"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity.

" That is an important

phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a corollary most
people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."
Robert Canup
One of the most important things that I have learned is to have a sense of perspective about problems. The reason that the
English phrase is "a sense of perspective" is that things which are not visible directly to the eye can present the same sort of
illusions to the "mind's eye" that physical objects can to the real eye.
An example may clarify what I have to say. Suppose that one late evening when the full moon is visible, as it sometimes is,
you go outside and hold a quarter at arms length; comparing it in apparent size to the moon. You will notice that the quarter
appears to be larger than the moon. Of course this is an optical illusion caused by the difference in perspective of the two
objects. Were the quarter to be placed in the same perspective as the moon it would shrink to virtual invisibility.
In a similar fashion each person's own problems appear to be large to that person - only because everyone is close to their
own problems. However when placed in proper perspective with the problem that I am about to point out; our personal
problems shrink to un-noticeable insignificance.
Unfortunately the problem that I am going to describe is like a moon which is perpetually in the invisible new moon stage; it
is not something that most people would even guess exists. Although virtually invisible - it is of overwhelmingly gigantic
importance - having a profound effect on the tide of human affairs. I would estimate that about 99% of all of the problems
confronting mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie.
Doubtless most of you are thinking to yourselves "Plausible lies, what is he talking about? Sure everyone uses plausible lies
to lubricate the day to day running of life, but they aren't particularly important. They allow people to answer questions when
the truth would be too difficult to explain". But I am not talking about telling the boss that you are working on the Smith
project in answer to the question: "What are you doing?", when what you were really doing at that split second was worrying
about the results of your biopsy. The plausible lies I mean have about the same relationship to that kind of plausible lie that
an H-bomb has to a child's cap pistol.
The plausible lies that I mean are monstrous affairs constructed by evil people for the express purpose of fooling good people
into doing evil's will. The most powerful of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning their
validity. I'll set up a hypothetical example so that you may see some of these lies in operation.
Imagine for a second that we take a group of serious and responsible citizens and construct what is called, in law school, a
moot court. Suppose that we use a real Judge to preside at the court, real lawyers to serve as the opposing councils, real
police officers to testify. We have the officers invent an imaginary drug possession charge and we pick, at random, Joe Blow
out of the crowd of model citizens to be the defendant. The rest of the citizens are sworn in, questioned, and a jury panel is
selected. The trial is started.
"All rise, moot court in and of this jurisdiction is now in session. The Honorable Judge Right Fair presiding." The case is
announced: "The people vs. Joe Blow". The charge: "Felony Possession of Rock Cocaine - a controlled substance in
violation of statute blah blah." "How do you plead?" "Not Guilty your Honor."
The police are called to testify - lab reports are entered into evidence. The case against the defendant builds, the defense is
lame, consisting mostly of variations of the famous "Liar, Liar, pants on fire" defense. The attorneys present their closing
arguments, and the Jury retires for deliberations.
The jury returns, the defendant rises, is found guilty, and is sentenced to five years in prison.
All in all, a successful demonstration of the legal system at work - as close to a real trial as we could make it. We talk to the
jurors after the case. To a person they report that they believe justice was served: they carefully listened to all of the
evidence, carefully weighed the believability of everyone who testified; they were as fair and as impartial as they could have
been. They uniformly feel good about the decision they reached.
It is very easy to imagine all of this occurring.
There is one tiny little problem though: everyone in the room knew for a fact that Joe Blow was innocent. They all knew that
the charges against him were an utter fabrication, and yet they not only CONVICTED him, they felt GOOD about it!
Stop and think for a few seconds about the ramifications of that last observation...
If you have the brains to follow what I have said, and enough intellectual honesty to admit that it was your fault when you
got sun-burned, then there is only one conclusion you can reach. If the legal system allows you to feel good about convicting
someone when you KNOW they are innocent, and you KNOW that the case against them is a pack of lies; then the legal
system is worse than useless.
Part of the reason that the jurors feel good about their verdict is that a jury, because of its isolation, is a self referent body. By
self referent I mean this: suppose that you decide to check the accuracy of a ruler by measuring it with itself. Hopefully it is
obvious to everyone that measuring a ruler with itself will always show that the ruler is accurate to what ever degree you
choose to measure it; regardless of how ridiculously inaccurate it may actually be. A judge or a jury ALWAYS feels happy
with the verdict rendered, regardless of how absurd that verdict actually is; since the only standard that a judge or a jury has
to measure itself with is itself.
Before I can show you how we wound up with a less than worthless justice system, there is a difficult concept that I have to
introduce. If there is such a thing as a plausible lie, is it not also possible that there might be such a thing as an implausible
truth? Perhaps an example of an implausible truth might make more clear what I am trying to say.
Suppose that tomorrow when you step out of your home that an alien spacecraft lands in front of you. Several alien beings
get out of the craft, point at you, laugh, get back into their ship and leave. Now suppose that this is no hallucination, no
dream; it really happens. You are now the possessor of implausible truth. What chance do you think you have of convincing
anyone else of what happened? You have the truth, but no one will believe you.
What causes your problem is this: truth generally has a feeling of reality to it. However, and this is key, that feeling of reality
which makes truth generally plausible is NOT the same thing as truth. What gives truth its feeling of plausibility is the
familiarity of that truth. Were EVERYONE to experience aliens laughing at them, the truth of that event would be quickly
accepted.
Consider what the scientist who first realized that 'solid steel' was mostly a vacuum, went through in trying to explain his
discovery to average people. Doubtless somebody attempted to prove the solidity of steel by hitting him over the head with a
piece of it. Indeed, had the scientist who made the discovery not had the force of personality to convince others of the truth
of his implausible find - we might today not realize that steel is largely vacuum.
What I have to say here is implausible, and doesn't feel right, largely because it is unfamiliar - not because it contains any
inherent falsehood. It is a part of reality that any new discovery will have an air of implausibility to it until it becomes
familiar enough to be accepted. Were a new discovery to be instantly familiar it would be of very limited value; it would
have covered very little new ground.
Indeed it is the familiarity of the legal system which gives an air of plausibility to the lies from which it is composed. To see
how we wound up where we are, it would be useful to explore the history of the legal system.
Thousands of years ago the good people decided that they needed to create a system to insure that people got what they
deserved. Imagine for a second that you were an evil person. How would you react to such a system? I think it would really
scare you. After all, if people got what they deserved, you would get boiled in oil!
If you were both evil and clever, wouldn't you do everything in your power to be in charge of that system; to make sure that
no real justice ever occurred? Bear in mind that evil people do not wear name tags that say: "Hate me, I'm evil"; they do
everything they can to blend into society as a whole. Given this it is not too surprising to see that evil was involved deeply in
the formation of the legal system.
Many years ago there was a system of 'justice' called trial by ordeal. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron
to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have
a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected.
The implausible, unbelievable truth is that the people who thought that up simply enjoyed holding red hot pokers on peoples
tongues! The current legal system is descended from such minds - it is much more clever and simply not as obviously evil as
that one was.
Arguments could be advanced similar to ones which I make in these pages against other human systems - such as the medical
field. For example, one could point out that surgery causes pain, and that surgery is therefore the work of evil. Clearly this is
a specious argument. What differentiates what I have to say about the legal system from specious arguments about any other
system is this: the legal system is directly and uniquely concerned with the control of evil - and as such - control of the legal
system is of direct and overriding importance to evil. Because of this fact - which is undeniable - the legal system, above and
beyond, any other human system needs to be regarded with deep suspicion. Because of the danger to humanity which a legal
system controlled and influenced by evil poses - the legal system itself must be regarded as 'Guilty until proven innocent
beyond any hint of doubt'.
I think that there is little argument that the United States has the best legal system in the world. Unfortunately having the best
legal system in the world is a lot like having the world's biggest flea, or the world's fastest snail; so what? If the US system is
the best, then using the US system to show what is wrong with legal systems will also show what is wrong with legal systems
around the world - all the rest are even more heavily influenced by evil than the US system is.
Lets start our examination of the legal system at the very foundation of its existence: The State of Texas vs Joe Blow. To
understand what I see here ask yourself this question: "Is the State of Texas vs Joe Blow a fair fight?". I don't think that it
takes very much thought to realize that it is not. Indeed, Joe Blow stands a better chance of beating an elephant in a fist fight
than he has of beating the state of Texas in anything!
A court of law is carefully designed to present the appearance of fairness, rather than being designed to actually be fair. I am
sure that most people are familiar with things that look one way but are actually different from the way they appear on the
surface. A court of law is one of those things.
In a court of law we have a very familiar structure: two opposing players, and an impartial referee. This is a structure which
almost everyone can recognize: it is a contest. If we look a little closer we will realize that the structure is a sham.
Suppose that you were to go to play a football game only to discover:
The other team gets to make up the rules.
The referee plays for the other team.
One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score - the other team is at no risk - only you can be scored upon.
Guess who's going to win most of those games? The best you could hope for is a 0 - 0 tie.
That is what is actually going on in a court of law. The 'fair and impartial judge' is employed by the state, as is the prosecutor;
they are both on the same team. The state sets all the rules. The state is at zero risk - the best you can hope for is a scoreless
tie.
Bottom line? You are going to lose. In fact you have lost before you ever get to court. Trials are not about whether the State
of Texas gets to beat on Joe Blow, trials are about whether the State of Texas gets to CONTINUE beating on Joe Blow.
Consider what happens to a suspect in a criminal case: the first thing we do is kidnap the suspect at gun point. He is then
slapped into irons and thrown into a cage for an indeterminate period of time until his case comes due. This is what we do to
people in the United States when we consider them INNOCENT!
The people in the legal system are quick to point out that you are receiving "Due Process". That is true: you are being
processed. Processing is what you do to a piece of meat when you run it through a meat grinder. If you ever experience the
criminal justice system, you will understand what I am saying. What goes into the system might be Charles, but what comes
out is ground Chuck.
It is my contention that the actual content of the legal system is designed to do the following:
Create the maximum chance that the guilty will be found innocent.
Create the maximum chance that the innocent will be punished.
Punishing the innocent involves more than just a verdict delivered by a jury. There are almost always innocent people
involved in a criminal trial; the system is designed to insure that these innocent people are subjected to as much pain as
possible. An obvious example of punishing the innocent may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their
reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of course.
Let us examine a few particulars of the legal system to see how they bring benefit to evil and work to the detriment of good.
If you read what legal theoreticians have to say about the structure of the legal system you will encounter statements like
this: "It is a robust system which is designed to survive liars". "We assume that one side is lying one way, and the other is
lying the other, and we let the jury find the truth - which will lie somewhere between these two extremes." What a
wonderfully plausible lie that is.
To see the evil behind that last plausible lie it is necessary to turn the assumption upside down. Instead of assuming that both
sides are lying, let us assume that one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent
defendant no good; what lie is he to use - "I did it"?
The truth - due to the nature of reality - is never completely favorable to anybody; there is always some element of the truth
that makes an innocent person look bad.
Since the legal system assumes that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides - there is always a shift toward the
side telling the lies, and away from the side telling the truth. Under the right set of external circumstances This tilt, along
with the fact that the truth may always be presented in such a way as to bring detriment to an innocent person, is often
enough to shift the outcome toward the wrong side. Advantage: evil.
Consider the swearing in of witnesses before they testify. If a person is a cynical liar, taking this oath has no affect on that
person. However, this oath places considerable pressure on a serious truthful witness. Advantage: evil.
In a court of law there is something called 'proof'. Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking.
However what passes for proof in a legal sense bears only a superficial resemblance to what thinkers refer to as proof. In
formal mathematical proof rules are established - postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the
theorem. In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to 'prove'. However,
the prosecution's theory is what ever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the
case.
Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths. What
legal 'proof' does is serve as an ad hoc structure for convincing a jury of the guilt of a suspect. There is a serious difference:
Mathematical proof is judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case.
Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the
information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say. Once
again we see something in the legal system which is meant to fool the intelligent by presenting a familiar structure which,
upon examination, is a sham. Advantage: evil.
Consider the fact that juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good
person who is being framed people who know him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors
knew the prosecutor, and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the
jurors knew the defendant, and knew him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him.
Advantage: evil.
Consider secret jury deliberations. Those who do evil fear the light of day. Hidden proceedings are almost always to the
advantage of evil. If jury deliberations were carried out in public it would be obvious if the jurors failed to understand the
case. Misunderstanding is almost always a plus for evil. Having to look the defendant in the eye would make it more difficult
to convict an innocent person, and easier to convict a guilty one. Advantage: evil.
In a similar fashion you can study everything about the legal system and find built in advantages being given to evil.
But the worst aspect of the legal system is the most hidden part of it. Most people know someone who really needs to have
the devil beaten out of them. Why don't you do it then? The answer: because you would get in trouble with the law. Here then
we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the
horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage to evil. Indeed,
without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.
In practice, trials degenerate to a modern version of the ancient Roman 'Circus' where people were thrown to the lions for the
amusement of the public - and where if someone were to put up a particularly good fight they might get a 'thumbs up' from
the haughty spectators. I am deeply ashamed to be a member of a race of beings that has the unmitigated gall to label such a
monstrous system "Justice".
I note that much that I have had to say has involved showing that an innocent defendant is in deep trouble in the legal system.
Conversely I have little to say about the other side of the coin: that the legal system is so constructed as to give a guilty
defendant the maximum possible chance of escaping without additional penalty. I chose to do this because it is obvious to
most people when the guilty go free - I don't need to say much more about that side of things.
Doubtless there are those who will point out that much of what I have to say here is rhetorical. I agree with that assessment.
However, and this is a key point, just because something is rhetorical does not mean that it is false.
Some people reading this are doubtless having the reaction "So what? The defendants in the criminal system are guilty
anyway; they're just getting what they deserve." If this is your reaction, congratulations; in case you didn't know it, you have
just identified yourself as evil. You see, one would struggle mightily to come up with a better definition of evil than "A
person who has a depraved indifference to truth and justice"; which is what you have just expressed.
Perhaps others are readying that catch-all phrase so cherished in academia: "I disagree". I love it when I have spent 30 years
studying the problem of why things don't work, and upon presenting one of my major conclusions, someone who has not
invested so much as ten seconds of thought on the subject chimes in with "I disagree" - as though his opinion were of any
more import than the average random belch from a cow.
First spend a year thinking about what I have to say - that represents a little over 3% of the time I have used thinking about
the subject - then tell me you disagree and why. Until then, your disagreement is simply sophistry; argument for argument's
sake, and represents nothing but a massive waste of time.
"I disagree" is a classic example of a plausible lie. It would occur to almost no one that a person using this phrase is
attempting to present the appearance of wisdom when in fact none exists. It is a way for people to experience the illusion of
power created by stopping someone else from doing something good. This illusion of power is the same one experienced by
vandals who throw paint on an existing masterpiece: "See I'm a painter too".
The one thing that most Americans would say that they have faith in is the American system of Justice; they would expect to
receive a fair trial. Doubtless these words are deeply disturbing to the average American. All that I can say to those who find
what I have to say troubling is this: I stopped believing in the tooth fairy a number of years ago, perhaps it is time you also
grew up. Just because everyone has, for years, been telling you how wonderful, fair, and honest the American system of
justice is - does not make it so.
The people in the legal system are much more likely to start behaving honestly if they know they are under deep suspicion,
and that everyone is watching them closely, than they are if everyone takes the honesty of the legal system for granted.
In conclusion I would like to point out that it is true that we owe some of the people in the legal system a great deal. But, to
paraphrase Raymond Chandler: 'the Yankee outfield, with two bats apiece, couldn't begin to give them what we owe them'.
Post Script. The average person is consumed with self deception. If you ask average people: "Does the legal system work? Is
the legal system fair, just, and honest?" They will answer most solemnly: "Yes, no question. We have the finest legal system in
the world - we go out or our way to be fair - just and honest. If anything, we are way too lenient"
But not one of those people is willing to serve as a test case to prove that the legal system works properly: "We'll charge you
with being a child molester and run you through the legal system to see how things turn out for you."
Everyone knows, somewhere deep inside of them, that the legal system is not "fair, honest, and just". The truth, which no one
speaks, is that the criminal court system is all about taking people we don't like, getting them in a helpless position, then
hammering them without mercy - all the while fooling ourselves by giving us a feeling of moral superiority.
If this were not true, then we would not make sure that the defendant is unarmed before the start of a trial. A plausible liar
might claim that this is to insure 'proper decorum'. But it is really to insure that the defendant is not able to take any action;
after all - he might object to what is being done to him and fight back.
The essence of justice is to treat the helpless with the same courtesy and respect that we give to the powerful. If we treat a
helpless person differently than we would someone who is not helpless then we are being unjust.
We claim to be fair and civilized but we are no better than the Romans. Indeed we are worse; at least the Romans did not fool
themselves about what they were doing with their Roman Circuses.
Back to the home page