 |
Global treaty could throw file-sharers off Internet after ‘three strikes’
Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Thursday, Nov 5th, 2009
File-sharers could be jailed under proposed ACTA provisions
Leaked details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated in secret by most of the world’s largest economies suggest Internet file-sharers could be blocked from accessing the Internet if they are repeatedly accused of sharing copyrighted material, say media and digital-rights watchdogs.
And the worst-case scenario could see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.
Internet law professor Michael Geist published details of “leaked” portions of the discussions on ACTA on his blog Tuesday, as a new round of ACTA negotiations began in Seoul, South Korea. The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries, are involved in the negotiations.
“The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you’re out system,” Geist blogged Wednesday, referring to a proposal from copyright holders to have Internet service providers cut off service to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.
“This means that your entire family could be denied [access] to the Internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel,” blogged tech writer and digital-rights supporter Cory Doctorow.
Doctorow also noted that another provision being proposed for the treaty would mean “that ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.”
And, as Geist noted in a follow-up article on Wednesday, the proposed treaty could end up seeing file-sharers jailed for sharing copyrighted material, even if they had no financial gain from the transaction.
Geist wrote that the treaty, as currently proposed, would “extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. In other words, non-commercial infringement could lead to criminal penalties.”
“The US government appears to be pushing for Three Strikes to be part of the new global IP enforcement regime which ACTA is intended to create -– despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European Parliament and by national policymakers in several ACTA negotiating countries, and has never been proposed by US legislators,” writes Gwen Hinze at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
ACTA negotiations were being held entirely in secret until this past May, when the Wikileaks Web site released a 2007 draft proposal.
The Obama administration has resisted attempts to make the negotiations public, though it did make an exemption for a long list of senior executives at major corporations.
In June, the administration announced it would continue the ACTA negotiations started under the previous administration.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
43 Responses to “Global treaty could throw file-sharers off Internet after ‘three strikes’”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
November 5th, 2009 at 5:49 am
I am currently trying to recall the massive amounts of popular culture references from the past decade in movies; ironically enough, that refer to the over abundance of lawyers in this world and the great peril often caused by such a fear ruled and paranoia controlled society in this world.
Though what would be the point of that? It would seem to me that I have already voiced my reasonable opinions about the hazards of people being amused to death; and entertainment would definitely seem to be at the heart of this wearisome issue.
Somebody suggested to me today that I was verbose.
“..But ociffer?!” I say to my self, “How else is a traveling salesman supposed to keep up with the latest trends of great importance in popular culture, keep in touch with friends and loved enemies, and so forth?” ..But I have no answer for my self when I ask this, and I am already running over the amount of words that I had decided I was going to use in this unfortunately rather self educating matter.
The moral of the story that shouldn’t be referred to as a story because it’s too frighteningly real?
I guess that Black men.. uh.. I mean.. A-rabs.. uh.. I mean.. Jews.. uh.. I mean.. Honkies.. are just as capable of being the next Hitler as any one else. Exhausting.
I thought, “..Your darn tootin’ I am. It’s a reflex to make up for everyone else who’s mouths seem to have been glued shut.” I better speak a lot is tha way that I often think of things before nobody ever speaks a lot.
And I also often think, “Of course I want to help make good things happen in this world. It’s just that I most always think of how certain things cannot be solved with the things that helped make them a conflict in the first place.”
It would seem extremely unfounded from a legal perspective of which I am somewhat uncomfortable most often, in speaking from – to say that such unfair regulations would be in place without concern for the lack of profiteering from the uploading and downloading of such material. I dare not designate them as laws, because I remember those as being things that were meant to help people and keep the peace; rather than destroy it.
bud dukes Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A, DF. ….PEACE COME’S FOM WITHIN NOT FROM AN EXTERIOR SOURCE ….YOU SOUND LIKE WHERE THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS COMING FROM .IF YOU CAN SEARCH YOUR HEART AND FIND PEACE , YOU WILL KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT…..
A. DF. Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 am
But this was my toned down version? Or my most genuine despite somewhat grievances of a related matter? Perhaps it would be that I personally am not paid to have an opinion that I thought mine would perhaps be a bit more genuine, and hopefull y insightful. I certainly do appreciate that you are very polite in your bvoicing that you disagree with me.
J Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:55 am
stop with the all caps you idiot.
Jaunty Sunset and the Fireworks Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am
That’s some fine Mental masturbation there Pardner …
We ain’t seen none like that round these parts since …
A. DF. Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Then despite would could be deemed as a rather inpolite response, I am glad that I was able to say something possibly unique – even if not deemed publicly thought of as intelligent and informed. Good day to you then.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:51 am
These elitist scumbags are very busy trying to eliminate the last bit of freedoms we have. It’s time to take a stand people.
BunchofHotAir Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Take a stand. Right. So start taking a stand already. You’ve been talking about it for how long now?
gibb Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
If you read the constitution,,WE the people have a right to remove our government if they start fucking us,,,read It you will see, its right in there. Look what they have done so far,,I can’t even list them all. The federal reserve INC/NAFTA/post office broke/Social Security Stollen,IOU,s/Cash for clunkers/Medicare broke/ Socialized healthcare /Shipping our fort knox gold out of the country to the IMF/ Ect Ect Ect. DAM HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED. THey are destroying our country on purpose to force us to become part of the NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT. THIS IS TREASON.Where is the FBI,?????
Joe Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
They like most the poeple were bought off a long time ago. Either directly or through their jobs. Keep moving..nothing to see here.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Oops. I seem to have cut and pasted my rather lengthy final comment to be posted on here a bit out of order. I think that this is the order I originally intended it to be in:
I am currently trying to recall the massive amounts of popular culture references from the past decade in movies; ironically enough, that refer to the over abundance of lawyers in this world and the great peril often caused by such a fear ruled and paranoia controlled society in this world.
Though what would be the point of that? It would seem to me that I have already voiced my reasonable opinions about the hazards of people being amused to death; and entertainment would definitely seem to be at the heart of this wearisome issue.
And I also often think, “Of course I want to help make good things happen in this world. It’s just that I most always think of how certain things cannot be solved with the things that helped make them a conflict in the first place.”
Though people are going to entertain themselves it seems anyways, as even I entertain my self even though I know how bad it really is.
Somebody suggested to me today that I was verbose.
I thought, “..Your darn tootin’ I am. It’s a reflex to make up for everyone else who’s mouths seem to have been glued shut.” I better speak a lot is tha way that I often think of things before nobody ever speaks a lot.
It would seem extremely unfounded from a legal perspective of which I am somewhat uncomfortable most often, in speaking from – to say that such unfair regulations would be in place without concern for the lack of profiteering from the uploading and downloading of such material. I dare not designate them as laws, because I remember those as being things that were meant to help people and keep the peace; rather than destroy it.
“..But ociffer?!” I say to my self, “How else is a traveling salesman supposed to keep up with the latest trends of great importance in popular culture, keep in touch with friends and loved enemies, and so forth?” ..But I have no answer for my self when I ask this, and I am already running over the amount of words that I had decided I was going to use in this unfortunately rather self educating matter.
The moral of the story that shouldn’t be referred to as a story because it’s too frighteningly real?
I guess that Black men.. uh.. I mean.. A-rabs.. uh.. I mean.. Jews.. uh.. I mean.. Honkies.. are just as capable of being the next Hitler as any one else. Exhausting.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:12 am
people are just going to come up with another way to SHARE their movies and music……. how can it be illegal to SHARE anything ….. i understand Hollywood wants their cut ….. but their already rich …… and they cant stop the power of the computer nerds…..its revenge of the nerds
Joe Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
They will just shoot themselves in the foot, again. People will just but less or forgo any copyright stuff because of the potential…also site will stop carrying their material because it become to risky to even have the liability. Once again, these mental midgets are trying to force a solution with old school thinking because lets face it. They have no real ideas and they can come to terms with something they don’t control every aspect of. As usal lawyers are hired by those that have no ideas, no justifications and no balls, so they try throwing money at the judical system. Just goes to show how truely useless the “High Level Businessmen” of this era are.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:18 am
http://www.KeepTheTruthAlive.com
November 5th, 2009 at 6:18 am
predictive programing and the tv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBBNXHEtalo
November 5th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Who made 9/11?
gibb Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Our government DUH…. Watch the video of 9/11 the pentagon,,,,There wasn’t a 747 plane hit the pentagon,,,40 ton’s of metal dosn’t just dissapear also 5,000 to 8,000 gal of jet fuel,,,the fireman were walking on green grass right up to the building. DUH Even the TV anouncer said(I don’t understand, I don’t see any wreckage not even a tail). Strangley Glen Beck still thinks it was a plane. BUT THATS THE ONLY THING HE IS WRONG ABOUT. Strange??????
November 5th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Password protected youtube is the answer. Form a group with friends, pick a password and log in.
And if you really want to, just encrypt the entire stream via https or ssh, or ipsec. There is no stopping sharing, its older than the information industry they want to protect.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:56 am
AHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAH TOOO HILARIOUS
OHHH OHHH DEM NIGGERS ARE GETTING TO KNOW ALL THERE BACK DEALING THEIVER CONNIVING , LIES DECEPTION
CAN’T BE HAVING THEM NIGGERS KNOWING SUCH STUFF
ITS TO DANGEROUS FOR THE “CORPORATE HOMOSEXUAL MALE WHORES AND PIMP MASS MURDERING MACHINE ROBBERBARONS MURDERERS AND THEIVES CRIMINAL SYNDICATE
AND ONCE MORE THE SLIMY DECREPID VILE CORRUPT LEGISLATORS AND THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF ROBBER BARONS MURDERERS AND THIEVES OLIGARCY OF THE DUOPOLY MONOPOLY OF THE FEUDAL DICTATORS
SO CARRY ON WORKING FOR THIS DECREPID SLIME CARRY ON “LETTING THEM INE ” YOU THAN USE YOUR DISCOVERY TO LOCK EVERYONE UP
WOOOHOOOO
STUPID FUCKEN MORONS THAN NOT ONLY THAT THESE DUMBED DOWN SHEEPL THAN “SELL” THEIR DISCOVERY TO THESE ORGANISED CRIMINAL GOVERNMENTS STATES AND TECHONOLIGIC RELIGIONAS OF FILTH AND SLIME !!!!!!!!!
AHAHAH OHH AND I FORGOT “YOUR” GOVERNMENTS LOVE YOU
AHAHAHHAHAHA
PRIESTS LAWYERS LEGISLATORS AND POLITICIANS TRAITORS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHOOT THEM ALL DEAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
asshole Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 7:17 am
http://video.google.com/videop.....055041031# …. The Corporation
You’d think that things like disasters, or the purity of childhood, or even milk, let alone water or air, would be sacred. But no. Corporations have no built-in limits on what, who, or how much they can exploit for profit. In the fifteenth century, the enclosure movement began to put fences around public grazing lands so that they might be privately owned and exploited. Today, every molecule on the planet is up for grabs. In a bid to own it all, corporations are patenting animals, plants, even your DNA. Around things too precious, vulnerable, sacred or important to the public interest, governments have, in the past, drawn protective boundaries against corporate exploitation. Today, governments are inviting corporations into domains from which they were previously barred.
WHY BECAUSE THE CORPORATION PLC IS NOW THE CRIMINALS THAT CALL THEM SELVES GOVERNMENTS STATES AND RELIGIONS AND MASONS OR ANY OTHER BY PRODUCT NAME THEY GO BY
SAME SHIT DIFFERENT NAME
WAKE THE FUCK UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP WORKING AND SLAVING FOR THESE VILE DECREPID SCUM
THEY ARE THEY EPITOMISE INSTITUTIONALSED SLAVERY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND THEY ALL BUY YOU OUT WITH TRICNKETS AND A BUNCH OF WET DREAMS
STUPID FUCKEN MORONS
WHEN ARE YOU SLAVES GOING TO TAKE BACK YOUR LIVES YOUR AUTHORITY AND POWER
VERSUS BEING A BUNCH OF MINDLESS NIGGERS JUST BEING TOLD
WHATS GOOD FOR YOU
FASCISTI SCUM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO AND MAMAGE YOUR WORTHLESS LIVE PIECES OF SHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
SLIME HUMANS
FUCK TARDS
IGNORANT MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Debt is Recovery or is it WAR IS PEACE , SLAVERY IS FREEDOM , IGNORANCE IS PROFIT , DEBT IS WEALTH or is it none of the above !!1!!
WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU BRAINWASHED EDJUMCATED ILLITERATI DUMB FUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gibb Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Ok ,where do we start.?
November 5th, 2009 at 6:59 am
The Deadly Word “Law”
(This report deals with “law” in the sense of “human law.” In Report ‘#TL20: The Principles of Meta-Information,’ “law” in the sense of “scientific law” is examined.)
For some reason, it seems that most people find it difficult to question the validity of the concept or word “law.” So we find that Robert Ringer, in his book Restoring the American Dream, in Chapter 8: “Keeping It All in Place,” indicates that the political system is kept in place by the terrocrat (statist) words I include under Slavespeak. Ringer specifically tackles words like “country” and “government,” but never questions or challenges the word “law.”
And in Million Dollar Habits Ringer writes: “Back to the subject of reality: We must continue to remind ourselves that we are not operating in an ideal laboratory stocked with rational people brimming over with rational thoughts. If you ignore this reality, you do so at your own peril. Man-made laws are a reality, regardless of whether or not they are rational or moral, and regardless of whether or not you or I like them. Therefore, within reason, and to the extent possible, you should attempt to obey man-made laws if only because it is pragmatic to do so. It’s extremely difficult to achieve any great degree of success from inside a prison cell.” [emphasis added]
You almost got it right, Mr. Ringer! The reality is that most people hallucinate some terrocrat noises and scribbles as “man-made law.” Nevertheless, your advice is sound, because there are terrocrats with guns who hallucinate likewise and who behave as if “man-made laws are a reality.”
Maybe there’s a psychological reason for idolizing the concept of “law.” First of all, historically and traditionally it’s been very dangerous to challenge any specific so-called “law.” The impostor masquerading as “King” said, “My word is law.” Anyone who disobeyed the supposed “law” took the risk of having his head chopped off.
To now go even further — and deeper — and challenge the very notion of “law” must be virtually unthinkable to most. Let me repeat what George Orwell said: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought… crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
From the terrocrat’s point of view, the ultimate crime must be to challenge the very notion of “law.” The word “law” might be the most hypnotic word in the English language.
“Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us.”
– Robert Anton Wilson, Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)
“It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.”
– Sally Kempton
“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
– Steve Biko
I speculate that in a sense human consciousness rests on a fundamental set of concepts. If you challenge any of these concepts, it seems as if a person’s entire consciousness is being challenged or threatened; “cognitive dissonance” occurs; and the mind seems to shut off — crimestop sets in.
Some time ago I did an experiment with a French-speaking girlfriend who has studied so-called “law.” I asked her to repeat this sentence, “La notion de la “loi” (soi-disant) est une hal-loi-cination” — “The notion of the “law” (so-called) is an hal-law-cination.” She had great difficulty in just saying the words… I’ve repeated this experiment several times with similar results.
Interestingly, Jonathan Swift had no problem with questioning the “law” concept. He wrote in Gulliver’s Travels: “There was another point which a little perplexed him… I had said, that some of our crew left their country on account of being ruined by ‘law’… but he was at a loss how it should come to pass, that the ‘law’ which was intended for ‘every’ man’s preservation, should be any man’s ruin. Therefore he desired to be further satisfied what I meant by ‘law,’ and the dispensers thereof… because he thought nature and reason were sufficient guides for a reasonable animal, as we pretended to be, in showing us what we ought to do, and what to avoid… I said there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, accordingly as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.” [emphasis added]
Other possible reasons why many people may find it difficult to question their concepts or words might be:
1. Most people have never questioned even one of the words they use
habitually.
2. According to the principle of inertia, it’s easier to continue to think the way you’ve always thought. Questioning some of your basic concepts involves a dramatic change of direction — and some vigorous, energetic thought!
3. Questioning something about physical reality is relatively easy, e.g., I claim that the table has four legs. Simple observation settles the issue. No complex thought processes are involved. However, in questioning the validity of a concept or word, we have to use the word, while at the same time invalidating the word. So we use syntax like “the “law” (so-called)” — self-referencing syntax — involving a complex thought process many may find difficult. Furthermore, the word “law” is a high-level abstraction. In the case of “the table” there is a simple one-to-one relationship between the symbol (word) and the object it represents — the referent. Because “law” is in the domain of verbal reality, the issue of the word’s validity cannot be settled by simple observation. While you can see the ink in a so-called “lawbook,” you cannot find a simple relationship between the symbol “law” and its referent(s).
4. If you talk to your peers in the manner I do to challenge the basic political Slavespeak words, they’ll mostly think you’re crazy. What you say will make little or no sense to them — like the previous paragraph! Thus peer pressure tends to act as a powerful crimestop to prevent you from expressing dangerous thoughts like “the falsely-called “law”.”
5. We don’t have a convenient, easy-to-use syntax for questioning words or concepts. I suspect that many people find it difficult to process statements about verbal reality. So much so, that when I make a statement like, “The notion that someone is a “King” is a form of idolatry or hallucination” (a statement about verbal reality), they will compulsively “translate” (distort) it into, “He’s saying that Kings don’t exist” (a statement about physical reality).
6. Maybe certain words — like “law,” “state,” and “government” — have such powerful hypnotic effects on people, that if they try to question and challenge them, their consciousness “turns down a few notches” and they can’t think properly.
OK, so let’s imagine a world in which the concept “law” (in the sense of man-made “law”) is completely absent. Suppose that from an early age. children in such a world are taught principles like:
1. Actions have consequences.
2. Humans have minds they can use to calculate and predict — at least to some extent — the consequences of actions.
3. Obedience can be dangerous because it tends to become a substitute for thought (calculation and prediction).
4. The more you think for yourself, rather than obey others, the more you learn and the more effective you become.
5. Knowledge advances. Today’s wisdom becomes tomorrow’s superstition. Therefore question everything.
How much power could terrocrats have in such a world?
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” said Aleister Crowley. To me this means that people will do whatever they will do, irrespective of what any supposed “law” might dictate. The idea that if terrocrats were to “make a law,” it would solve a problem, is quite silly. People will still do what they will. They may change their behavior because of the supposed “law,” but often they will tend to do so in ways different from terrocrat expectations.
The notion that humans can be “controlled” by “laws” is fundamentally flawed. This is so because humans are volitional entities with minds to think, decide, and initiate independent action.
Of course, humans may relinquish their ability to think, decide, and act volitionally — if they accept terrocrat noises and scribbles as “laws” they must obey, defy — or repeal.
If you regard another’s noises and scribbles as “the law,” then you position that person as your superior master, and you position yourself as his inferior slave. You subjugate yourself. In effect, you commit a form of intellectual and psychological suicide. That’s why the idea or concept of “law” is so deadly.
As Voltaire said, “People who believe absurdities, will commit atrocities.” And Jeremy Bentham wrote, “Out of one foolish word may start a thousand daggers.” (Bentham’s Theory of Fictions by C.K. Ogden.) So, how many crimes are committed and how many people are killed as a result of the general acceptance of the “law” concept? (By “crime” I mean “a willful act that harms another or his property.”)
Above, I claimed that the notion of “law” was a stupefying and debilitating hallucination. It’s stupefying because its form is: “Don’t think; just do it because it’s the law!” For many, “law” is a substitute for thought. “I don’t have to think what to do because the law tells me what to do!”
The notion of “law” is debilitating because of its form: “You can’t do it because it’s against the law!” “You must do it because it’s the law!” Many freedom-lovers believe that they can’t be free because of “all the laws that curtail their freedom.” Many expend a great deal of time and effort “fighting to change the law,” when their efforts could perhaps be better utilized by following other strategies.
Antony Solomon wrote the following poem:
THE ENEMY WITHIN
Why do you fear his “parliament,”
This all oppressive “government,”
When darker things lurk deep inside
Your mind; crawling, scuttling, they hide.
Words by far than “police-state law,”
More corrupt than any “legislature,”
Taxing far above the progressive rate;
A self-made ghost does, your soul subjugate.
For the “rulers of men” are nought but dust
They rise, dictate, but fall they must.
Though out of sight, not out of mind, see?
The ‘ghost in the machine’ saying — you’re not free.
Oh deeply wounding psychoplasm,
Why hauntest thou in the mind’s chasm?
Why crippleth thee what gives thee home,
Why soil thy nest like a common gnome?
Out, out damn spook, begone I say!
For I have resolved, myself, this day,
That I stand free in body and soul,
Not hindered by chains nor ghoul.
In The Crowd, Gustave le Bon wrote: “Civilization is impossible without traditions, and progress impossible without destroying those traditions… no example could better display the power of tradition on the mind of crowds. The most redoubtable idols do not dwell in temples, nor the most despotic tyrants in palaces; both the one and the other could be broken in an instant. But the invisible masters that reign in our innermost selves are safe from every effort at revolt, and only yield to the slow wearing away of centuries…
The precise moment at which a great belief is doomed is easily recognizable; it is the moment when its value begins to be called into question. Every general belief being little else than fiction, it can only survive on the condition that it be not subjected to examination…
The only real tyrants that humanity has known have always been the memories of its dead or the illusions it has forged itself.” [emphasis added]
The debilitating “law” concept is an invisible master in the innermost self, a tyrant in the form of a self-forged illusion or hallucination.
“Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us.”
– Robert Anton Wilson, Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)
“It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.”
– Sally Kempton
“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
– Steve Biko
FREDERICK MANN
November 5th, 2009 at 7:07 am
The Complete Perversion of the Law
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
Victims of Lawful Plunder
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.
The Results of Legal Plunder
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
The Fate of Non-Conformists
If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.” If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: “That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force.” [1]
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.
Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.
I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage. FREDERICK BASTIAT . THE LAW
asshole Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Lawyers: The Dispensers of “Law”
“The lawyer has learned how to flatter his master in word and indulge him in deed; but his soul is small and unrighteous… From the first he has practiced deception and retaliation, and has become stunted and warped. And so he has passed out of youth into manhood, having no soundness in him…”
– Plato, 321 BC!
John Bunyan wrote in The Pilgrim’s Progress, more than three centuries ago:
“Worldly wiseman: why in yonder village (the village is named morality) there dwells a gentleman, whose name is legality, a very judicious man, and a man of a very good name, that has skill to help men off with such burdens as thine is, from their shoulders; yea, to my knowledge, he hath done a great deal of good this way; ay, and besides, he hath skill to cure those that are somewhat crazed in their wits with their burdens. To him, as I said, thou mayest go, and be helped presently…
Evangelist… thou must hate his setting of thy feet in the way that leadeth to the ministration of death… he to whom thou wast sent for ease, being by name legality, is the son of that bondwoman… which thou hast feared will fall on thy head… how canst thou expect by them to be made free? This legality, therefore, is not able to set thee free from thy burden. No man was as yet ever rid of his burden by him; no, nor is ever like to be. Ye cannot be justified by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no man living can be rid of his burden; therefore, Mr. Worldly Wiseman is an alien, and Mr. Legality is a cheat; and for his son Civility, notwithstanding his simpering looks, he is but a hypocrite, and cannot help thee. Believe me, there is nothing in all this noise that thou hast heard of these sottish men, but a design to beguile thee of thy salvation, by turning thee from the way in which I had set thee.” [emphasis added]
It’s interesting that John Bunyan already recognized so long ago that lawyers essentially make noises. About a century after Bunyan, Jonathan Swift wrote in Gulliver’s Travels about lawyers:
“It is likewise to be observed that this society hath a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their “laws” are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong…
Here my master, interposing, said it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge. In answer to which, I assured his honor, that in all points out of their own trade they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse, as in that of their own profession.”
Question: Who are the most effective practitioners of Slavespeak? The terrocrats or the lawyers? What percentage of top terrocrats are also lawyers? Who then are the biggest enemies of freedom?
In Bentham’s Theory of Fictions Jeremy Bentham wrote:
“Behold here one of the artifices of lawyers. They refuse to administer justice to you unless you join with them in their fictions; and then their cry is, see how necessary fiction is to justice! Necessary indeed; but too necessary; but how came it so, and who made it so?
As well might the father of a family make it a rule never to let his children have their breakfast till they had uttered, each of them, a certain number of lies, curses, and profane oaths; and then exclaim, “You see, my dear children, how necessary, lying, cursing, and swearing are to human sustenance!”
Many of us regard lawyers as “special” people, with something “extra” — knowledge of “the law” — masters of the terrocrat words of what must be done and what may not be done. (Fortunately, many people also have a poor opinion of lawyers, in fact, lawyers are widely in disrepute!)
Lewis Carroll wrote in The Hunting of the Snark:
“He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,
Where the Snark, with a glass in its eye,
Dressed in gown, bands, and wig, was defending a pig
On the charge of deserting its sty.
The Witnesses proved, without error or flaw.
That the sty was deserted when found:
And the Judge kept explaining the state of the law
In a soft under-current of sound.
The indictment had never been clearly expressed,
And it seemed that the Snark had begun,
And had spoken three hours, before anyone guessed
What the pig was supposed to have done.
The Jury had each formed a different view
(Long before the indictment was read),
And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew
One word that the others had said.
‘You must know–’ said the Judge:
but the Snark exclaimed, ‘Fudge!…”
Consider the entire “legal system” — the “lawmakers,” the lobbyists, the lawyers, the police, the inspectors and investigators, the prosecutors, the judges, the prisons, the prison guards, the parole officers, etc., etc. It’s a huge “legal” industry. And who benefits most? The lawyers. Who benefits most from the growth of the “legal” industry? The lawyers. Who are the best-paid people in this “legal” industry? The lawyers. Who are the biggest enemies of freedom?
What is the one concept/word that essentially forms the foundation of this entire “legal” industry”? “Law!” — Fudge! FREDERICK MANN
asshole Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Who are the biggest enemies of freedom?
LEGISLATORS , POLITICIANS ORGANISED RELIGIONS , PRIESTS OF ANY MAN MADE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION, JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS OF ANY KIND , LAWYERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL GOVERNMENTS ,STATES AND MAN MADE RELIGONS ARE YOUR ENEMIES
The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” That they have “Preserved our Glorious Union!” and that, in now paying the “National Debt,” as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply “Maintaining the National Honor!”
By “maintaining the national honor,” they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.
The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.” Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general — not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man — although that was not the motive of the war — as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle — but only of degree — between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men’s natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ >from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, “a government of consent.” The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this — that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called “peace.”
Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people — or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) — could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” of establishing “a government of consent,” and of “maintaining the national honor,” are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one — when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay “national debts,” so-called — that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered — so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
LYSANDER SPOONER
WAKE THE FUCK UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IDIOTS
release me Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am
And again, the above enlightening treatises , (Thank you for your valiant effort) illustrates, that the monopoly element, and their level of exercised control, (who ARE they?) running our world today, to whom which, we so commonly refer to as the “shadow government” must be exposed, dismantled and removed from the insidious level of power to which they have subjected the majority. This lifeless soul-less entity , and their minions, comparts, enablers, and defendants, must be utterly, and shamlessly exposed and destroyed. And it is left to the people, the majority of good and decent men and woman , to do perform this service to humanity.
gibb Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
OUCH,,,I have to read every word on blogs,,,your killing me.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Great!
November 5th, 2009 at 7:44 am
1 Terabyte hard drives are currently going “on the black market” for about $20.00.
16 Gig. USB thumbnail drives are going for about $10.00.
How is an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement going to solve anything ?
November 5th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Did Albert Pike or Aliester Crowley sue the Illuminati and Satanists for stealing their rituals ans reprinting his “Book of the Law”
If their was internet back then it would have been shared
Or did the government sue themselves for stealling ALL of Nicola Teslas inventions…..including the H.A.R.R.P project in Alaska
Fucking hypocrites….because they steal alot of shit themselves
November 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Intellectual property laws are bullshit. Once an idea leaves your head it belongs to the world.
Unless someone is using another’s creation to make money the law has no right to intercede.
That’s my personal belief anyway. This is all nonsense. How do you owe a company tens of thousands of dollars for listening to a song you didn’t pay for? Ridiculous!
November 5th, 2009 at 10:01 am
World governments (USA, Europe, China, Russia, the U.N., etc..) are controlled and operated by private businesses. We are watching a world fascist dictatorship merge, one with a strong totalitarianistic structure.
gibb Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I think they are going to have a big problem trying to bring americans under there rule . It will be much worse than the teliban,,,MUCH WORSE.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Don,t steal the government hates competition.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
This is not the democrats or the republicans. It is the corporations who are hijacking our government.
Corporation are supposed to serve the society but they turned into some type of virulent parasites who serve only themselves causing many problems including unemployment poverty and wars.
This is NO LONGER the government of the people by the people but the government of the corporations for the corporations.
Since corporations do not operate democratically they currently represent a mortal danger to our country our constitution and our institution.
We have the constitutional right to dismiss the government and elect a new one. Incumbent from any party shall not be allowed to run. If it come to this we might have to do just that and we should not hesitate.
Also we have to restore the constitution by scraping all the pseudo federal laws who encroach it (such as the DMCA!) and demand to all the states of the union to realign their laws according to the constitution. A law for example who ask demonstrators to seek a permit as well as the notion of “unauthorized demonstration” is unconstitutional since it encroach the right of peacful assembly. We have to remind police officials that enforcing an unconstitutional law is a federal crime.
We have to pass laws that make illegal for large organization such as commercial corporations to lobby the government and contribute to the campaign of elected officials.
Ever that or we will have to dismantle all the major corporations one way or another, even militarily if we have to.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:15 am
RESIST!!!!!!!!!!
November 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Definition of communism is when a state controls corporations and business. Fascism is when the corporations and businesses control the state.
Here we have industry getting the American government to pass laws with penalties disproportionate to the crime to squeeze every last penny out of the citizenry. These same corporations lobbied the government directly having bypassed elected officials. They are also trying to go global.
Fortunately they have failed in Europe and several other countries. As long as there are websites in free countries, US corporations can do diddlely squat.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
So, I definitely had the argument with Qwest over this a few months ago.
I was told that due to the “illegal content” I was sharing I needed to flash my hard drive with the illegal content on it and then flash it again after I deleted it for my internet to be turned back on after being red flagged. I refused and eventually got them to turn my internet back on under the pretence that if I was caught two more times, I would never be allowed to open a Qwest account of any kind again.
Ouch.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
There is no more that can be done in the states, its like the titanic hit the iceburg and is sinking fast and instead of getting in the lifeboats yall are bitchin at each other, the ship is not coming back up people. margarita island is full of opportunity cheapest cost of living in the world, 4 cent a gallon gas free health care no taxes, no hurricanes, all food is organic by law. for more info check out http://www.escapethestates.com I have plenty of references from people I have moved down here, jump on the underground railraod and find out what it is like to live in a country that has alot more freedom then the united states. Put your money in a different currency and get out with it and dont look back. soon the dollar will be worth nothing, then you are stuck like a turd in the toilet. thanks for listening, if you need help contact me, My wife and I have plenty of knowledge about living here on margarita island we moved here 3 years ago with 3 small children and 3 dogs. We had to get our kids away from the toxic foods and environment. We can help you escape the states no matter what situation you are in,
November 6th, 2009 at 2:00 am
this is a kick ass short film about martial law, and police brutality, and the rise of the republic you must see this and pass it on very power short film- amazing how close it all really is! Rise of the Rattlesnake -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6tTH4RQfA
November 6th, 2009 at 3:14 am
So what stop someone from going to a public library in some city ,in some state and taking out Music,DVD’s,Software etc taking it home and copying it?
Who would ever know?
Yes ,pulic libraries-your government funded state funded file sharing network that cannot be shut down.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.”
Thomas Jefferson
November 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
This is nothing more than the US version of the French laws:
DADVSI
HADOPI
LOPSI 2
They tried it in France, people were quite shocked, but the pulliticians passed some of those laws anyway. Hadopi was presented a second time and went through.
Oh, of course, since it was felt like a typical right wing law, you had the left being faithful to their purpose, and so they were moaning and bitching, and of course, being in inferior numbers, the text passed. That is convenient to be outnumbered, because it is impossible to know what the same people would have done if they had the majority of seats.
Moral, left, right, same deal. People: fucked.
The real question is why to make such laws when most people don’t want them and don’t agree with them? Who are those laws made for then? The people? Certainly not.