Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Law and the Enviroment

Law and the Enviroment

Unread postby pablonite » Thu 11 Feb 2010, 17:23:37

The 'Rule of Law' by Bill Ross
http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/a ... .php/c1/34
The precise legal definition of 'the rule of law' seems to have been 'misplaced' by our 'guardians of civilization' and lost in history. Current judges state: 'I am the law,' implying that they are the beginning and end of authority, residing in their eminently trustworthy and infallible persons. Enough information is now available to re-construct the 'rule of law' from the evidence...

...The defining characteristic of any individual or group is the need to survive. To do so, goals must be achieved. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possibilities. You can steal by force or fraud or you can trade value for value. There are no other possibilities. Since conflict is a consequence of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking, these methods must be suppressed by law. These methods create conflict because they interfere with the survival of the victims, causing a defensive response. The only peaceful means of goal seeking is thus by mutually agreed trade...

...The 'rule of law' is the highest law of mankind. All other laws are subservient and cannot contradict the 'rule of law.' All laws contradicting this including constitutional are an offense to mankind's collective survival and must be fought and destroyed. This most basic of laws is the highest intellectual achievement of mankind, the result of objective consideration of mankind's goals, nature, environment, history and survival by the greatest and most objective minds mankind has yet produced. The 'rule of law' is a profound truth which allows the most dangerous predator on the planet to live together in peace and harmony, cooperating for mutual self-interest and progress...

The above definition of the 'rule of law' is fully consistent with what governments, judges and the legal profession pretend to be guided (but not bound) by. The fact that government and judges do not consider themselves bound by the 'rule of law' allows them to remain in control, creating plausible 'necessity,' 'complexity' or 'technicalities' of why they and their cronies are special and above the law, free to suck the life out of their fellow men. This allows them to keep all of us fighting each other by refusing true equality and tricking us into blaming and killing each other. They make us slaves to their will by denying our property rights and threatening seizure. This allows them to promise our productivity to others who refuse to choose personal responsibility or accept the consequences of this decision, buying political support at our expense and placing incompetents in democratic control. The chaos of usurped democracy provides confusion and cover while our civilization is looted and destroyed, for the benefit of the unscrupulous.

For their grand finale, they are steering civilization to a worldwide conflagration of war that can never, ever end until the human race is extinct. This is for the simple reason that we have been duped into thinking our survival depends on someone else's exploitation. Our victims have responded by becoming what some call terrorist and I call freedom fighter. When justice is denied, conflict is the only survival option.

The absence of the 'rule of law' also prevents serious international cooperation in the critical areas of pollution, global warming, renewable energy, economics and poverty. The most crucial foundation of civilization has been stolen and removed. As a consequence, civilization is toppling. ...

...The entire legal profession is profoundly wrong and an enemy of mankind. Who judges the judges? We do and I have. My role in this is done by publishing the proof of these crimes against humanity. Will we let civilization continue to absorb these predations and consequences until it collapses from the accumulated weight of our follies in tolerating this?

Well, what do you think?
I've delved a little bit into banking law, maritime law, international law...it really is a house of babel full of parasites, no offense to any lawyers out there because I respect everyone as a human being first and foremost, but baby jeebus, how much longer can civilization tolerate this load of parasites before they bring the host down?
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Law and the Enviroment

Unread postby aldente » Thu 11 Feb 2010, 18:45:47

The spectacular situation that any generation has been facing since the dawn of mankind as we know it is the quest of the search of "utalitarianism". There you go, mankind has got it all down..

Image
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Law and the Enviroment

Unread postby pablonite » Fri 12 Feb 2010, 10:12:53

aldente wrote:The spectacular situation that any generation has been facing since the dawn of mankind as we know it is the quest of the search of "utalitarianism". There you go, mankind has got it all down..

Well, it looks like an interesting movie, I'll check it out.

I wasn't "shocked" when I saw Food Inc. I didn't know this about the film though. Is this utilitarianism? The greatest good for the greatest number of people? I think quite the opposite.

Big Food Inc. will do everything to stop you talking about this
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17560
LS: Can you tell me about the legal challenges you faced with this film?

RK: The irony is that it's more frightening to talk about it here than in the States. I didn't realise what we faced until we talked to Barbara Kowalcyck, a food safety advocate whose son died having contracted E-coli from a tainted hamburger. She mentioned what happened to Oprah Winfrey who, on a program about BSE in 1996, expressed concern about the safety of eating hamburgers. [Texas ranchers sued Winfrey under a food libel law, although in 1998 the jurors rejected the $11 million dollar defamation lawsuit.]

I ended up spending more legal fees on this film than the past 15 films combined - times three! The world of corporate food is a very litigious world. They will do everything to stop you from getting people to think about this subject. It made my life very frightening. If I'd known all this before I started out, I might have had second thoughts about making this film.

LS: What was the most shocking aspect of making the film?

RK: There were two things. One was early on when we went to a hearing about whether to label cloned meat. A representative from the meat industry said it would be 'too confusing for the consumer'. I realised I had entered an Orwellian world where people are being 'protected' by not being told....

LS: What do you hope people will take away from the film?

RK: That the system is unsustainable. We've created a world where we're using up our natural resources and, in doing so, robbing our children and our grandchildren. We have to think about growing and producing food in a fairer way.

We have to return the balance of power towards individuals and away from the corporations. The film does show Walmart in a good light for helping to ban a growth hormone given to cattle to produce more milk.

We also need to figure out how to create another system. The current food system is all based on oil. If you believe in peak oil we're going to run out at some point. We need to think about how to feed the world and what's sustainable. People should have the right to know the consequences and the cost of the industrial food system.

I guess this isn't surprising, thanks to Law, the truth is getting more and more expensive to tell.
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 03:00:00


Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 270 guests