Responsible Freedom


Excerpt: NTE GMA POTUS [PDF]: Near Term Extinction Green Morning America US President [PDF]: Suggested EoP NTE GMA President, Cabinet & EoP Axis Domestic & Foreign Policy Report [PDF]


Subsequent to Implementation of EoP International Law:

Subsequent to the International Court of Justice EoP Legal Certainty confirmation of EoP RH FR EoP Scientific and Cultural Law;  such Ecology of Peace international law social contract shall (a) require all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; (b) nationalize all property and provide all responsible freedom oath citizens a property ration to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized low-tech organic agrarian sustainable future; EoP Scientific and Cultural National and International Law Responsible Freedom Oath [unless updated enabling greater clarity], shall state as follows:


Responsible Freedom Declaration.

A citizen’s signed Ecology of Peace Fully Informed Consenting Agreement Responsible Freedom Declaration will declare – until, if or when updated for greater clarity – that the particular citizen understands and legally agrees to the following:

I hereby declare that I understand Responsible Freedom to mean:

  1. Earth is not flat.
  2. Resources are finite.
  3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in ecological overshoot, resource depletion and resource conflict.
  4. Some of the socio-cultural and psycho-political consequences of overpopulation & consumption collision with declining resources include: poverty, slavery, unemployment, food shortages, food inflation, cost of living increases, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, pollution, peak oil, peak water, peak food, peak population, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, peak resources, racial, religious, class, gender resource war conflict, militarized police, psycho-social and cultural conformity pressures on free speech, etc; inter-cultural conflict; legal, political and corporate corruption, etc.
  5. The root cause of humans breeding and consuming above ecological carrying capacity limits is the ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ clauses of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract.
  6. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, political parties, corporations and/or nations sincerely want to (a) sustainably protect natural resources for future generations; and/or (b) reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; and/or (c) enable honourable, transparent and humane international cooperative de-industrialization and depopulation of the planet to return to living in accordance to ecological carrying capacity limits; they should (d) cooperate to uphold EoP scientific and cultural national and international law; that requires all citizens of all races, religions and nations to procreate below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool.
  7. I commit to cooperate to uphold EoP scientific and cultural national and international law; that requires all citizens of all races, religions and nations to procreate below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; by (a) holding myself responsible to procreating and consuming below ecological carrying capacity limits; and relating to others in accordance to fully informed consenting agreements; (b) cooperating by holding my fellow citizens responsible to procreating and consuming below ecological carrying capacity; and relating to others in accordance to fully informed consenting agreements; by providing any crimes of aggression violator with my honourable constructive criticism as to their possible crimes of aggression violation, and if they don’t listen; requesting constructive criticism advice from colleagues as to whether there are any errors in my allegation hypothesis; and/or if I sincerely believe my hypothesis allegation to be accurate: legally notifying local and/or national crimes of aggression investigative authorities of the individual/s crimes of aggression violation evidence, for their investigation and prosecution; and/or if such individual/s is/are convicted and so requested, providing humane and orderly implementation of crimes of aggression sentence; and (c) cooperating with EoP scientific and cultural law international law officials, to enforce EoP scientific and cultural law crimes of aggression investigative and juridical enquiry and/or scarcity combatant violation sentences, in another nation; if or when so requested by intnl law officials, when (i) such nations officials request EoP scientific and cultural law enforcement help from another nation or the International Court; or (b) other nations observe and notify the International Court of a particular nations lack of EoP scientific and cultural law enforcement.

I hereby declare that I understand Honourable Reason & Logic Problem Solving Communication Policy Discourse values to mean:

  1. If I am committed to honourable discourse; and I am giving someone else the benefit of the doubt that they are committed to honourable truthseeking discussion:
    1. I clarify my preferences; to enable people being communicated to, to clearly know what I want; and whether they are willing to engage me in entering into an agreement; to help me get what I want; and reciprocally whether I can help them to get what they may want.
    2. I always respond to verbal and written correspondence, with a sincere honest response. If I don’t have time to respond; I inform them by when they can expect a response.
    3. I sincerely and actively listen to the evidence from any individual, irrespective of their political ideology – i.e. right wing to left wing – religion, race or culture. Active listening means you verify that your interpretation of their statements is accurate; before concluding that you have ‘heard their argument’.
    4. I focus on simplifying the issue discussed, using as much as possible descriptive words; as opposed to abstract concepts. If or where I include reference to abstract concepts; I am willing to define my meaning of that abstract concept within that circumstance.
    5. I evaluate their argument based upon the evidence they present, not their race, religion or political ideology; etc.
    6. If I am not convinced by the quality of their evidence on any particular issue; I am willing to agree to disagree on that particular issue, and cooperate if they are willing to engage in cooperative truthseeking to get better quality evidence; so that a stronger beyond reasonable doubt conclusion can be drawn on the particular issue in dispute.
    7. I remain in the conversation until we find agreement; so as to support each other on other issues that we do agree upon, which are based upon more conclusive buck stops here evidence.
    8. If or where sincere conflict arises in the discussion about the issue in dispute; I am committed to remaining in the conversation and finding a way to resolve the conflict, by allowing myself, them or both of us to get over our anger; as opposed to requiring them to suppress their anger for political correct ‘lets pretend we are getting along’ reasons. Once the emotional steam has been released through the conflict resolution process; both parties will find themselves in a more calm neutral space where the truthseeking conversation can proceed.
    9. If either of us decide that we are unable to resolve the conflict between us:
      1. If none of us are employed by the State and/or legally obligated to help each other on the particular issue of preference in dispute; we honourably terminate discussions and approach others for help to get what we respectively want.
      2. If one or both of us are employed by the State and/or an organization or profession legally obligated to provide support to enable resolution of the particular requested preference; we cooperatively refer the matter to an honourable discourse truthseeking arbitrator for impartial dispute resolution.
    10. If at any point during discussion; or arbitration proceedings; their evidence proves any of my evidence for any of my ideological, racial or religious working hypothesis theories or beliefs to be inaccurate; I love reason and logic more than my ego-identity and hence I am willing to publicly change my mind, on that particular subject and amend my ideological working hypothesis or belief with the new evidence provided; and if necessary to apologize.

– Excerpt: EoP NTE GM: Responsible Freedom.


Last Updated 10 July 2017.