Control Technique

Law enforcement establishes the values which the ruled must adhere to, by asserting the values of the rulers. This enforcement actively maintains a barrier against alternative value systems by outlawing or disfavoring other possibilities. As more laws are added, they continue to be based upon the value system of the ruled, thereby building the power of the ruled and making the system increasingly closed to change.

Law in the United States

For example, these candidates tend to support societal control of the masses through increased prosecution of citizens who do not passively conform to the value system from which the ruling class profits. This approach is called "being tough on crime". You will rarely, if ever, hear a candidate talk about reducing the number of people prosecuted for "crimes". They will instead attempt to stir up fear in the masses and call for an increased number of new laws, more jails, and stiffer punishments for "criminals" who act against the interest of the ruling class. Even as "crime" rates continue to fall the fearmongering continues.

One of the problems with the massive number of new laws created each year is that most citizens have to work for a living and are unable to monitor what laws their masters in government are creating. While most laws are mainly cover for societal inequalities and problems that remain unresolved at their core, often many citizens are unknowingly made into criminals for harmless behavior because of the definitions of new laws.

The massive number of laws means that when the ruling class needs to "get people", it can often find some sort of law that it can selectively enforce, or at least utilize to harass them so that the rules can demonstrate to the ruled that the rulers wield superior societal power. The quote by J. Edgar Hoover at the top of this page symbolizes that type of mentality. It regretfully admits that it has no law to get the "bad" people who engage in oral sex unless the FBI can find an argument that interstate commerce was disrupted.

While this sounds like a joke about the procedure of the FBI, in more recent years the FBI has used numerous baseless arguments to claim that interstate commerce has been disrupted in an attempt to punish individuals for behavior harmful to the ruling class that lacks any existing legal prohibitions. Other law enforcement agencies use similarly baseless pretensions within their "rules" to intrude and interfere with citizen's lives when directed by individuals with social power.

Recent liberalization in the administration of law has altered the role and function of law while making the ruled citizen subject to punishment for the purposes of social engineering. For example, burning a flag is a symbolic gesture of condemnation for the policies of a government. Because the symbolism is so strong and some people give great reverence for what the flag represents, there are often emotional outcries demanding that it be made a crime to burn a flag.

When laws against dissidents fail to be constitutional in the United States because they deny the right to free expression, the authorities try some other tactic to stop people who use this powerful and anti-authoritarian form of expression. They will often attempt to turn protestors into criminals by charging them with creating a fire in violation of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules or with creating a public disturbance. But a protest is by definition a public disturbance because the protestors are disturbed by government policies and want to make their grievances known.

There is a growing list of catch-all crimes that will at the very least provide authorities with a justification for detaining someone who was not doing anything illegal. If a case comes to trial, often all that is necessary is to talk about the alleged crime and to place the blame on the first convenient scapegoat the police could pull off the street. When there is evidence lacking that a Mafia boss ordered a murder then they charge him with tax evasion and penalize it completely differently than they would for any other citizen. Or when authority wants to harm people for having sex in public or with prostitutes, it may want to keep sodomy laws on the books to help provide a justification for harming citizens. Somehow it is considered heroic to enact revenge through the utilization of inapplicable and unjust laws.

Though some laws benefit the masses, such as prohibitions on rape, murder, and theft, these laws exist largely to benefit the ruling class and maintain its dominance. First, they directly protect the ruling class from being raped, killed, or having their properly stolen. They also provide a secondary benefit to the ruling class by keeping the masses feeling safe and secure, thereby preventing the masses from considering a revolution against the ruling class.

History suggests that when people feel significantly threatened and have no faith in their rulers ability to provide for them, they revolt against their masters for the sake of self-preservation. By keeping the masses content in their servitude, revolutions can be avoided and the ruling class can continue to dominate.

Law and Media

The media also becomes a part of the definition game. When law enforcement make an arrest or allege that someone has broken the rules of the ruling class, the media dramatizes these claims and takes the side of "justice" while feigning the usual predictable outrage at the alleged behavior and demanding punishment.

This serves to manipulate public opinion and effectively slanders people who are in theory "innocent until proven guilty". This in turn creates considerable pressure on the judicial system to find the person guilty in order to act in accordance with the manufactured public opinion. To legal prosecutors it is common to portray a scapegoat and sacrifice an innocent person in order to uphold the image of strong law enforcement, and through it deterrence to dissidents.

Such behavior is noticed and rewarded by the ruling class because it ensures their continued power, and prosecutors have no reason to behave fairly or honestly because they are given complete immunity from all accountability for their actions.

The media strive to achieve this control of the public opinion because the owners of media are members of the ruling class. It takes substantial wealth to own a newspaper or television network. Those who possess wealth seek to protect their advantages and do so through the means they have available. There is no formal conspiracy to do this however, only greed on an individual basis having a combined effect of enforcing the system's principles.

Law through Definitions

Law invents truth by merely claiming it as such and defining what things are permitted or prohibited. That which is permitted is considered "good" while that which is prohibited is considered "bad". These values can change at any time. Politicians invent laws and these laws reflects social beliefs and values. Thus a "crime" is something that is defined by law as an act or omission of an act that is labelled criminal. However, these definitions are without any system-wide consistent design and can change at any time.

For example, when alcohol was made illegal during Prohibition, it was a substantially punishable crime to sell or consume alcohol. It was not a crime before or after this period. All crimes exist solely by definition by the rulers who invented them.

Likewise, the category of "criminals" is brought into existence as the set of people whose behavior meets the definitions of "crime" that politicians invented. During Prohibition, those who drank or distributed alcohol were "criminals" and were subject to the punishment for being criminals. Because of the established punishments, those who were defined as particularly bad "criminals" selling alcohol prepared for their roles by forming violent gangs to protect their turf from other gangs and from law enforcement officials.

These gangs also possessed a great deal of weaponry which they used to protect their criminal empire. There was no violence accompanying the distribution of alcohol prior to Prohibition and there has been none since its repeal. Those who were defined as "criminal" during this period accepted the title and play-acted as criminals against the enforcers of the law. When the law was repealed they ceased to be defined as criminals and their roles against law enforcement ended as well.

Crimes Against Nature

Massachusetts has two vague laws that have been created in order to combat sodomy by consenting adults. Both are noteworthy because of their inclusion of strong pejorative adjectives used to describe the behavior outlawed. The first law, 272 § 34, outlaws the "abominable and detestible crime against nature" while the second, 272 § 35, outlaws "any unnatural and lascivious act with another person". Somehow authority expects to receive the respect of the masses despite the use of cheap word games designed to assert dominance.

Even if the premise that authority is omniscient is accepted, a troubling question remains: if certain acts are truthfully considered to be crimes against nature, why not allow nature to judge and punish crimes as nature sees fit? This seems only reasonable given that there appears to be no means for humans to prevent other humans from engaging in non-reproductive sexual acts short of killing or imprisoning the humans who choose to partake.

Furthermore, nature has no need for humans with their collections of bizarre biases to intercede on her behalf. If a behavior or belief is contrary to nature, nature will take care of itself just fine. For example, those who always choose non-reproductive sexual acts will fail to reproduce and will have their lineage terminated, demonstrating that nature administers justice with remarkable equity by allowing individuals to determine their evolutionary fitness through their response to the consistency of nature's principle.

Judeo-Christianity and Law

Despite its new face, it cannot deny that its formative years brought a legacy of brutality and desire for absolute control and that this same interest remains in the Judeo-Christian value system, though now absent of direct physical violence. Priests and authorities in the past and present have wielded Judeo-Christian values and teachings as a weapon of control against the masses to keep them in the lower section of the social hierarchy.

Authorities once told the masses that they ruled by "God's will" and that any attempt to supplant their authority would result in eternal punishment by God. Such claims of acting by "God's will" were used to justify all excesses and are unarguable so long as one believes the premise that authority is divine and therefore exists beyond any questioning or criticism.

In past centuries, priests enjoyed considerable control over the masses by claiming that they alone spoke directly to God and disseminated his teachings and demands. For this service, tithes were charged of the entire population which filled the church's coffers with considerably wealth. But such profit from direct access to God was not limited to that practice alone. Priests also sold indulgences for the right price which were marketed as basically a "get out of sin free" card. People who "sinned" frequently would buy many of these so that they could be assured of forgiveness by God and access to Heaven in case they ever committed a sin and died before being able to confess it to the eager ears of the priest.

Priests naturally could control the market demand by defining common behaviors as "sins" if more funds were needed to fill the coffers. It does not go without notice that many quite natural behaviors, such as sexual interest, have been classified as "sins" though no coherent explanation has ever been offered for the classification of this sin. Further, it has not been explained how God's omniscient reasoning could create humans as sexual creatures but then allegedly order them to not act upon the sexual instincts given to them.

Despite the numerous flaws of the Judaic and Christian tradition, American law often cites Judaic and Christian law as its justification. Though neither of these religions has ever displayed any trustworthy or reliable basis for its claims of universal truth, public benefit, or relevancy to modern society, the fact that these value systems are historical seems to be enough of an argument for courts to continue the application of these laws. It would be plainly ridiculous if the Judaic or Christian law which bans pork remained enforced today, yet no one considers the absurd lack of basis for other ancient values created by these religions of migrant slave workers.

When a constitutional challenge was made to Virginia's sodomy law in 1975 (403 F. Supp 1199), the court claimed the statute was legitimate and showed the State's interest merely because it had remained on the books for so long and was rooted in Judaic and Christian law.

The court opinion goes on to quote Biblical passages as justification for the law.

There is no mention made by the courts that other sections of Leviticus detail burnt offerings to be made to God, what sort of meat may or may not be eaten (eating pork, rabbit, and other meats is similarly considered "an abomination"), the law concerning leprosy (including leprous garments, cleansing healed lepers, and leprous houses), and laws concerning bodily discharges. While there are two references to sodomy, there is entire section discussing which animals are permitted to be eaten and which are "an abomination" to eat.

Yet there is no law against eating shellfish, though the courts would seemly uphold it based on their interest in upholding ancient Jewish and Christian beliefs. Presumably the more detailed sections of Leviticus would be given even greater credence in law, yet these passages are for whatever reason overlooked. It is never explained why a small passage on sexual practices is enforceable as law while a lengthy passage on dietary laws is ignored. This seems to be a practice of selective enforcement for greater leverage of more common behaviors.

Judeo-Christian Control and Hypocrisy

It is also not clear that Judeo-Christians are supposed to judge or condemn those who commit "sins" or "crime". There is considerable reason to believe that the Judeo-Chrisitan tradition is completely opposed to judging and condemning others. For example, Judeo-Christianity teaches that one should "hate the sin, but the love the sinner." It also has a number of passages in which it is said quite plainly that it is wrong to judge others.

Judeo-Christianity Against Sodomy

The story of Sodom is interesting as both a moral tale and as a historical marker of moral values. In Genesis 18:20 the Lord expressed his anger with the inhabitants of Sodom because "their sin is very grievous." Abraham negotiated with God to try to keep God from destroying the town. First Abraham made God agree to spare the town if Abraham could find "fifty righteous" within the city (18:26). Eventually Abraham was able to bargain God down to conceding to the agreement that He "will not destroy it for the sake of ten." (18:32). However, the depravity of Sodom was apparently great though never described in detail beyond the town-people interest in knowing God's angels carnally.

In Genesis 19:1, two angels come to Sodom where they are seen by Lot, the nephew of Abraham who came with him to Canaan. Lot insists of providing the angels with shelter for the night (19:3) to which the angels agree. Before they could sleep, the men of Sodom, "both old and young", surrounded the house and wanted to meet the visitors, asking lot to "[b]ring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (19:4-5). Lot is unwilling to pimp the angels, but instead offers his two virgin daughters to the mob saying to them that "you may do to them as you wish".

Conclusion

These laws survive constitutional challenges by claiming justification from outmoded Judeo-Christian scriptures that are selectively chosen or ignored as convenient for certain arguments. Finally, without any basis for the application of these laws other than absolute power over the masses, courts have in many cases upheld these laws by making the intellectually vapid ruling that there is no constitutional right to sodomy and therefore the government can punish consenting adults by any means that they would like. This suggests that citizens are in fact still serfs and undeserving of all right to choose consensual acts that their masters do not advocate.

Note: This information is provided solely for the purpose of making people more aware of laws restricting certain consensual sexual behaviors in the United States.

The creator of this compilation is not a lawyer and the information contained herein is not intended as and should not be considered to be legal advice. While this information is believed to be factual, you should consult your state's lawbook or a lawyer for definitive legal opinions and advice prior to engaging in any consensual sexual act(s) with your adult partner. Furthermore, state laws are subject to change at any time, so you should periodically review them in order to determine if your behavior remains in compliance with them.

Home

Mission

Sodomy Laws