Should you break rules?

"Lady Justice"
By Tingey Injury Law Firm

Should you break rules?
Wednesday – February 25, 2026

Should you break rules? Well, that depends on what the "rules" are and if those rules are truly sacred, that is to say are the rules anchored in the metaphysical order of things? Beyond the metaphysical question one must also always take the corporeal dimension into account: if you break one of those profane "laws" are you likely to get away with it, or is such a "law", profane though it may be, really immoral or counter to the metaphysical order of things? Yes, this question is of course gigantic and has no short answer. Also, before I proceed to attempt to answer the question in the heading, allow me to clarify once again that I do not call on you or anyone else to break any laws, even if those laws are merely profane, because this will only serve to hurt you in the end – the harsh truth in the temporal domain is that you are always going to be outnumbered in relation to that monstrosity that is the modern state and to attempt to go against the state is really just suicidal. So yes, I can dispel the notion that there's anything grand or even "chivalrous" in allowing the state to crush you; also before I proceed, the word chivalrous should not be used in the modern context for chivalry belongs only to a certain and aristocratic station in society, not to the masses, but of course the propagandists of the state would love for your to "sacrifice" yourself to the struggle – call this "patriotism" or nationalism but it is nonetheless an evil thing.

    So, with those details out of the way let's begin by trying to understand what a rule is and when a rule can be said to be legitimate. First, a rule can be very easily defined as something in the positive that is forbidden or frowned upon; this positive action also tends to carry with it a certain counter action or sanction that we may label "punishment", but such considerations are wholly outside the scope of this post. Rules tend to exist within a certain context, but this context requires at least two prerequisites: that all participants are aware of such rules; and that all participants agree with the rules, which also requires the first prerequisite; at least this last supposition is held by most liberals, something that should be considered quite contrary to the whole notion of nation-states, since the imposition of the "nation" cannot be said to be "voluntary" or agreed upon by the national collective – hence this is merely another humanist supposition. But rules doesn't only have to exist in laws such as those imposed by the state; rules exist within most contexts where two or more participants are made to agree upon a certain and defined level of participation and orientation towards the rectification of some greater or collective goal, and this can include everything from playing a game to participating in traditional practices where rituals form the basis of rules derived from the primordial tradition. Thence it can be said that there are at least two distinct ways to approach or understand rules: the first is an entirely profane and humanist notion of rules based on the individual and atomized unit entering into an agreement between "like minded" units; and the second, and more important way to understand rules, is that of the metaphysical knowledge that certain actions exist in abject opposition to the natural order of things, and therefore these actions may be labeled an offense against the natural and metaphysical order of things – from this primordial notion the various revealed doctrines went on to develop a moral character based on the greater knowledge of metaphysics and the lesser knowledge of physics. If you break a law without any base in the metaphysical hierarchy, you may not be labeled "offensive", and this means that there are plenty of people that have indeed broken official and profane laws without truly being offensive or immoral people; then there is the more complicated space where profane laws still lack proper legitimacy but nonetheless carries with them a properly metaphysical notion of "offense", and here I believe the best way to understand such laws is that those laws themselves are still illegitimate but the recognition of offense that such profane laws carries is not illegitimate; examples of such profane laws would include murder and certain other crimes that clearly and universally offends the good conscience of men. Indeed, a separation between the state and morality is called for here, and it is surely the case that even profane laws can hit right on occasion, blind to the metaphysical order of things though they are.

    To proceed with some examples here: when should you break rules? Yes, the emphasis here should be on when. From a completely pacific point of view you may say that breaking any rule is wrong, and that your intention should always be to never break any rules, but of course such an approach to the world is very much lacking in skillful means and could only really be described as completely intolerable. You have again here to consider at least the metaphysical dimensions of breaking rules, and the immediate and corporeal dimensions of breaking rules: if you understand that taking a certain action is immoral and offensive, whether this actions is "illegal" in a profane sense or not, you should not take this action, unless there are certain circumstances which clearly disrupts the natural flow of contingencies; and if you wish to continue to live a fairly comfortable life or at any rate wish not to end up in a conflict with the temporal powers, then you should avoid breaking those rules as well. Of course, rules are complicated matters and there are never any easy answers and as I just pointed out, even when it comes to actions that would clearly serve to create great offense, there are circumstances that may create "exceptions". On the other hand when it comes to temporal rules, if you will, there are surely many actions that are illegal in a merely profane sense but that has nothing to do with the primordial, and then there are many actions that are not illegal in a profane sense but nonetheless offensive in a metaphysical sense; in other words, I do not recommend that you allow the "law of the land", the law without divine inspiration or mandate, to serve as any kind of guide on the acceptability of breaking rules, at least not in the domain of the light; sure, you may, as I've stated multiple times already, rely on the "law of the land" in order to avoid coming into conflict and friction with the state. Such things as "tax evasion" or "drinking while driving" have no basis in the greater canon of knowledge, for they are merely situational and profane, and the best way to understand when a rule is profane is to test it against time: is this rule changeable? If the rule can be changed, has been changed, and more importantly is adjudicated inconsistently, then this is a fairly strong indication that this rule has very little to no basis in the metaphysical.

    Again, I do not call on anyone to break any rules; this post has just been an attempt by me to describe the complexity of the issue at hand, and if it can be avoided I do strongly suggest that you don't break any rules, unless the rule itself constitutes an offense against the creation or against your immediate well being, but those are also matters outside the scope of this post, read my post on "How to deal with the insane".

Reginald Drax – February 25, 2026.