FORCES Italiana - The Constitution of FORCES International

I - Studies and hysteria - Contemporary society is swept up by a tempest of hysteria over health, safety and statistics. This hysteria is constantly fuelled by media reporting of an endless number of dangers to health, environment and safety. The media reports are based on a vast number of studies continuously produced with public and pharmaceutical funds in many countries – studies that claim to have scientifically established links between the object of hysteria and some disease. The studies create public pressures on political bodies and politicians to “do something”.

II – Economic consequences - The resulting measures, usually repressive, are implemented at great expense to society – ranging from the expenses incurred by direct formation and implementation of laws and regulations to industrial and private compliance costs and the loss of happiness and liberty. Moreover, the business categories affected by these measures suffer substantial direct and indirect economic damage (example: smoking bans notoriously affect public attendance at pubs and restaurants). Finally, but very importantly, taxation designed to “punish” individual choice is frequently used to help fund the special interest groups that exist to further the “punishing” of that choice, with the result that people are forced through taxation to support causes and political stances which they may not share, indeed may be actively opposed to. This is often the case with taxation on cigarettes, for example.

III - Social repercussions - From the social standpoint, the groups targeted by the propaganda (smokers, drinkers and fat people, for example) are systematically vilified and put to public index. This creates a whole spectrum of problems ranging from low personal self-esteem to social resentment; from troubled relationships within families and in the workplace, to hypochondria draining health care systems; from mutual suspicion to relentless blaming. Furthermore, a veritable industry of lawsuits thrives on legal actions, offering the opportunity for a narrow group of lawyers representing the supposed “victims” to quickly get rich on the backs of several specific industries, and on the backs of the business community and society in general. As public health is more and more portrayed as the paramount value of society, it follows that all other values and realities essentially or allegedly in conflict with health are expected to step aside and take second place, adapting themselves to the presumed paramount social value. Those “secondary priorities” include constitutional liberties, freedom of choice, parental rights, education, freedom of enterprise, commerce and speech – as well as freedom of advertisement and expression. National and world economies – and even the constitutions and cultures of various countries – are pressured to adapt themselves to the social engineering of international public health.

IV - False representations - One would expect that, to ask for such an awesome price, the health authorities would have incontrovertible scientific proof, garnered from the aforementioned studies, of massive social damage and disease. Yet a close analysis of the evidence at hand – as well as the quality of that evidence – inevitably demonstrates that this is not the case. An explanation of why the health authorities give false representation of poor quality evidence requires an extensive analysis that is not the object of this document. Here it is sufficient to state that such representation leads to the gravest aspect of the problem we are facing, that of an international corruption of institutions. The induction of mass fear and hysteria by public health authorities enables them to propose, pass and enforce taxation, and engage in abuses of property and suppression of liberties and rights that would be impossible to implement otherwise. In turn, those actions vastly expand state powers, detailed surveillance and the micro-management of the lives and behaviour of citizens – a goal that even the most ruthless dictators were unable to achieve.

Based on corrupt evidence, health authorities elaborate on impossible-to-calculate deaths and social costs, so that governments can demand substantial taxes and restrictions of freedom today with the promise of projected and supposed benefits in a distant future – with no assurance that those benefits will ever be realised, or that they will outweigh the costs.

I - To create an internationally coordinated organisation with the capability of effectively denouncing and publicly challenging the frauds and the false representation of evidence by “public health”. The organisation is mainly turned to the consolidation of a political, international trans-partisan force capable of eliminating/reforming the structures that generate or make use of the aforementioned information.

II - To provide professional scientific and statistical consulting to interest groups that intend to initiate legal actions against public health authorities to eliminate smoking bans and other prohibitions aimed at curbing, controlling or eliminating the spontaneous expression of social behaviour and lifestyle; to coordinate political actions successfully leading to the aforementioned results.

III - To achieve the abrogation of any law and regulation limiting personal liberties, choice and the economy that is based on fraudulent or falsely represented statistical evidence (i.e. smoking bans).

IV - To coordinate and focus the numerous but scattered groups, organisations and individuals fighting for personal liberties and against junk science, suppression of plurality of opinions, lifestyles and free enterprise, regardless of the issues they are fighting for. FORCES International also provides the technology for quick and efficient sharing of ideas, strategies and tactics amongst the parties involved.

V - To educate people about the actual reliability of the science behind mass hysterias.

VI - To expose political and medical “authorities” that use junk science – regardless of their credibility and political power.

VII - To teach ordinary citizens how to fight effectively and organise politically, and to shift the attitudes of those who are targeted and damaged by irresponsible “public health” initiatives from being apologetic and reactive to being openly combative and pro-active against public health frauds. This is a main goal of FORCES and an indispensable basis for the inevitably upcoming anti-healthism revolution.

VIII – To raise sizeable funding that is sufficient for sustaining the organisation, its structure, and the so far unpaid volunteers that make it possible. To expand its influence and to acquire the means to fight increasingly effectively. To achieve all the purposes and goals described in statements 2 and 3.

I - The constitutional and legal establishment of the right to lifestyle as part of human rights provisions and as protection against persecutory tendencies arising from temporary hysterias or chronic intolerance. The elevation of lifestyles to the status of right is essential since a right is not subject to the whims of majorities and by definition precludes discrimination, while invalidating any law or regulation in conflict with that right.

II - Constitutional and legal measures prohibiting the state from establishing public policies that are not supported by sound science, defined as science in total compliance with the Scientific Method and, concerning epidemiology, also with the Hill Criteria

III - The nullification of any existing environmental, health or safety law and regulation that is not based on sound science, and/or that is based on false representation of evidence. Specifically, the abrogation of all smoking bans, returning the policy-making decisions to the owners of the establishment. In true public spaces separate areas for smoking will be established

VI - The abrogation of any super-tax levied on products the state no longer approves of yet maintains as legal, such as alcohol, cigarettes and hyper-caloric foods. Furthermore:

V - The institutionalisation of a rotating state commission on accuracy of public information, representing the public and with the following duties:

a) To investigate and expose ties between public officers and private corporations (i.e. ministry of health with pharmaceutical industry, or ministry of finance with tobacco industry). The common definition of “conflict of interest” has become insufficient for public officers, as it is easily circumvented simply by portraying public interest as coinciding with private interest. This is the case, for example, of the World Health Organisation, in official partnership with the pharmaceutical industry in the Tobacco Free Initiative for which the WHO – a public entity – receives considerable funding from special pharmaceutical interests.

b) To verify the truthfulness and the accuracy of the scientific, statistical and financial information issued by public authorities and private institutions to people and media, and expose when necessary. The duty of the Commission extends to full public disclosure of the actual limitations of the science examined, reported in non-specialised language whenever possible. Furthermore, the Commission must guarantee the full exposure of any scientific opinion, regardless of its affiliation, that dissents from the information under consideration, and provide reasonable protection of the dissenting parties when political repercussions from authorities are possible because of that dissent.

c) To veto the use by state authorities of demonstrably false or misrepresented information concerning health, safety and environment as a base for politics, as described in (3, II). This is not in conflict with the right of free expression as in Article 5.3 of this Constitution, as the state is by definition a right-less servant of the people.

The rotation of the members of this commission is paramount, as this ensures against the establishment of inappropriate influences and corruption. This public commission must be fully independent from the powers it monitors, report only and directly to the public, and be accountable exclusively to the highest authority of the state, such as the President or the Monarch.

VI - The establishment of a prohibition against state and public national and international institutions from forming “partnerships” with private interest groups as described in 3, V, (a).

VII - The establishment of national and international laws on expert witnesses obligating juridical and state authorities to demand the procurement to the Commission as of (3, V) by the witness of full scientific documentation satisfying the conditions set forth by the Scientific Method (and/or the Hill Criteria) to substantiate his/her assertions. This is regardless of the number of witnesses that creates a “consensus”, as well as their professional claims, the issue at hand, and their public positions. Furthermore, juridical and state authorities are obligated to make any and every reasonable effort to seek and hear dissenting experts if and when available, even when not procured by the parties involved. This is because reason, logic and truth are unrelated to personal or political importance or majorities, and because science is neither a democracy nor a faith. In times of ever-expanding knowledge and ever-narrowing specialisation, this provision is paramount to impartially serve the general public interest.

If the interest of the public is to be the supreme objective of the state, then that interest is to be pursued and served to every extent possible, which includes the full, efficient disclosure of the truth from any point of view, without the presumption by the state, which is a right-less servant of the people, to influence the citizens “for their own good” through censorship, or controlled and selected information. Such paternalistic presumption is offensive to the dignity of the people, as it sets the servant state at a higher level than those it serves, and assumes that the wisdom of state bureaucrats is greater than that of the citizens.

VIII - The restoration of the definition of places owned by private citizens or private entities where the public is normally welcomed as “publicly accessible private property” rather than “public place”. That implies the establishment of the right of the owner(s) to set the behavioural conduct in any way seen fit on that private property, and the recognition that private property is not to be subject to the same rules, obligations and regulations as state property.

IX - The restoration of the definition of “public place” as state-owned property accessible to the public. That implies the obligation of the state to provide an environment suitable to citizens who pursue legal lifestyles according to their diversities. This is based on Article 4 of the Constitution, where the State has no right whatsoever, but only duties and responsibilities, and it is always the servant of the citizens. It follows that, as citizens are different in their lifestyles and values, the state has the obligation to cater to lifestyles and values to achieve the satisfaction and fulfilment of all.

X - The redefinition of health – Currently, the World Health Organisation defines health as follows:

“A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
(http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/)

This definition is intentionally vague and utopian, allowing any kind of interpretations that open the door to endless interference in unlimited fields concerning citizens, governmental policies and politics. This is done by the international medical establishment and a narrow oligarchy of bureaucrats. Coupled with unlimited use of junk science and the Precautionary Principle (see 3, XII), this definition is largely responsible for the worrying state of affairs concerning liberties, medical ethics, lifestyle-based discrimination, social engineering. This definition of health is also largely responsible for the unlimited expansion of “public health” politics and expenditures, and for ever-shrinking liberties and suppression of spontaneous behaviours. By projecting the current trend forward, it is easy to see that “public health” will soon become an absolute power, directly micro-managing the most menial behaviours while indirectly piloting large-scale politics and economies without being subject to the risks faced by ordinary politicians.

To curb the invading power of the public health establishment in the field of politics, liberty and economics it is therefore imperative not only to debase the junk science and the Precautionary Principle, but to redefine health as well and, with it, resize the role of public health in society.

The definition of health is to be driven back to an earlier and simpler concept:

The absence of physical disease and infirmity, which naturally contributes to the establishment of social, psychological, and mental well-being through individual self-fulfilment and self-determination.

This redefines the role of public health as mainly the quest for finding cures, preventing communicable diseases and assuring basic, good sanitary and nutritional conditions. It is historically and unquestionably demonstrated that the definition above reflects the necessary and sufficient conditions to establish a social health that transcends the mere absence of physical disease and infirmity itself, while assuring a free society. Once out of politics and back on ethical tracks, public health can resume its vital social role, efficiently and appropriately using the social resources allotted to fight real diseases, improve social conditions and help save the millions who in fact die each year because of real scourges such as malaria and tuberculosis. Cancer and heart disease patients all over the world keep waiting for cures that are always “around the corner” - but never come. While corporate stocks receive artificial periodic boosts from such illusions, peoples’ lifestyles have become the convenient scapegoats for that failure to deliver, a failure which the public is further distracted from by what has truly become the “religion of prevention”.

XI - The redefinition of the role of physicians in society – As if engaged in a reverse voyage back to a distant, tribal past when medicine men were priests and chiefs, the role of the medical profession has today expanded far beyond its efficacious, compassionate function. Doctors and powerful pharmaceutical industry-backed medical associations dispense moral judgments, direct the choice of consumers, exert pressure on governments, demand and obtain executive political powers, propose economic policies and impose social behaviour, and frequently dispensing blame-it-on-lifestyle diagnoses and excessive prescriptions of drugs. Meanwhile, an impressive and ever-growing number of people die as a result of misdiagnoses and medical malpractice while hospitals are often unable to provide necessary services, as they are in need of funds that are diverted to expensive lifestyle demonisation campaigns conducted by the ministries of health.

No longer even bound by the Hippocratic Oath, today’s doctors continue to drift ethically, as they increasingly become drug-dispensing instruments of social engineering and control, and the lives of their patients are often micro-managed using junk science endorsed by medical associations – a “science” that often amounts to little more than superstition.

Well-rooted privileges and powers of this magnitude cannot be removed merely through complaints, debates and objections. FORCES International must therefore become a political international force of adequate power to exert political and legal pressures against medical associations that are sufficient to curb their political ambitions, and to bring the social function of physicians back to that of compassionate healers bound by the Hippocratic Oath – healers who stay out of politics and social engineering. To put it simply, the mechanic of one’s car professionally limits himself to repairing the machine, regardless of how one maintains it. He does not dare to advocate traffic laws or lecture us on the way we drive. By the same token, the mechanic of our body must professionally limit himself to repairing the biological machine regardless of how we maintain it, and must not dare to advocate public policies, issue moral judgements, and lecture us on the way we “drive” that machine. To conceive a physician otherwise means to transfer the ownership and the control of our physical life to others, which is in disagreement with Article 5, subsection 5.8 of our Constitution.

XII - The rejection of the Precautionary Principle – The general idea of precaution is that in the presence of strong suspicions of harm from any origin, precautionary measures can be taken even in the absence of positive proof.

However, because of the relentless hysteria created by junk science, international health authorities have now enshrined a Precautionary Principle, which has grown into an enormous menace to personal liberties, free enterprise, economic growth and free society. Its application is ever-expanding and ever-abused. It is little known in its full statement by the public at large, but its negative repercussions on civil society cannot be overstated. Evolved ad hoc to grant unlimited power to state, bureaucracy and special interest groups, amongst its implications is the reverse burden of proof, where innocence rather than guilt is to be proven by the accused rather than by the accuser.

Furthermore, the Principle now clearly states that there is no need for confirmed scientific proof of harm or danger to forbid, regulate, tax or obligate – and the limits for prohibition, regulation, taxation and obligations are neither set, nor are they implied. Furthermore, time limits and scientific parameters for the establishment of reasonable proof are not even mentioned, and thus they are left to the exclusive whim of the regulating authority “experts”, without any possible legal input from industries or the public, both profoundly affected by the applications of the Principle. The possibility that there may be harm or danger becomes a necessary and sufficient condition to implement state control, unless the accused party can demonstrate the absence of danger. Applied to passive smoking (but it could be any other issue), it works like this:

Statement: passive smoking kills, or may kill.

Procedure: those who dissent must prove scientifically that passive smoke does not kill.

Scientific and juridical reality: it is impossible to prove a negative.

Conclusion: failure to prove a negative constitutes proof of guilt, or harm, and justifies the same measures as if it was positively demonstrated that passive smoke actually kills.

In short: the accuser cannot fail and, in the probable case of conflict, the suspicion from authority or from a larger consensus prevails by default over the opposite suspicion or statements of lesser authority or smaller consensus – without anything being demonstrated. In this way, physical reality, society and science itself are reduced to the opinion of those who have the greatest political force which, in most cases, is a small minority of well-financed special interests.

So far limited – but already universally applied - to health and environment issues, its slow seepage into criminal law is inevitable if this principle is allowed to influence the formation of the mentality of generations of people. The process has started already. Recently the Principle has been incorporated into the French Constitution, and it has been officially adopted by the European Union. It has also been adopted, so far in a milder form, by the United States and other Western countries.

The implications of the Precautionary Principle and the ever-expanding abuses of its application – abuses that are renamed as social, health and environmental “evolutions” -- force us to make a hard philosophical choice. We have to weigh its perceived, supposed, unquantifiable, promised and future advantages concerning health, environment and safety against the vast, quantifiable, immediate, and tangible expansion of state control and bureaucratic complexity, as well as the severe, current repercussions on economies because of the rise in cost of production and on liberty because of repressive laws and endless monitoring and surveillance.

It would be very desirable for state and bureaucracy to be competent in self-limitation and self-discipline, but this has never been the case in history, as the state and its bureaucracy are not individuals, but social machines capable, willing and able to limitlessly pursue any paths open to them, as they hold the monopoly of legal violence. Especially in these times of artificially-induced hysteria, we choose to strike a precautionary note by rejecting the Precautionary Principle, on the grounds of prevention, so that citizens will not need to resort to physical force to defend their rights, freedom and property as stated in Article 5, subsection 5.1 of this Constitution. We also reject the Precautionary Principle because of the tremendous menace it represents for individual liberty and free enterprise.

The abrogation of this Principle, which allows junk science to be institutionalised and go unpunished while empowering politicians and bureaucrats to make pivotal laws and regulations too often on the basis of scientific trash, should be a goal of every free and civilised society, and the goal of every entity that has liberty at heart. It certainly is one of the main goals of FORCES International.