Authority is a farce - it is only a belief in your mind and never rises above the level of a “hypothesized moral property.” FUNKTIONARY explains that authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Michael Huemer explains, “political authority is an illusion: no one has the right to rule, and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

Dr. Blynd states that like ‘All Corporate State fictions,’ authority was “created” by its creators as a psychological retro-virus in people’s minds as if it were a real (existential and volitional) entity, the sole purpose of which is to command, mediate, control and subdue the natural inclinations of a sleeping people who do not understand (know) themselves in order that they may silently rob them of their property and mind—under the Great Brain Robbery.’ Trent Goodbaudy describes authority as a “statist delusion.” He 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, ‘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?’ Larken Rose explains, ‘millions of people have hallucinated that puppeticians have authority and then do their bidding, paying for their empires and carrying out their orders.’ [MORE] Among other things FUNKTIONARY explains such an arrangement as a consensus reality, “an aggrieved upon hallucination. . . the most malefic trickster of all.” FUNKTIONARY defines consensus as 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. . . 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. [MORE]

Larken Rose explains that within this consensus reality various fictions and devices are used to disguise the reality of the master-servant relationship, such as “consent of the governed,” “we the people,” “democracy,” “representative government,” “social contract” and “constitutional rights.” According to FUNKTIONARY these ‘fictions lead only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality.’ 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.”

According to FUNKTIONARY:

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-citizendecoder— 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 not involved or revealed. If there is no ‘I,’ to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even ‘lefts’ (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefully the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. Always remember: “The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.” ~William Safire. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy, Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)