Responsible Freedom

sqs-bg_gg-m_900x34

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]

sqs-bg_gg-m_450x26

Fully Informed Consenting Agreement Responsible Freedom Declaration.

A citizen’s signed Ecology of Peace Fully Informed Consenting Agreement Responsible Freedom Declaration will declare 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 nullify the ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ clauses and replace them with Ecology of Peace clauses that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool.
  7. I request – and commit to support – the President and all supporting Political Party leaders; to officially and publicly begin legal International negotiations – by adopting the Ecology of Peace New World Order Negotiations social contract optionsused individually or in select combination or collectively; or other more suitable options – to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract; that shall (i) abolish the root ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract’; and (ii) replace them with Ecology of Peace clauses that require all of the worlds citizens from all races, classes and religions to procreate and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; and anyone convicted of breeding and/or consumption violations shall be eliminated from the planetary genepool.

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.

Honourable Discourse principles are excerpted from: EoP RH culture info.

Naturally anyone who refuses – without reasonable justification – to engage in aforementioned honourable discourse; is not remotely interested in peace, anti-war, or non-violent root cause problem solving of socio-economic resource war conflict; and depending on the circumstances; may consciously or unconsciously be providing their informed consent justification for the issue in dispute to be resolved by means of violence. Although honourable discourse would recommend that they be consciously made aware of how their refusal to engage in honourable discourse root cause problem solving of the issue in dispute; demonstrates their lack of commitment and sincerity to non-violent root cause problem solving.

sqs-bg_gg-m_900x34