NATURAL LAW IS NOT’ A LAW

In recent years we have witnessed the spread of some theories that see the total freedom of the individual as the supreme value to be defended.

They are theories which substantially are part of the current of thought which is defined “libertaria” or even anarchist.

Indeed for the Treccani “libertarian” it's who or what “considers and proclaims total freedom of thought and action as the highest value in individual life, social and political, to be safeguarded and defended against anything that tends to limit it (if not. often an anarchist): a revolutionary l.; a radical with libertarian ideas; as noun, one., a group of libertarians. ” or even “In publicity and political historiography, also sinon. of liberal, in the most general sense, that is, pertaining to freedom: principles, libertarian ideals.“

We recently had a wave of these theories, among which the theory on OPPT, that of individual sovereignty, but even the theory according to which the independence of a people is a “natural right” so is holding a referendum for independence.

OPPT in particular is a FAKE, i.e. a fake or hoax, which I have already written about, which aims to confuse people based on facts that are actually not possible, or even blatantly falsely demonstrated. come the idea that a “region” can achieve independence through an independence referendum as the “natural right”, none “region” of the world has this right, and certainly a state that had such a constitutional provision would not last long.

This paper wants to analyze some concepts to show that the “natural law” or “natural right” it is nothing but an opinion and it is not a law, in practice it does not exist as a right or as a rule or norm or as one wishes to call it, that is, in any court absolutely nothing counts. Once some concepts have been analysed, we will later see who may have an interest in spreading them in a distorted and unreal way and for what possible purposes.

Meanwhile, let's start by saying that “SOVEREIGNTY”, “freedom”, “individuality” they are all concepts to be defined, they are not thought of equally by each individual. This paper itself demonstrates that there is no agreement on the concept of “natural freedom” The “natural right”.

When someone talks about their individual freedom or sovereignty, he is actually talking about what he believes to be freedom or sovereignty . Instead, words and language itself are already insurmountable limits, and the thought of each of what it means to be “free” it cannot be fully communicated to others because language lacks the direct and emotional experience that words represent or want to communicate, that is, the language still fails a “transfer” to the other entirely and directly the experience of the inner being (or encourage, or spirit, we cannot define these concepts here too, or we end up talking about the sex of angels).

That is, the word, as significant, it does not transfer the meaning into the interlocutor's mind, but he insinuates himself into it only within the limits of his understanding and his prior knowledge.

In other words and to give an example more within reach of the common reality, nobody really knows what that means “make love” , at least until, in my opinion, did not make love with a person who loves totally and by whom she is reciprocated and when there are also all the necessary conditions to make it a complete experience. Yet even in that case, perhaps it would have been better if there hadn't been that concern (of privacy, of work), or the fear or impediment, for example, of a pregnancy …. etc. etc.

Here, already the definition I gave, apparently quite complete, instead it is only my personal meaning of love, and that “totally love” in reality it is in turn linked to the conception and experience of love, training and education, and even to particular and exceptional chemical and psychic states of that precise moment in which the”love”. Indeed , to try again, for Catholics, there is no true love if you take contraceptive measures. For still others “make love” is to go to ( whores. There are also those who say, not without foundation, that true love and the maximum fusion of beings can only be achieved by renouncing orgasm. And there are still those who legitimize rape if motivated by love.

Here then is the word “love” has infinite meanings, as many as there are individuals, and the same is true for words “freedom”, “SOVEREIGNTY”, “individual” E “spirit”. Rather, to tell the truth the word “love” it also means different things for the same individual over time!

Moreover, everyone's conception of love is influenced not only by experiences, but also from a cultural and educational background of which one is rarely aware, often derived from religion, but our conscience, according to many researches and theories, it is mainly determined by instincts and desires of which we are not aware.

Assume that a concept exists “natural” of love, and consequently a natural right of love, it is pure fiction, because everything depends not only on religious presuppositions, cultural and philosophical implications (that have very little to do with nature) but they are also determined by psychophysical aspects which are not taken into account and which are different from individual to individual.

But a company, to exist it needs rules instead, certain, therefore imposed and enforced by force when necessary (otherwise they are even counterproductive), however and in any case a society must have rules, whether they are right or wrong rules is another matter. If there are no rules, there is no society, or better, the above rules of nature enter into force, that is, the instinct of each one that inevitably collides with that of others, and in the last analysis the natural general rule will reign supreme: the fittest wins (for example if you are a lion but I kill you with arrows, I'm the fittest even if you'd be stronger).

I call “law” the rules that society gives itself, what is also called “positive right” , law that is created through various mechanisms (not necessarily from political power), but which is in fact mandatory for everyone.

The rules and mechanisms of nature, that is, those that are formed in the absence of positive law, if we want we can call them laws, very well, but let's confuse the terminology, and while the laws we can modify them, if there is society with institutions, the laws of nature in my opinion are not so modifiable and not even so right.

Natural laws are ruthless and are not laws according to the meaning given to the term “law”, they are facts that are created, depend on the conditions. Some believe they were determined by God, forgetting that even on the concept of God and on what he wants there is a lot of confusion among human beings, taken all together.

Without a society with its own rules, even if it were a company of a few individuals, the progressive detachment from bestiality that man has achieved would not have been possible (badly) to achieve. That is, the written laws of society have modified evolution and natural laws.

namely, if there are any rules imposed, then there is a company, otherwise we refer to the laws of nature which are anything but clear and unambiguous: natural laws are laws that many would not like, and I'm “READ” simple and unwritten: in nature we often get sick and die young, we are not fed every day and we can die of hunger or poisoning, you can be killed easily by animals and parasites, THE 30% of the unborn is born with health problems, and often dies within 5 years, the parturient dies, and a simple wound is often fatal, etc. etc. They are not good rules.

The society, acquiring laws and organization to impose them, it has led man to distance himself more and more from the bestial condition of natural laws, going so far as to forget that it is itself an element of nature, and in so doing man has come to be even the most dangerous fact to nature, and for himself. But so far man has managed to reduce disease, hunger, even waging wars, but opening up to future improvements. All this by violating the laws of nature.

It must be said that sometimes one gets the impression that the achievements of humanity are actually regressions, but for the moment it seems clear to me that natural laws would certainly be more unjust!

Those who propose the “natural right” they propose this to submit to the facts of nature? Or they claim to impose a God? Or they hope for a destruction of institutions in order to have their hands untied to perpetrate abuse ?  What proposes those who invoke them “natural laws” in reality, an involution ?

The thing is, there are none “natural law” it's a real one “law” in the sense that this term is commonly given and in society, whereby everyone thinks of natural law as he pleases, anarchically.

In fact we can call it “law” also “rule” The “rule” The, as the Venetians did “part”, but the sense of the term is that that thing written is valid for all those to whom it is addressed. for example, if there is a law that imposes certain health standards on those who have a restaurant, that law applies to all restaurants (but for example not if it is a farmhouse).

Now, if it is not written and deliberated by an authority of some kind (which should itself comply with the law), the “law” does not exist, it's just theory.

Simply, since the “natural law” it is not written, when someone talks about “natural law” he only speaks of his own opinion, of one's own desire, if we want we can discuss whether that desire is also right or wrong , but the fact is that the “natural law” or in nature has no legal value, because it is not a law of society but a concept that is part of the scope of philosophy, of religion, of personal choices that must necessarily stop in front of legal institutions in a society made up of several individuals.

On the other hand, if you want, the first natural law to be respected is that your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins,and this is also recognized by anarchists and libertarians, but this implies the negation of what they themselves propose , that is, it is admitted that by force “external” individual freedom is by definition limited. There is no freedom or absolute individual sovereignty, those who believe this have not understood even the basic discourse and the meaning of the word “freedom” or sovereignty.

The laws of nature are primarily that the fittest wins, therefore in society the state has won and putting it this way everyone is just a subject, but it is a mistake precisely to speak of “natural law” in a society that by definition “natural” it is not. Not even the natural family is without laws, because natural law authorizes rape, the company does not, almost (some societies allow rape in certain cases, calling it impulsive love).

Your true natural freedom ends the moment a major force subjugates you, that is always. Your individual freedom is born with you, and at the moment of your birth you can do nothing but cry, eat and shit on you. It is someone else's care that allows you to expand your effective freedom, more and more, mother or father, or who makes the functions, then the family, school and institutions give you more and more ways to be free and self-managed, but total and natural freedom does not exist and has never existed. In nature you alone, if your mother dies, you too die, and end of story. If you want to delude yourself that there is total and absolute freedom, you can do it but you are outside of society and reality, and when one is in this stage, not me but many call her crazy, and the judges impose the TSO. Right or wrong that these are the natural rules, those with which you are confronted at the time of birth.

We can aim and act to reform the system and create one that is as free as possible, but to do so, the rules of the system itself must still be respected, who does everything to prevent change, that is, many oppose the change. And the system, if you don't respect the rules, calls you (as appropriate) terrorist, anarchist, crazy, etc. etc, and only when you eventually win, then he calls you a prophet, illuminated, revolutionary, etc, but still classifies you as “the exception”. E’ the people themselves who make up society to relegate you to this role, because it does not admit the idea of ​​the mutability of fundamental norms.

On the level of the spirit everyone can be aware of all this, or better, can gain awareness, because at birth it is not there. And it is an intoxicating conquest, but unfortunately there are those who induce this intoxicating sensation linked to the awareness of being free in the soul and then mislead the individual in situations of conflict, this in order to create the case and thus be able to impose on others an undeclared project in violation of the freedom of others.

In other words, To be free, in society, it implies submitting one's spirit to common rules, even when a temporary substitute for a corrupt and infamous system, for example, you simply cannot go naked anywhere in the world, only in nudist camps, and even in those you are not allowed to poop on other people's towels, there are rules there too.

In short, the argument from freedom has to do with force, their own wills, the natural law (which is not law).
Over time the company also invented the “Human rights”, including the declaration of human rights, which, For the uninitiated, it is not a law, but a list of aspirations.

But who should then enforce these rights in the absence of institutions and rules?

For believers the natural judge e’ It gave, for anarchists and’ the individual himself, for others e’ nature, for beings who want a democratic society the judge is the one pre-established by law, that is the natural judge who must be independent of political government. This last concept is the one recognized by law, the rest is political discussion, Western states are not inspired by the natural judge as God or the natural judge as an individual but only exclusively by the judge constituted by law, and this was written in the laws.

In the West, the concept of “natural judge”, specifying precisely that it is the one pre-established by law.

Obviously if you want to be part of any company, you have to meet the policy that that company applies. If you don't feel like it, you can try to change the criterion through the ways that are allowed to you by that society, we call it politics, but as long as the legal criteria are not changed, that is the criterion that is imposed on everyone. If you don't like the criterion imposed and you don't want the method to eventually change it (i.e. politics) you can emigrate, or retreat to a cave in direct contact with natural laws.

We live in a system with little freedom, but more than that of theological or liberal or atheist regimes, and certainly more than a natural society based on natural law (anarchy, also regulated by de facto laws ).

The question is not whether I or the state want or can subjugate each other's spirit, it is certainly not my intention and no one can do it, but surely many would like to submit individual spirits to their will, especially certain states.

The problem is whether you sovereign are willing to abide by the common rules that society decides. Rules that in my opinion should be the fairest and most common sense possible, and with the aim of guaranteeing the maximum possible freedom. But keep in mind that mine “common sense” it is not common to all, and so it is a matter of finding a way to decide the rules together, and in theory parliaments would have to do it. If you don't accept this base, you shouldn't try to join or form a group, but on the contrary you should isolate yourself from each group as a mechanism in which people submit to rules, or statutes, The ( in the case of states ) to constitutions.

There is no “natural law” , and how fundamental rights exist, as law in Europe, only those listed in the ECHR, not the aspirations of the universal declaration of human rights: it's called a declaration, he does not read.

So how come the OPPT nonsense has spread so much ?

Certainly the bank masonries that created today's states have an interest in putting around absurd and illogical theories of “freedom” E “SOVEREIGNTY” who are not standing legally. In chaos they rule better. Especially since in this way the aspirants to freedom will get lost in useless and/or absurd conversations, and they will try to claim natural liberty from natural judges (watch out for the pun) and will end up being massacred by the system “LEGAL” , o messi in TSO, or reduced to misery and impotence, and so nothing will change.

Mafia bankers, if necessary, will facilitate morons and useful fools to create and spread these false theories. As well as, if necessary, real professions pay to spread counterproductive ideas, ideas masquerading as freedom that will actually end up reducing the freedom of the individuals who follow them.

To increase our freedom, however, we can upset the rules if we can demonstrate that their power is not legitimate. And I did it when I proved that the Italian Republic is illegal from the start. How they were the annexes of the 1859-1866. But in order to achieve freedom, we ourselves must propose ourselves as a true and legal system, and therefore at the same time we ourselves must respect our rules that we give ourselves to act as the best alternative system for individuals. But we cannot propose a system without rules, and on the other hand to say that there are no rules is also a rule, and in any case it is a heck rule, no institution or government stands, therefore one falls back into the unique natural rule, THE MOST WINS’ SUITABLE, and therefore today the Italian state and the bankers who control it have already won.

Yet there are a number of groups that propagate a doctrine of total sovereignty, which leads individuals to reject any type of institution or authority. I see these doctrines as deliberate attempts to create anarchy by sending people to self-destruct and then rob them in times of difficulty, is a concept already written last week. I therefore believe that some ideas are spread falsified precisely in order to send people to the massacre, thus ridiculing other instances of freedom which are instead those that oppose the fake democracy in which we live. E’ an attenuated form of what lies behind ISIS.

for example, the idea that states are one “corporation”,  going to verify it is instead clear that it is an unfounded and a false statement, and that it is a discourse cut only on Italy. This means that someone created this myth of individual sovereignty and the OPPT precisely to mess up the cards at a time when there are those who demand individual freedom (required by law) opposing with legitimate claims to an illegitimate mafia dictatorship.

But let's go back to the concepts. I hope it is clear enough that as well “nature” has its laws, and there are the laws of the universe that cannot be ignored in fact, and therefore there is no absolute freedom. Natural law does not guarantee freedom at all, if anything, it subjects the individual to the law of beasts, but in any case for the natural judge (i.e. the legal one) there is no natural law, and therefore in court it is suicidal to invoke natural law.

So if we waste time discussing natural law or the sex of angels, certainly we will no longer actually be free in the future, instead we will certainly be more servants and slaves as the current effective power is making us.

If we waste time discussing things that are not proven, I'm not law, or which are subject to individual discretion, i.e. not valid for everyone, we will do nothing but their game. Your freedom is what you can build and achieve only exclusively together with others.
How to do ? In the western world and in Venice first, it is believed to have found its way through the construction of parliaments or assemblies, first restricted, and then more and more open, and therefore necessarily delegated by the majority or all of the individuals.

The problem of delegation must be discussed, and usually determines how it should work with the “electoral law”: not me but others say that this is the real de facto constitution, and I share. When the electoral law forces you to vote for chosen people, you are not free.

If for you the western system“Democratic” it's wrong, it is useless for you to start working with those who promote democracy, for example, how does the self-government of the Venetian people and the Lombard-Venetian state do: self-government follows a state, it works like a state, only that the underlying rules are designed to guarantee much more freedom in the future than we have today, inspired by the republic of Venice.

If as a person you cannot comply with any rules, yours is not a problem of freedom, but a problem of coexistence, you have to isolate yourself from everything, then submitting to the true natural law, i.e. hunger, the illness, the danger of animals and intestinal parasites ….. in nature you would have already died.