urge for someone to speak to, that perhaps would work wounders for
you at the time, especially both ways. the urge to listen to instinct to speak,
often reveals gold, ergo if you really look, a second time the illusion real close
might be broke, ergo love is a tricky compromise.
interestingly any rules which stipulates harm none, is slightly flawed, strictly
technically speaking. anything for you, is going to be taken from someone
else, so it's perhaps more accurate to say, don't do anything i wouldn't do, but
metaphorically, with suggestion if you know, and make yourself clear, then what
can we say, you shouldn't have to be questioned, or widened with loopholes. so don't
be surprised when someone lives up to your expectations, if you wouldn't do it,
your perhaps much safer, then someone who's blurred on the line.
however if when you mean harm none, you actually mean, all this other small print
as well, i.e, perhaps consent is given, people like to see people happy after all,
then it all works out in the end, words don't matter. intent does. perhaps actions,
actually actions more, as words mean what ever you will them to mean.
so with that a thoughough analysis of what can and can't be done with the laws,
or any law so to speak. for you can bend any rule, with linguistic ingunitiy, and
well intent is a funey thing, perspective and all. balance it out, and learn by
the rest.
Analysis of the Laws
S orry! You have to be a
member and logged
in to view any more details.
It's only fair before we give away too many secrets, a little taster before
we give the rest away. Apple anyone?
For example you could read something without needing to be logged in: (not
everyone has the balls to join, offended they are, thank fuck for
article 10)
i.e. Philosophy is the Spice of
Life
Or The human Rights
Act
or the book extract: God
is Evil, The Devil is Good
Back to the introduction
|