Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

After 2001: Our Neotech World



Still, the FDA used those non-sequitur, rat-feeding data to assert that cyclamates can be cancer-producing in human beings. The FDA then demanded that the producers prove that cyclamates do not cause cancer. Since a negative cannot be proven, the government neocheaters subsequently used their dishonest, non-sequitur data to ban the sale of cyclamates without any scientific evidence of harm to a single human being. At the same time, those neocheaters purposely ignored the wide-ranging, beneficial, life-saving effects of that artificial sweetener.

The FDA, EPA, or any other government agency never honestly attempts to prove their assertions. Rather, those agencies demand that the producers disprove their assertions. Their demands to disprove assertions or accusations contradict the concepts of honesty, objective law, and justice. Indeed, to demand proof of a negative undermines honesty by shifting the burden of proof away from the source making accusations, the neocheaters, to their victims, the value producers.

Without the burden-of-proof standard, government and religious neocheaters avoid the responsibility to prove their assertions and accusations. Without the burden-of-proof standard, neocheaters are not accountable to honesty. Without that accountability to honesty, professional mystics and neocheaters can continue to usurp power and bogus livelihoods through fraud, deception, and force.

By nature, most government bureaucracies cannot produce values. Thus, to grow, such bureaucracies must usurp power by destroying values. In turn, value destruction requires little competence or effort. Thus, by necessity, value destruction is the modus operandi of most government bureaucracies and agencies -- the most virulent being the BATF, EPA, FDA, FTC, INS, IRS, OSHA, and the SEC. To conceal their destructions, they masterfully use non-sequitur facts and mystical ploys to justify their destructive usurpations from the value producers. But now, after 2000 years, the evolvement of Neotech will collapse and eliminate those fake empires of destruction.

"I guess that without a scientific background, most people have a hard time seeing past the regulatory bureaucrats' non-sequitur facts," my father said.

Often, only a scientist trained with the scientific method can identify the neocheater's dishonest use of facts and information. Without Neotech, most people have no way to discern the dishonesty of neocheaters. And without Neotech, most people will confusingly accept the neocheater's usurpation of values. But with Neotech, destructive mysticism and neocheating irreversibly ends.

Now, let us turn our eyes to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court was meant to function as a principled, philosophical body designed to protect individual rights. But decisions on obscenity and pornography have been void of principle in ignoring the concept of individual rights. An earlier Supreme Court decision, Memoires vs. Massachusetts, stated the following criterion for pornography: "A book cannot be proscribed unless it is found to be utterly without redeeming social value." That criterion ignored the principles of individual rights and property rights while opening the way for people to be jailed on the basis of some other person's judgment of the "social" merit of their work.

Seven years later, the Supreme-Court Miller vs. California case negated individual rights in determining the following criteria to criminally convict for victimless pornography: "(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest... (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

That Supreme Court ruling left the individual unprotected and at the mercy of any judge, prosecutor, police force, or community. Any of those forces can now attack, prosecute, and jail an individual under arbitrary standards such as (1) contemporary community standards, or (2) "offensive" as defined by a state law, or (3) if the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In other words, anyone who disagrees with the arbitrary standards of the empowered authorities -- judge, police, community leaders -- can potentially be jailed through current anti-obscenity laws. Such nonobjective law is a major step toward censorship, which is the precursor to totalitarianism.



Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com