Last Updated: 31 Aug 2017: 15:02 hrs (GMT + 2)
Ray Dalio Hyena Predator – Hyena’s are Matriarchal
Not that Dalio makes any apology for his fortune or his profession. An agnostic and a self-described “hyperrealist,” he regards it as self-evident that all social systems obey nature’s laws, and that individual participants get rewarded or punished according to how far they operate in harmony with those laws. He views the financial markets as simply another social system, which determines payoffs and punishments in a like manner. “You have to be accurate,” he says. “Otherwise, you are going to pay. Alpha is zero sum. In order to earn more than the market return, you have to take money from somebody else.”
Dalio is right, but somewhat self-serving. If hedge-fund managers are playing a zero-sum game, what is their social utility? And if, as many critics contend, there isn’t any, how can they justify their vast remuneration? When I put these questions to Dalio, he insisted that, through pension funds, Bridgewater’s investors include teachers and other public-sector workers, and that the firm created more value for its clients last year than Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo combined. However, it is one thing to say that the most successful hedge-fund managers earn the riches they reap. It is quite another to suggest that the entire industry serves a social purpose. But that is Dalio’s contention. “In aggregate, it really contributes a lot to the efficiency of capital allocation, and capital allocation is very important,” he said.
Like many successful financiers, Dalio justifies capitalism and his place in it as a Darwinian process, in which the over-all logic of the system is sometimes hidden. This is actually what the mention, in his Principles, of hyenas savaging a wildebeest was about. “Is this good or bad?” he wrote. Like “death itself, this behavior is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life.” Of course, this view conveniently ignores the argument that hedge funds, through their herd behavior, have contributed to speculative bubbles, in tech stocks, oil, and other commodities. Even some defenders of the industry concede that the problem is real and potentially calamitous. “There is a basis for the argument that hedge funds add economic value,” Andrew Lo, an economist at M.I.T. who runs his own hedge fund, says. “At the same time, they create systemic risks that have to be weighed against those positives.”
Because hedge funds use a lot of borrowed money to magnify their bets, they are subject to rapid reversals: the history of the industry is littered with blowups. This wouldn’t matter much if other parts of the economy weren’t affected by the actions of hedge funds, but sometimes they are. In 2008, hedge funds had hundreds of billions of dollars on deposit at investment banks, which acted as their brokers and counterparties on many trades. When the Wall Street firms got into trouble, a number of other hedge funds demanded their money back immediately. These demands amounted to a virtual run on the banks and helped to bring down Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Dalio acknowledged to me that Bridgewater was one of the funds that pulled a lot of money out of Lehman and other Wall Street firms, but he said he had little choice. “I’m a fiduciary to my clients. My responsibility is to know where it’s risky and where it’s not risky, and to get out of the risks.”
Hedge funds have also contributed to the radical increase in income inequality. Fifteen years ago on Wall Street, remuneration packages of five or ten million dollars a year were rare. Today, C.E.O.s and star traders routinely demand vastly higher sums to keep up with their counterparts at hedge funds. In addition to distorting salary structures elsewhere, the rewards that hedge-fund managers reap draw some of the very brightest science and mathematics graduates to the industry. Can it really be in America’s interest to have so much of its young talent playing a zero-sum game?
– New Yorker: Mastering the Machine.
Ray Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager who makes more money in a single day than most Americans will earn in their entire lifetimes. That’s because hedge funds are the top of the Wall Street food chain — and Dalio runs the largest hedge fund of all, Bridgewater Associates. Life’s good at the top of this food chain: in 2008, a bad year for most Americans, Dalio took home $780 million. That same $780 million could have paid the salaries of about 20,000 teachers — and those 20,000 teachers could have taught about 400,000 American students (using author Les Leopold’s calculations). A lot of people might find this offensive and unjust, but not Dalio—he thinks this is all part of Nature’s Plan, and it just so happens that Nature favors the hedge fund managers: “I believe that self-interest and society’s interests are generally symbiotic [bold–Dalio’s]…That is why how much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted.”
So now we know why hedge fund managers are raking in record pay (last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned on average about $1 billion each), while hundreds of thousands of America’s teachers are getting fired all across the country: Nature hates teachers and other do-gooders. Sure, Dalio’s hedge fund is flush thanks in no small part to all the teachers retirement funds that Bridgewater managed to tap—without those teachers pooling their money together, he’d have a lot less to plunder, and society would never even know what a great person he is.
To which Dalio would answer, “Be a hyena. Attack the wildebeest.”
Did you write that down yet? Because that’s Cruel Reality According to Ray Dalio, a self-described “hyperrealist” and author of a bulky book of maxims leaked recently via the financial blog Dealbreaker. Dalio titled his collection of maxims—some 250 in all– “Principles” and he makes every Bridgewater employee memorize it. A weighty title like Principles might have you thinking he’s the Descartes of the new millennium. Except that his philosophy comes down to something like this: I [am too rich to] think, therefore I am [a delusional asshole].” Or better yet, “If I’m so rich, then you ain’t smart.”
That’s right, America’s largest hedge fund manager sees himself as a hyena, and the rest of us as his wildebeest. As awful as it reads, coming from the mouth of one of the oligarchy’s most powerful barons, it also reveals what an idiot Dalio is. Does he even know anything about the hyena he compares himself to—specifically the spotted hyena, since that’s the only hyena that regularly feasts on wildebeest? Can he handle the truth? Because he’s not going to like it—not unless a macho hedge fund manager like Dalio is into being dominated by bitches.
See, spotted hyenas are matriarchal. The females rule each clan, with male hyenas always expected to submit to even the lowest female in the pecking order. The females also sport enormous clitorises as large as the male hyenas’ penises. If there’s a domestic dispute in the hyena clan, the submissive female hyena’s clitoris grows an erection as a sign of her submission to the alpha-queen hyena (the male hyenas cower and scurry around with their tails between heir legs).
Here’s a description of the female hyena’s bizarre “pseudopenis”:
The labia are fused into what looks like a scrotum, complete with two pads of fatty tissue that resemble testes. In addition, the clitoris is elongated to the point that it is nearly the size of a male’s penis and is likewise fully erectile. Astonishingly, females mate and give birth through the long, narrow canal running down the center of this “pseudopenis.” During mating it retracts much like a shirt sleeve being pushed up, and during birth it stretches so much that it looks like a water balloon. “From a human perspective, the process can be thought of as giving birth through an unusually large penis,” says Frank.
Even Andrea Dworkin would cringe, but for Ray Dalio, this is the description of the ideal Bridgewater employee. Dalio is a major Republican donor—he gave $2 million to the Republican convention in 2008 where Sarah Palin made her debut—and he’s a self-described bow hunter who kills Cape Buffalo and wart hogs. Besides the fact that spotted hyenas live in warthog burrows and generally get along fine with them, Ray Dalio sees himself and his fellow hedge fund billionaires as the spotted hyenas of the gh –and he’s just as successful, by his own boasting: “Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps society, but it typically does.”
And yet, as Robin Meadows writes in the Smithsonian Zoogoer, hyenas are the only known species who get erections as “a submissive gesture” to the dominant female.
– Alternet: Top Billionaire Hedge Funder Sees Himself As a Hyena Devouring Wildebeests. We’re ruled over by people who despise us and think of us as prey and themselves as hyenas, busy devouring everything they can.
China’s Musou Matriarchal Kingdom: Men Live Better Where Women are in Charge.
Jinho Choi: 29 Aug 2017: 11:58 hrs: Supporting same-sex marriage is not a progressive position. The progressive position is abolishing marriage. #marriageequality
EoP MILED Clerk: 30 Aug 2017: 12:40 hrs: @GoldenTalon EoP allows for all forms of marriage, incl Musou, if abiding by http://eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za rules. https://youtu.be/bbzG0n3shTM [PBS: The Women’s Kingdom]
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Coler, you are from Argentina, where macho behavior is not exactly unheard of. What was it like living for two months in the matriarchical society of the Mosuo in China?
Coler: I wanted to know what happened in a society where women determine how things are done. How do women tick when, from birth onwards, their societal position allows them to decide everything? We men know what a man is, we put that together quickly — but what constitutes a woman? Although, I didn’t get any wiser on that point.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Mosuo society a paradise for feminists?
Coler: I had expected to find an inverse patriarchy. But the life of the Mosuo has absolutely nothing to do with that. Women have a different way of dominating. When women rule, it’s part of their work. They like it when everything functions and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn’t cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing. It’s not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is life like for a man in a matriarchy?
Coler: Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house. The woman serves the man and it happens in a society where she leads the way and has control of the money. In a patriarchy, we men work more — and every now and then we do the dishes. In the Mosuo’s pure form of matriarchy, you aren’t allowed to do that. Where a woman’s dominant position is secure, those kinds of archaic gender roles don’t have any meaning.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What astonished you the most?
Coler: That there is no violence in a matriarchal society. I know that quickly slips into idealization — every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn’t make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don’t know feelings of guilt or vengeance — it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: And when there’s no solution to a problem?
Coler: Either way, there won’t be an altercation. The women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn’t finished a task he’s been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are men raised to be incompetent?
Coler: For the Mosuo, women are simply the more effective and reliable gender. However, they do say that the “really big” decisions — like buying a house or a machine or selling a cow — are made by the men. Men are good for this kind of decision-making as well as physical labor. The official governmental leader of the village, the mayor, is a man. I walked with him through the village — nobody greated him or paid him any attention. As a man he doesn’t have any authority.
– Der Spiegel: The Mosuo Matriarchy: ‘Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge’.
Wilkerson: Oligarchs & Foreign Policy: If we Remain Predators; the Planet will Cast us Off – Adm Locklear: China & America more in common than divide them.
JAY: And how much is this driven by a real concern that this rivalry with China over–what?–markets, over raw materials, and such and such really requires a military alternative versus how much is this driven by what you were saying in the first segment, oligarchs (on both sides, really, but I would say here it’s more the American side) who just need another place to have a military buildup, because everybody makes a killing out of this?
WILKERSON: Yeah, well, the president of China right now is having a hard time trying to go after some of his oligarchs, who are just too corrupt for his own liking. And this is reaching a point where it may be destabilizing for the Communist Party in and for China ultimately. So I’m watching that very closely.
But at the same time, you have a situation here that’s ripe for a great-state relationship. What do I mean by a great-state relationship? Well, you sort of had that in 1648 with Westphalia, which sort of set the road for monarchs and their peoples to, you know, be sovereign and to exercise some tolerance and so forth, a state system you could argue we’re still operating under. You had the Atlantic Charter, too. The Atlantic Charter was–here’s the greatest empire in the world, receding, to be sure, and the nascent empire meeting and saying, we’re going to get together and have a great-state relationship to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. And it worked. And the world had sort of a Pax Americana for half a century, virtually.
We need some sort of relationship like that between Washington and Beijing today, I think. And I do not mean in any way that we should rule the world together. What I mean is the challenges that we’re going to confront in the 21st century, challenges that could be existential, challenges like climate change, challenges like enough water to drink, enough food to eat, and so forth–I’ve seen some projections that say–by climatologists whose views I respect, that say by the end of this century we could have only arable land and water enough for some half-billion people. What we do with the other 9 billion? Where do we bury them, even? How do we deal with that kind of massive change in human relationships with this planet? So these are huge challenges. So what I’m saying is you need this kind of great-power relationship, this great-state relationship to begin to lead the way for others to follow, others who are already doing a good job of it, like Germany, for example, to meet these challenges which are much bigger than whether or not Taiwan is a part of China or whether or not Ukraine is a part of Russia. These are tactical skirmishes on the fringes of challenges that may have major impact on human life on this planet, and yet we don’t seem to be able to get the leadership to move to face and confront these challenges.
JAY: We were talking earlier before we started the interviews, and the kind of–I guess the question came down to is capitalism as we know it out of these kinds of answers and not capable of producing this kind of leadership. You know, this concentration of power in–I should say the concentration of ownership, and so much in the hands of a section of capital that’s, you know, essentially parasitical, betting on derivatives markets and just gambling, you know, with no interest in really strengthening the real economy of the United States and taking advantage, wherever they can, around the world, the politics that reflects that, I mean, to get to what you’re talking about, that kind of relationship between states that will face up to climate change and, I think, a looming, very deep economic crisis that’s going to hit that’s going to be, you know, 1930s styles or worse–.
WILKERSON: Yes, and set everyone back in terms of their wanting to deal with climate change, because it’s going to be initially resource-intensive, probably.
JAY: So in terms of the discussion, discourse that ordinary people need to start getting their heads around, I mean, does it not–you have to start talking about who owns stuff, who has power in the United States, and what to do about it.
WILKERSON: Adam Smith’s invisible hand in Wealth of Nations is now not an invisible hand. It’s the hand of oligarchs. So if you want a succinct answer, if capitalism is going to help–going to be the economic, philosophical engine of this, meeting these challenges, it’s going to have to return to Adam Smith, but not just in Wealth of Nations, but also in his moral sentiments. You’ve got to have a different version of capitalism. It cannot be predatory capitalism, which both China and the United States are exemplifying massively today, China like the U.S. did in the 1890s, 1880s, 1890s, and the United States in this new form of collateralized debt obligations and all the rest of these financial innovations that do nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. So it’s got to be a different brand of capitalism or it’s got to be a new economic system.
JAY: Yeah. And do we not have to then jettison all the baggage and shadow of the Cold War rhetoric–McCarthyism, House un-American activities committees, all the stuff that has such weight to stop you from discussing a new economic system?
WILKERSON: This is the huge component of a great-state relationship that would have to be–it would have to manifest itself and it would have to do so before you get into the challenges and the way you’re going to meet them. And what do I mean by that? I mean what Malcolm Byrne and John Tirman–at MIT, Malcolm at George Washington–have called empathy: you have to understand the other person’s side. Think of the Ukraine today. Think of Iran today. You have to call crawl into the other person’s shoes and understand their side. And that means you have to recognize their culture. You have to, to certain extent, honor the right they have to have that culture. You have to honor the right they have to design their own political system and so forth, and quit this messianic desire to bring, you know, these people down, those people down ’cause they’re evil and contemptible. You have to eliminate the politics of fear as much as possible. And you have to work together. You have to genuinely work together.
That doesn’t mean–Admiral Locklear said this recently, United States commander in the Pacific, probably the most influential man in terms of immediate U.S.-China policy, U.S.-Asia policy: he said China and the United States have more in common than they do have differences. It’s not a large majority, but it’s a majority. The problem we have, the challenge we have is to deal with the friction created by that minority of issues where we don’t agree. Well, that’s what a great-state pact does. It says, we are going to push those issues aside, work on them if we can in the corridors, and try to fix what we can. But we’ve got to have a relationship that basically begins together (because you can’t do it alone; you can’t; no country can do it alone), meets the challenges that we’re confronting in this century, which are huge.
– The Real News: Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay: Lawrence Wilkerson: Who Makes Foreign Policy?01:02; If We Remain Predators; the Planet Will Cast us off: 03; Youtube: Real News.
» SQSwans: Reports: 09 May: Wilkerson: Who Makes US Foreign Policy .. if we Remain Predators, Planet will Case us Off.
What Are Fuck Honour Trader Predators Gonna do When Mossad Ask if you can Fly?
EoP MILED Clerk: 10 Jun 2017: 18:43 hrs: @RedGem312 @AllJimRogers @hblodget @businessinsider @jbarro @stevekovach @Colgo @BI_Strategy @BWLogan @maxkeiser @stacyherbert @jenna9876 What r Fuck honour whitey trader predators gonna do when Mossad ask if u can fly? – @PentagonPresSec @CMC_NATO http://eop-miled-clerk.tygae.org.za/pdf/13-06-18_MILINT-Earth-Day-WYFTST-Oath_Cert.pdf pic.twitter.com/neSHWKl1M4 [IG: 12-11-26_fallingman]
– EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 10 Jun: Jim Rogers v Friends of the IDF.
— EoP MILED Clerk (@EoPMiledClerk) June 10, 2017
Peak NNR: Non Renewable Natural Resources
[In the absence of the implementation of an Ecology of Peace international law social contract, that restricts procreation and consumption to below ecological carrying capacity limits; and enables humane and orderly deindustrialization and depopulation return to living in harmony with carrying capacity limits] As [the Peak NNR: Non-renewable Natural Resources] scenario unfolds, increasingly large segments of humanity will become aware of the fact that NNRs enable our industrialized way of life, and that ever-increasing NNR scarcity is the fundamental cause underlying our continuously declining economic output (GDP) and societal wellbeing levels, both domestically (US) and, by that time, globally as well. Historically prevalent public attitudes of generosity and forbearance, which were made possible by abundant and cheap NNRs during our epoch of “continuously more and more”, will be displaced by public intolerance:
- Childbirth will be condemned rather than celebrated;
- All immigration will be outlawed;
- Traditionally unquestioned resource uses—from “social entitlements” and universally accessible healthcare, to professional sports and cosmetics—will be considered “unfair” or “wasteful”, and ultimately eliminated; and
- “Excessive wealth” will be appropriated for “the public good”.
Previously sporadic social unrest and resource wars will degenerate—seemingly instantaneously—into full fledged conflicts among nations, classes, and ultimately individuals for remaining natural resources and real wealth. It will become universally understood that the only way to “stay even” within a continuously contracting operating environment—much less to improve one’s lot—is to take from somebody else. Life will become a “negative sum game” within the “shrinking pie” of “continuously less and less”.
Social institutions will dissolve; law and order will cease to exist; and chaos will fill the void— nations will collapse.
– [EoP Amended] Chris Clugston; Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter.
» SQSwans: Reports: Peak NNR.
» Military Gospel: Vladimir Putin: NNR: Non Renewable Natural Resource Scarcity 1996/7 St Petersburg Mining Institute PhD Theses.
Bridgewater: Ray Dalio Cult: Can You Handle the Truth?
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?: … Truth is Essential: Understanding, accepting and knowing how to effectively deal with reality is essential for
achieving success. So …
9) … Trust in truth. There is nothing to fear from truth. While the truth itself may be scary (e.g., you are bad at something or you have a deadly disease), that won’t change the reality, and it will allow you to deal with it better. Being truthful, and letting others be completely truthful with you, allows you to fully explore your thoughts and exposes you to the feedback that is essential for your learning (and is crucial for getting in synch with your colleagues-which we discuss in another section). Being truthful is an extension of your freedom to be you; people who are one way the inside and believe that they need to be another way outside to please others become conflicted and often lose touch with what they really think and feel. It’s difficult for them to be happy and almost impossible for them to be at their best. Thinking solely about what’s accurate instead of how it is perceived helps you to be more straightforward and focused on important things. Being truthful is also essential to being an independent thinker and obtaining greater understanding of what is right. It exercises your willingness to hold independent opinions regardless of what others think and exposes your beliefs to the challenges of others. Most people will know whether you are truthful and reward you for it because it is in their interests to embrace truthful people and shun those who aren’t. Having truth on your side is so extremely powerful in so many ways that I believe it is better to have blind faith in it rather than being expedient about when to use it. In other words, I believe that being truthful and being around people who are extremely truthful are so healthy and productive that you shouldn’t think twice about it.
19) … Don’t believe it when someone caught being dishonest says they have seen the liqht and will never do that sort of thing again. Chances are they will. The cost of keeping someone around who has been dishonest is likely to be higher than any benefits.
– DealBreaker: Bridgewater Associates: Be The Hyena. Attack The Wildebeest.
Navy Marines: A Few Good Men: Can You Handle The Truth?
– You said, you told Kendrick to say that Santiago wasn’t to be touched.
– He was clear on what you wanted?
– Can he have ignored the order?
– Ignored the order?
– Or forgot it?
– Could he have thought, “The old man is wrong”?
– When Lt. Kendrick talked to the men, any chance they ignored him?
– Ever been in the infantry, son? Ever served in a forward area? Ever put your life in another man’s hands, and his in yours? We follow orders, son. Otherwise people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?
– Are we clear?
– One last question, before I call Airmen O’Malley and Rodriguez.
– If you ordered that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, – and your orders are always followed, – then why was Santiago in danger?
– Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
– He was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred…
– You said he was transferred because he was in danger. I said, “grave danger?” and you said… we can read it…
– I know what I said!
– Then why the two orders?
– Men can do things on their own.
– But your men never did.
– Your men obey orders. So Santiago wasn’t in danger, right?
– You snotty little bastard.
– I request a recess.
– We’ll wait for an answer.
– The court will wait for an answer.
– If Lt. Kendrick gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, why did he have to be transferred? Kendrick ordered a Code Red, because you told him to! And when it went bad, you signed a phoney transfer and fixed the logs! You coerced the doctor! Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red?
– You don’t have to answer that.
– You want answers?
– I want the truth!
– You can’t handle the truth!
– Son, we live in a world with walls that must be guarded. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have more responsibility han you can fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines. You don’t know what I know. Santiago’s tragic death saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque to you, saves lives! But deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you need me on that wall. We use words like honour, code, loyalty. They’re the backbone of our lives. You use them as a punchline! I haven’t the time or inclination to explain myself to a man who needs my protection but questions the way I do it. Better just to thank me. Or pick up a gun and stand a post. But I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
– Did you order the Code Red?
– You’re goddamn right I did!
– A Few Good Men: Can You Handle the Truth?.
A Few Good Men is a 1992 American legal drama film directed by Rob Reiner and starring Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore, with Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollak, Wolfgang Bodison, James Marshall, J. T. Walsh and Kiefer Sutherland in supporting roles. It was adapted for the screen by Aaron Sorkin from his play of the same name but includes contributions by William Goldman. The film revolves around the court-martial of two U.S. Marines charged with the murder of a fellow Marine and the tribulations of their lawyers as they prepare a case to defend their clients.
RE: Error in Bridgewater Publication: A Template for Understanding Whats Going On: How the Economic Machine Works: Disregard for Peak Oil and Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources as the Ecological Foundation of Economic and Political Reality
On 08 April I wrote you an email wherein I informed you of my opinion that there is an error in your Bridgewater Associates publication: A Template for Understanding Whats Going On. Specifically that your No.1 Trend Line Productivity Graph was incorrect.
I stated that your graph was a ‘small picture’ graph, and that if you had a ‘big picture’ reality perspective, your graph would look more like that of Mr. Chris Clugston in his Peak NNR book: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences.
Put succinctly: (I) Peak Oil & Peak Non-Renewable Resources = End of Economic Growth (II) Sustainable Economic Growth is an Oxymoron; (III) Ecological Sustainability = (A) Urgent Population & Consumption Reduction, (B) Political Secession & Economic Relocalisation
I have not received a response from you or anyone at Bridgewater Associates to inform me whether you enquired into the information provided to your offices and what conclusions you reached based upon your enquiry.
– EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 29 Apr: Peak Oil/NNR Error in Bridgewater Publication: T4U: How Economic Machine Works.
China Executing One of its Richest Men
Joshua Polo Frank: 27 Sep 2016: 19:16 hrs: I liked a @YouTube video http://youtu.be/b-LSk1GMT8Q?a [China Uncensored: China’s Executing One of Its Richest Men] China’s Executing One of Its Richest Men | China Uncensored
EoP MILED Clerk: 13 Aug 2017: 17:56 hrs: @JPF_88 @420Rajkaran Fulfilling Peace Ftpt dreams https://youtu.be/p8ysmLWPTOM [100 Places to Remember: Yamal Peninsula Siberia Russia] https://youtu.be/C3p96VNXSNQ [Syriana: Ending] cc @RomanAbram0vich @ChinaUncensored @Qatargas @RosneftEN
– EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 11 Aug: Gabriel Rosenberg … Rosneft English.
Jack Ma – Alibaba – Buck Stops Here Honesty Alibaba Press Release
Mr. Ma: Alibaba – EoP v WiP NWO Neg conscious or not – corporate decision making?
I doubt you have been following Ecology of Peace v Masonic War is Peace New World Order Negotiations; cause like 99% of the planets oligarchs; I doubt you give a flying fuck about honour or ecological carrying capacity realities.
It is my interpretation that a significant number – exact number unknown – of Chinese Government and military do give a flying fuck about honour and ecological carrying capacity realities; otherwise they would not have been involved in Ecology of Peace vs Masonic War is Peace New World Order Negotaitions for the past ten to fifteen years.
In the context of your country’s political and military involvement in EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations; your corporate decision-making in regard to your meeting with Donald Trump; could be reasonably accurately interpreted as follows; if you and Alibaba gave a fuck about honesty and buck stops here honest press releases: “President Jinping and Chinese People’s Liberation Army: […] …….. ”
If your Alibaba corporate oligarch decision making has not included the reality of EoP NWO SCOEoP v WIP negotiations – a summary conclusion of EoP Axis Domestic and Foreign Policies [PDF] available at EoP NTE GMA Potus [PDF] — perhaps you may wish to reconsider your corporate decision-making in the context of EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations; and provide President Jinping and Chinese People’s Liberation Army Generals and Admirals with your EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations buck stops here conscious corporate decision.
» EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 10 Jan: Alibaba – EoP v WiP NWO Neg conscious or not – corporate decision making?.
Nature’s Biodiversity Resilience Law: Law of Limited Competition
A subset of the Law of Life, the Law of Limited Competition was coined by author Daniel Quinn to denote a set of strategies that appear to be evolutionarily stable for all species.
Briefly, the Law of Limited Competition is this: You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food.
This system of laws has been called among other things, “the peacekeeping law” and “animal ethics.” The Law of Limited Competition promotes diversity.
Quinn argues that the people of our culture believe the law does not apply to humans. Quinn further argues that this thinking is incorrect, that the laws do apply to man, and that by our civilization being built in a way which flouts the law, the stability of the community of life has been compromised, and that we are in the process of eliminating ourselves.
As an analogy, Quinn presents the idea of someone trying to build an airplane, but whose craft is not in accord with the laws of aerodynamics. He drives it off the edge of the cliff, and for some time is in free-fall. During this time he says “look, I am flying! Gravity does not apply to me!”, but shortly he will discover that gravity does apply to him, and in a most drastic manner.
Similarly, says Quinn, the people of our civilization are not living in accord with the Law of Limited Competition and are therefore facing a crash.
Conceptually, and within the contexts of evolution and limited resources, the Law of Limited Competition works as follows: Consider three hypothetical species. Species 1 is omnivorous, and eats food sources A, B, and C. Species 2, is herbivorous, and eats food sources B, C, and D. Species 3 is a carnivorous apex predator, and eats food source A, as well as species 1 and 2.
According to the Law of Limited Competition, any of these three species may compete to the full extent of their abilities, but may not eradicate its competitors, or deny them access to food. In short, they may compete, but not wage war. If the law is broken, sustainability of any of the species is put in jeopardy.
If, in an effort to eliminate competition from species 2, species 1 denies access to or destroys food source D, which it does not eat, species 2 will be forced to rely on food sources B and C, increasing competition for the common food sources for both species, and consequently, reducing two of the food sources for species 3, as well as increasing competition for food source A. Sustainability for all three species has been jeopardized.
If, however, species 2, in an effort to eliminate competition for food sources B and C, attempts to eradicate species 1, increased predation by species 3 will result. Again, all three species suffer reduced sustainability.
Because of the population limiting characteristics of the law, species which violate its precepts are disadvantaged and thus, according to Quinn, doomed to extinction.
– Great Thinkings: Law of Limited Competition.
A recent news story I read online describes lions and hyenas “waging war” on each other in Ethiopia. Doesn’t this explode your “law of limited competition”?
…and the response:
Briefly, the law of limited competition is this: You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. Lions and hyenas will kill competitors opportunistically (as will other creatures, like baboons), but the law as stated holds true: they do not HUNT their competitors the way they hunt their prey. That is, they’ll kill a competitor if they come across one (especially in conflict over food when food is scarce), but in the absence of a competitor, they won’t go looking for one to kill. Such behavior would be evolutionarily unstable. (See THE SELFISH GENE by R. Dawkins.) As a strategy, it just doesn’t pay off to use your time and energy hunting competitors that you DON’T eat (and that will fight back to the death) instead of using your time and energy to hunt prey that you DO eat. It’s not a matter of ethics, it’s a matter of calories.
– Ishmael: Law of Limited Competition.
Ishmael consolidates the narrator’s multi-faceted answer into the following dictum: “you may compete but you may not wage war” (129). This law promotes diversity because it allows millions of species to co-exist, and diversity is important because it allows the overall community of life to weather extreme climate shifts. The narrator continues the thought to suggest that because Takers see themselves at war with the Earth, they are ruining life’s chances of surviving such a shift. In Taker culture, everything except food and the food of your food becomes an enemy to be exterminated.
Ishmael then suggests a hypothetical situation wherein hyenas decide to disregard the law and kill off its competitors/predators (lions) so that the hyena population will increase. In this situation, however, the increased hyena population would soon run out of its own game (zebras and gazelles) because it was consuming them faster. Therefore, to stay potent, hyenas would have to kill the animals that competed with zebras and gazelles for grass, so that the zebra and gazelle populations would grow larger, all in order to feed the increased hyena population. In turn, the doubly increased hyena population would run out of food, and have to find something else to kill off. All in all, it would be a vicious circle wherein the species would have to keep killing off levels of the food chain simply to support itself and its expansion.
Ultimately, Ishmael’s point is that even one species (Takers) exempting itself from the natural law will ultimately cause the same damage that would be caused if every species exempted itself. As evidence, he quotes Peter Farb’s assertion that increasing food production to feed an increased population will only cause a greater increase in population. In other words, a species will expand to the size that its food supply does. However,Mother Culture insists that such a law does not apply to man.
– Gradesaver: Ishmael Summary and Part Eight.
The Law of Limited Competition
During the Great Forgetting it came to be understood among the people of our culture that life in “the wild” was governed by a single, cruel law known in English as “the Law of the Jungle,” roughly translatable as “kill or be killed.” In recent decades, by the process of looking (instead of merely assuming), ethologists have discovered that this “kill or be killed” law is a fiction. In fact, a system of laws — universally observed — preserves the tranquility of “the jungle,” protects species and even individuals, and promotes the well-being of the community as a whole. This system of laws has been called, among other things, the peacekeeping law, the law of limited competition, and animal ethics.
Briefly, the law of limited competition is this: You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war on your competitors.
The ability to reproduce is clearly a prerequisite for biological success, and we can be sure that every species comes into existence with that ability as an essential heritage from its parent species. In the same way, following the law of limited competition is a prerequisite for biological success, and we can be sure that every species comes into existence following that law as an essential heritage from its parent species.
Humans came into existence following the law of limited competition. This is another way of saying that they lived like all other creatures in the biological community, competing to the full extent of their capacity but not waging war on their competitors. They came into existence following the law and continued to follow the law until about 10,000 years ago, when the people of a single culture in the Near East began to practice a form of agriculture in which you were encouraged to wage war on your competitors — to hunt them down, to destroy their food, and to deny them access to food. This was and is the form of agriculture practiced in our culture, East and West — and in no other.
It is precisely this continuity that was broken in the Great Forgetting. To put it another way: After rejecting the law that had protected us from extinction for 3,000,000 years and making ourselves the enemy of the rest of the biological community, we suppressed our outlaw status by forgetting that there ever was a law.
Man was NOT born a few thousand years ago and he was NOT born a scourge. Man was born MILLIONS of years ago, and he was no more a scourge than hawks or lions or squids. He lived AT PEACE with the world . . . for MILLIONS of years. This doesn’t mean he was a saint. This doesn’t mean that he walked the Earth like a Buddha. It means he lived as harmlessly as a hyena or a shark or a rattlesnake. It’s not MAN who is the scourge of the world, it’s a single culture out of hundreds of thousands of cultures. OUR culture. We don’t have to change HUMANKIND in order to survive. We only have to change a single culture. I don’t mean to suggest that this is an easy task. But at least it’s not an impossible one.
– David Sheen: The Great Forgetting: Law of Limited Competition.
» SQSwans: Reports: Quinn: Ishmael: Law of Limited Competition.
William Clark Peak Oil Peace Party PetroDollar Warfare: Living on the Kindness of Strangers:
“We are living on the kindness of strangers … What we need is a Peak Oil Peace Party; cause right now we have a Peak Oil War Party, who know about Peak Oil who are forcefully pushing War, with Iran as their next target. … the goverment as it is currently structured is incapable of making the necessary changes that are required to mitigate and manage Peak Oil decline.” – William Clark; Etopia News: William Clark talks about “Petrodollar Warfare”
Etopia News: Whats the Geopolitical significance of the world beginning to run out of oil?
W Clark: The geopolitical significances is that man’s [WiP] economic theories, or contemporary economic theories are based upon unlimited growth and there is a strong correlation between high oil prices and recessions, so if we reach a point where the primary fossil fuel that drives 98% of the global transportation system, therefore ergo it drives the global economy, begins to reach the point where demand outstrips the availability of the finite resources, that means there are limitations to economic growth in the contemporary sense and therefore that is a serious conundron.
Etopia: What is the importance of economic growth to the political stability of any country and in particular the United States
W Clark: Because our current monetary system is based on debt and paying the interest on money that is loaned on the assumption that future economic growth will pay for that principal plus its interest and if you really begin to think about it, if peak oil begins to ask yourself well if we reach peak oil and there is an aggregate slowdown in the global economy and local economies, will there be future growth to pay for all the debt that we’ve created, and I think the answer is ‘probably not’.
Etopia News: Who owns that debt?
W clark: The number one and two are the Chinese and Japanese, and South Koreans own allot of our debt.
Etopia News: The people who work hard, save money, and sell things to the United States.
W Clark: Yes.
Etopia News: Its a little like the grasshopper and the ant, the US is the grasshopper and the others are the ants; and they do all the work and we get the benefits. Its living on the kindness of strangers.
W Clark: Yes we are living on the kindness of strangers. ……
Etopia: So why did Bush, Condi and Donald Rumsfeld invade Iraq?
W Clark: Control over oil and preservation of the Dollar as the world reserve currency. ….. [which is not working out] .. and I think the policies of the politicians from this point forward should be managing and mitigating our decline regarding these global economic energy issues which are going to hit us no matter what. So we need to begin to really look at ourselves with our global bases, as an economic plan that didn’t quite work out, and begin to manage our decline, cause I think it is quite clear that we are in imperial overstretch.
Etopia: What do you see about how the elite – particularly in the United States – are managing this crisis? If the Democrats take over the house, Senate and White House, will that make any difference? What strategy should they use, or what will strategy will they use in this imperial overreach failure?
W Clark: Well thats a loaded question. I think that if there is a change in governing philosophy. The goal should be managing the decline. The Neonconservatives and Democrats are completely incapable of managing the decline.
Etopia News: What do you see as a possible strategy for Peak oil and sustainability movement to build awareness and action about managing the decline.
W Clark: What we need is a Peak Oil Peace Party; cause right now we have a Peak Oil War Party, who know about Peak Oil who are forcefully pushing War, with Iran as their next target. … the goverment as it is currently structured is incapable of making the necessary changes that are required to mitigate and manage Peak Oil decline.
– Etopia News: William Clark talks about ‘Petrodollar Warfare’.
» IG: 17-04-26_eopntegma-shutdownponzieconomy-nnr.
Donald Trump Michael Flynn Petrodollar 3 Am Phone call.
— Pulp & Politics (@pulpandpolitics) February 8, 2017
US Military Force Projection: Petrodollar backed up by Aircraft Carrier/Air Force Dominance Dollar – Aircraft Carrier/Air Force Reliant on Cheap Energy/NNR Resources.
StyxHexenHammer666: The Petrodollar is Not Real; but the Aircraft Carrier Dollar is.
Sorkin: The Burden: Fossil Fuels, the Military and National Security: Trailer.
Free Will Productions: Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror.
Peak Oil/Resources & US Military Force Projection:
“In the year 2054, the entire [U.S.] defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. The aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be available to the Marines for the extra day.” — Augustine’s Law, by Norman Ralph Augustine
As a Wikipedia entry points out:
“Augustine’s Laws (1983) were a series of tongue in cheek aphorisms put forth by Norman Ralph Augustine, an American aerospace businessman who served as Under Secretary of the Army from 1975 to 1977. His most cited law is number 16, which shows that defense budgets grow linearly but the unit cost of a new military aircraft grows exponentially.” (See the above graph showing the price of U.S. military aircraft over time. By extrapolating from this factual data, Augustine arrived at his preposterous 2054 budget forecast. Or is it so preposterous?)
— Citizen Action Monitor: Can Joseph Tainter save us from ourselves? Pt 6/7: We can’t innovate our way to a sustainable future.
In Collapse of Complex Societies; Joseph Tainter provides an anecdote illustrative of the law of diminishing returns in military technology: During the 1950s, American industry manufactured 754 B52s. In the 1980s, the far more advanced B1 began to replace the B52. 100 of them were produced. Fifteen years later, the even more fanciful B2 bomber was introduced, of which 21 were built, at a cost of $13 billion per aircraft. This has led the aerospace engineer Norman Augustine to postulate the following “death spiral law of the military:” By the year 2054, the entire U.S. military will have to share ONE airplane – one year it will be run by the Air Force, the following year by the Navy, then it will be on loan to the Marines, etc.
— European American Blog: Joseph Tainter: The Collapse of Complex Societies
This chapter on the past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about through the “crash” that many fear-a genuine collapse over a period of one or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population. The alternative is the “soft landing” that many people hope for-a voluntary change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology.
— Oil crash: Complexity, Problem Solving and Sustainable Societies.
EoP v WiP Neg: Donald Trump … Oil Crash.
Honesty, Honour, Credibility, Pentagon Force Projection & American Leadership
Different cultures have different levels of buck stops here honesty, honour or alternatively fuck honour suck my fragile ego tenets of credibility socio-cultural values; whereby they judge whether their or any other nations generals, politicians, religious leaders, etc are credible or not.
I don’t know any other American president whom the third world – people in the street, not the fuck honour media intelligentsia – would consider was ‘credible’; in terms of their promises. The non-western world is littered with individuals – probably more of them over time, than there are plastic shit in the ocean’s garbage patches – who have been fucked over by America’s fuck honour pretend we give a fuck about credibility fake ‘leadership’ promises. Excluding the EoP Applicants, America has no ‘honour’ leadership credibility; all of America’s leadership credibility is based upon Pentagon force projection; and when that collapses, so too will American citizens illusions about ‘American leadership’.
Donald Trump – like most KKKi$$er Americans – lies allot, Donald Trump more overtly so; which obviously exposes the covert KKKi$$er liars, as liars, and hence upsets them so.
Ultimately if you seriously and sincerely want to judge another individual’s actions; you have to know what their motivations are. If you think a particular General is motivated by honour, and they really are motivated by money, or ego; then you will incorrectly interpret their actions, because your assumption as to their motivations are, will be incorrect. Only if you know what their motivations are, can you accurately judge whether their actions are credible, in terms of accomplishing that particular goal. If you think they want to drive to X, and they really are driving to Y, then your criticism of them for driving towards Y, and not X, is not justified or credible, since they are in fact driving towards their goal, not yours.
» EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 14 Aug: John Prados: McMaster’s Un-Appropriate Dereliction.
Denial Addiction to War Problem Solving to Avoid Confronting Resource Depletion Reality
Although this is a bit off the subject of Soviet collapse and what it may teach us about our own, I can’t resist saying a few words about denial, for it is such an interesting subject. I also hope that it will help some of you to go beyond denial, this being a helpful step towards understanding what I am going to say here.
Now that a lot of the predictions are coming true more or less on schedule, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the steady climb of energy prices and the dire warnings from energy experts of every stripe, outright denial is being gradually replaced with subtler forms of denial, which center around avoiding any serious, down-to-earth discussion of the likely actual consequences of peak oil, and of the ways one might cope with them.
Instead, there is much discussion of policy: what “we” should do. The “we” in question is presumably some embodiment of the great American Can-Do Spirit: a brilliantly organized consortium of government agencies, leading universities and research centers, and major corporations, all working together toward the goal of providing plentiful, clean, environmentally safe energy, to fuel another century of economic expansion. Welcome to the sideshow at the end of the universe!
One often hears that “We could get this done, if only we wanted to.” Most often one hears this from non-specialists, sometimes from economists, and hardly ever from scientists or engineers. A few back-of-the-envelope calculations are generally enough to suggest otherwise, but here logic runs up against faith in the Goddess of Technology: that she will provide. On her altar are assembled various ritualistic objects used to summon the Can-Do Spirit: a photovoltaic cell, a fuel cell, a vial of ethanol, and a vial of bio-diesel. Off to the side of the altar is a Pandora’s box packed with coal, tar sand, oceanic hydrates, and plutonium: if the Goddess gets angry, it’s curtains for life on Earth.
But let us look beyond mere faith, and focus on something slightly more rational instead. This “we,” this highly organized, high-powered problem-solving entity, is quickly running out of energy, and once it does, it will not be so high-powered any more. I would like to humbly suggest that any long-term plan it attempts to undertake is doomed, simply because crisis conditions will make long-term planning, along with large, ambitious projects, impossible. Thus, I would suggest against waiting around for some miracle device to put under the hood of every SUV and in the basement of every McMansion, so that all can live happily ever after in this suburban dream, which is looking more and more like a nightmare in any case.
The next circle of denial revolves around what must inevitably come to pass if the Goddess of Technology were to fail us: a series of wars over ever more scarce resources. Paul Roberts, who is very well informed on the subject of peak oil, has this to say: “what desperate states have always done when resources turn scarce… [is] fight for them.” [ MotherJones.com, 11/12 2004] Let us not argue that this has never happened, but did it ever amount to anything more than a futile gesture of desperation? Wars take resources, and, when resources are already scarce, fighting wars over resources becomes a lethal exercise in futility. Those with more resources would be expected to win. I am not arguing that wars over resources will not occur. I am suggesting that they will be futile, and that victory in these conflicts will be barely distinguishable from defeat. I would also like to suggest that these conflicts would be self-limiting: modern warfare uses up prodigious amounts of energy, and if the conflicts are over oil and gas installations, then they will get blown up, as has happened repeatedly in Iraq. This will result in less energy being available and, consequently, less warfare.
Take, for example, the last two US involvements in Iraq. In each case, as a result of US actions, Iraqi oil production decreased. It now appears that the whole strategy is a failure. Supporting Saddam, then fighting Saddam, then imposing sanctions on Saddam, then finally overthrowing him, has left Iraqi oil fields so badly damaged that the “ultimate recoverable” estimate for Iraqi oil is now down to 10-12% of what was once thought to be underground (according to the New York Times).
Some people are even suggesting a war over resources with a nuclear endgame. On this point, I am optimistic. As Robert McNamara once thought, nuclear weapons are too difficult to use. And although he has done a great deal of work to make them easier to use, with the introduction of small, tactical, battlefield nukes and the like, and despite recently renewed interest in nuclear “bunker busters,” they still make a bit of a mess, and are hard to work into any sort of a sensible strategy that would reliably lead to an increased supply of energy. Noting that conventional weapons have not been effective in this area, it is unclear why nuclear weapons would produce better results.
But these are all details; the point I really want to make is that proposing resource wars, even as a worst-case scenario, is still a form of denial. The implicit assumption is this: if all else fails, we will go to war; we will win; the oil will flow again, and we will be back to business as usual in no time. Again, I would suggest against waiting around for the success of a global police action to redirect the lion’s share of the dwindling world oil supplies toward the United States.
Outside this last circle of denial lies a vast wilderness called the Collapse of Western Civilization, roamed by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, or so some people will have you believe. Here we find not denial but escapism: a hankering for a grand finale, a heroic final chapter. Civilizations do collapse – this is one of the best-known facts about them – but as anyone who has read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire will tell you, the process can take many centuries.
What tends to collapse rather suddenly is the economy. Economies, too, are known to collapse, and do so with far greater regularity than civilizations. An economy does not collapse into a black hole from which no light can escape. Instead, something else happens: society begins to spontaneously reconfigure itself, establish new relationships, and evolve new rules, in order to find a point of equilibrium at a lower rate of resource expenditure.
Note that the exercise carries a high human cost: without an economy, many people suddenly find themselves as helpless as newborn babes. Many of them die, sooner than they would otherwise: some would call this a “die-off.” There is a part of the population that is most vulnerable: the young, the old, and the infirm; the foolish and the suicidal. There is also another part of the population that can survive indefinitely on insects and tree bark. Most people fall somewhere in between.
Economic collapse gives rise to new, smaller and poorer economies. That pattern has been repeated many times, so we can reason inductively about similarities and differences between a collapse that has already occurred and one that is about to occur. Unlike astrophysicists, who can confidently predict whether a given star will collapse into a neutron star or a black hole based on measurements and calculations, we have to work with general observations and anecdotal evidence. However, I hope that my thought experiment will allow me to guess correctly at the general shape of the new economy, and arrive at survival strategies that may be of use to individuals and small communities.
» SQSwans: Orlov: Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century; Closing the Collapse Gap.
EoP Peak Oil/Resources Peace Plan: Implement [EoP – breed & consume below ecological carrying capacity limits – Intnl Law] Family Planning for [orderly & humane de-population & de-industrialization race, religious & cultural planetary] Revolution!
China’s One Child Policy: Deng Xiaoping introduced China’s one child policy in 1978-79, to halt – an average of 6 children per family – population growth. On 25 Sep 1980 an official public letter letter called on all citizens to adhere to the one child policy. The One Child policy was enacted and managed by the National Population and Family Planning Commission, through incentives, persuasion and coercion. Unofficial figures claim approximately 300-400 million births were prevented between 1978-2015. A 2008 survey reported that 76% of the Chinese public support the law. Less than 10% of Chinese families have taken advantage of the Chinese governments relaxation of the law to a two child policy; citing environmental and economic reasons for their adherence to the one child policy rule. – Mojo: 10 China’s One-Child Policy Facts; Suzanne Transki: One Child Policy Documentary.
Al Bartlett: China’s One Child Policy: China has reduced its population by preventing an estimated 300 million births, which is a far greater contribution to climate change reductions; than any other country. – ASPO: Al Bartlett on China’s One Child Population Policy.
» IG: 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child; 17-08-28_danapittard-fplanning-2; 17-08-30_garrettmurtaugh-cnfamplanning.
EoP v Ray Dalio
If EoP correspondence to Bridgewater Associates: Ray Dalio result in EoP v Ray Dalio court proceedings EoP Legal Submission shall involve EoP scientific and cultural law recommendations to shut down the WiP Ponzi profiteering of resource conflict and misery economy, by ‘turning off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits — causes of resource conflict and war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order Social Contract that (a) requires 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) nationalizes all property and provides 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 Leg Sub: EoP v Ray Dalio.