RU Central Bank Response to EoP TRC Letter to Theresa May et al | Russian Federation Logo | FDR: Nation Destroys itself by destroying its soil | Community Solution: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil | Homer Lea: Valour of Ignorance | Fukuoka: One-Straw Revolution | Teddy Roosevelt: Conservation of National Resources | EoP SciCult Law Honesty Judges in America: Jason Brent | Jason Brent: Humans: An Endangered Species | EoP SciCult Law | One Child Family Planning Revolution.
RU Central Bank Response to EoP TRC Letter to Theresa May et al:
* 02 Oct: Central Bank of Russia Re: EoP TRC to End Abel & Kane Cold War ideas for implementing EoP Scientific and Cultural law to regulate zygote cell and ego breeding / consumption biochemical WMD [PDF: IG: 18-10-02: PNG].
» Response to 27 Mar: EoP TRC to End Abel & Kane Cold War ideas for implementing EoP Scientific and Cultural law to regulate zygote cell and ego breeding/consumption biochemical WMD.
Russian Federation Coat of Arms
The coat of arms of the Russian Federation derives from the earlier coat of arms of the Russian Empire which was abolished with the Russian Revolution in 1917 and restored in 1993 after the constitutional crisis. Though modified more than once since the reign of Ivan III (1462–1505), the current coat of arms is directly derived from its mediaeval original, with the double-headed eagle having Byzantine and earlier antecedents from long before the emergence of any Russian state. The general tincture corresponds to the early fifteenth-century standard. The shape of the eagle can be traced back to the reign of Peter the Great (1682–1725), although the eagle charge on the present coat of arms is golden rather than the traditional, imperial black. – Wikipedia: Russia Coat of Arms.
FDR: Nation Destroys itself by destroying its soil
FDR Soil Security: Franklin Delano Roosevelt: A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people – Letter to all State Governors on a Uniform Soil Conservation Law (26 Feb 1937) and From ‘A Presidential Statement on Receipt of the Award of the Schlich Forestry Medal’ (29 Jan 1935) in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: F.D. Roosevelt, 1935, Volume 4 (1938), 65. –Today in Science.
» IG: 16-09-02_earthsoiltbomb-fdtroosevelt.
The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil
When Cuba lost access to Soviet oil in the early 1990s, the country faced an immediate crisis – feeding the population – and an ongoing challenge: how to create a new low-energy society. This film tells the story of the Cuban people’s hardship, ingenuity, and triumph over sudden adversity – through cooperation, conservation, and community.
Havana, Cuba — At the Organipónico de Alamar, a neighborhood agriculture project, a workers’ collective runs a large urban farm, a produce market and a restaurant. Hand tools and human labor replace oil-driven machinery. Worm cultivation and composting create productive soil. Drip irrigation conserves water, and the diverse, multi-hued produce provides the community with a rainbow of healthy foods.
» Community Solution: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. Resilience: Review by Permaculture Activist.
» Documentary: Prime Amir; Jane Norman.
» IG: 17-05-08_sanctions-selfsufficiencylessonspeakoil.
Homer Lea: Valour of Ignorance
“Investigation [of the consequences of nations living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that allows for the nations citizens to procreate and/or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits] shows that whenever two nations have become engaged in warfare they have been advancing on converging lines of [resource acquisition for growing consumption or procreation] self-interest and aggrandizement. When the contact takes place, the struggle for supremacy, or even survival is at hand. This inevitable hour is approximately fixed and determined by the angles of convergence plus the sum of the relative [consumption / breeding war] speed by which the nations are moving along their respective lines. Thus it is that, when the angle of [breeding / consumption war] convergence of both or even one of the nations is acute and the speed or progress along one or both of the converging lines correspondingly great, war results in a few years or decades.” – [EoP Amended] Homer Lea, Valour of Ignorance.
“This book will someday be studied by thousands of people. Lea understood more about world politics than all the cabinet ministers now in office.” — Vladimir Lenin, about Valour of Ignorance, by “Martial Monk” Homer Lea, which became compulsory reading for Japanese and West Point cadets.
“Just quoting military gospel – according to Homer Lea.” .. [..] You see,” the Colonel said, “thirty-five years ago, a strange young man who called himself “General” Homer Lea, wrote a book about a war to come between America and Japan. In it he described, in minutest details the Jap campaigns against the Phillipines, Hawaii, Alaska and California.” “A sort of American Nostradamus?” The Colonel said, “Not at all. Homer Lea was neither a mystic nor a prophet. He was a scientist. He studied the science of war – the fundamental laws of which are as immutable as those of any other science. He also sought to analyze the causes of war and diagnose the symptoms of an approaching conflict.” — Preface: Valour of Ignorance, by Homer Lea.
“Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime and hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities and nations. Thence will International Arbitration come of its own accord as the natural outgrowth of national evolution through the individual. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.” – Homer Lea, Valour of Ignorance.
» Military Gospel According to Homer Lea;
» IG: 15-05-29_homerlea-valignorance-eop-v-wip; 17-08-17_milgospel-wh-ghwbushterrorrep; 17-08-04_milgospel-jcs-dempsey; 17-07-05_milgospel-dod-energystrategy; 17-07-04_milgospel-vvputinnnrscarcitytheses.
Masanobu Fukuoka: One Straw Revolution
The One-Straw Revolution, in short, was Fukuoka’s plea for man to reexamine his relationship with nature in its entirety. In his most utopian vision all people would be farmers. If each family in Japan were allotted 1.25 acres of arable land and practiced natural farming, not only could each farmer support his family, he wrote, but each “would also have plenty of time for leisure and social activities within the village community. I think,” he added, “this is the most direct path toward making this country a happy, pleasant land.”
Although The One-Straw Revolution had little impact on agriculture in Japan, it did establish Fukuoka’s popular identity as a guru of natural farming. More frequently than before, he was called upon to speak on radio and television, and he now did so without inhibition. His provocative analysis of the degradation of modern agriculture, along with his proffered solutions, found a worldwide audience when his book was published in English in 1978. Eventually it was translated into seven other languages.
Spurred by a new sense of urgency “to preserve the light of natural farming,” Fukuoka began devoting more of his time to advocacy. He wrote more, spelling out in a series of articles and books his techniques for natural farming and his philosophy of nothingness, or mu. He also began to travel abroad.
In July and August 1979, he visited the United States. Glimpsing California for the first time from the airplane, Fukuoka was shocked to see nearly treeless hills covered with yellow grasses. Although California’s barrenness was caused in large measure by its climate — which lacks Japan’s dependable rains and snows — this striking image from the plane was Fukuoka’s introduction to what he later called America’s ecological disaster.
As he saw it, the United States was a vast continent suffering the “relentless injuries of heavy machinery, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides.” The huge monocrops of the American heartland, he said, were “fields of death” where crops fattened on petroleum derivatives as the soil was drained of its fertility. Most of these fields, he learned, yielded food grains for cattle and hogs to supply meat for what he considered the grossly indulgent and wasteful American diet. Fukuoka declared the whole process primitive in its disregard for nature.
In meetings with ecologically concerned Americans, Fukuoka found many eager to hearken to his message. Already, at 250 Zen centers, American disciples of Japanese Buddhism grew chemical-free foods. The Rodale Press — American publishers of The One-Straw Revolution — was spreading the message of composting and organic farming (characteristically, Fukuoka tried to dissuade it from promoting composting), and a few Americans were experimenting with Asian-style low-meat or vegetarian diets. These hopeful signs cheered him. But the momentum of scientific farming in the United States seemed overwhelming. After a second visit a few years later, he concluded gloomily that “not even one chance in a thousand exists that America will opt for a method of farming that returns to nature.”
– The Ramon Magsaysay Award Fourndation, via One Straw Revolution.
» Copy at EoP NWO SCF: Eco Future Reports.
» IG: 17-08-12_mfukuoka-dorlov-1strawrevolution.
Teddy Roosevelt: Conservation of National Resources
TeddyRoosevelt: Natural Resource National Security: Theodore Roosevelt: The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others. – Address to the Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis (4 Oct 1907) –Today in Science; American History; Congressional Record HR 4 27 Feb 2003 Timothy J Ryan; Environmental Education Foundation Inc.
» IG: 16-09-02_earthsoiltbomb-fdtroosevelt.
EoP SciCult Law Honesty Judges in America: Jason Brent
Potential EoP SciCult law honest Judges in America:
The most EoP RH FR [eop-rh-fr.tygae.org.za] honest magistrate and/or judge in America on the issue of EoP Scientific – what is a sustainable aka global peace procreation and consumption footprint – law would be Judge Jason Brent [eop-v-jgb.tygae.org.za].
On the issue of EoP Cultural law – aka fully informed consenting agreements between individuals within the same culture and/or between different racial, religious, gender cultures – it would probably also be Judge Jason Brent [eop-v-jgb.tygae.org.za], since he has been willing to openly and honestly discuss controversial issues as a former magistrate and judge, in simple language that I have not been able to find one lawyer in America or any nation, willing to discuss.
» EoP Leg Sub: 02 Oct: EoP Re: Charles Luddington v Brett Kavanaugh: SCOTUS EoP or WiP honesty standard.
Jason Brent: Humans: An Endangered Species
The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple—limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.
These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.
Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.
Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.
In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child. Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.
If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard. Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a “One-Child-Per-Family” (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.
No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. It is a matter of complete indifference to me that many, if not all, readers will find the execution of anyone having a second child to be horrible and against every moral precept they learned or understood was applicable to humanity. The problem is not that my prescriptions are immoral or horrible. Rather the problem is that the situation humanity finds itself in is horrible. I will now remind the readers that under the law I propose every individual would be well aware of the consequences of flouting the law. Which of the two evils is worse— a) executing anyone who knowingly violates the one child rule; or b) not reducing population such that the vast majority or probably all of humanity is destroyed? Under this system fertility drugs would not be permitted or if they were permitted and used, only one child would be permitted to be born alive or the rest would be destroyed at birth, if more than one were born alive. If a women gave birth to more than one child and fertility drugs or any other actions to increase fertility or the number of children born were not the cause, those children would be permitted to live. Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence.
» SS Defcon: SQSwans: Jason G Brent.
» IG: 17-05-20_joyreid-eoptrc-vs-wipimpeachment; 17-05-20_anavalny-couragemother; 17-05-23_eop-v-wip-media-02; 17-05-29_eopscientificculturallaw; 17-05-30_eopftbragg-milethicsqa; 17-05-31_dtrump-kanyewest-katthygriffin-jdgeorge; 17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride; 17-06-05_eop-v-wef-bilderberg-bizforneweu; 17-06-11_mcveightapes-rydertrafficlightfuse; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-charity; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-media-03; 17-07-22_eop-v-wip-media-04; 17-07-26_eop-v-wip-media-05; 17-08-03_maotsetung-abolishstateresponsiblefreedom; 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child.
EoP Scientific & Cultural Law
Simplistically and objectively RH believes humans committed to honourably evaluating their cultural subjective reality beliefs or working hypothesis conclusions can agree on two ‘objective reality truth’ principles:
1. Carrying Capacity Limits:
The earth is not flat. Resources are not infinite. Humans share this planet with other humans and other animal and plant species. None have an inalienable right to exterminate the others (any human group who decides they have such inalienable right to breed or consume above carrying capacity limits and exterminate others for their own greed (not need) should not be surprised if other groups consider them to be a planetary security threat to the survival of all other species).
Conclusion: Humans have a ‘right’ to breed and consume upto ecological carrying capacity limits, and no further. Humans who breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits are consciously or unconsciously thieving other humans or species resources; without their consent.
2. Fully Informed Consenting agreements:
No humans or animal wants to be coerced or forced to be a slave to any other species; without their clear and fully informed consent to such relationship.
Conclusion: Any eco-innocent human procreating and consuming below carrying capacity limits can engage in whatever behaviour they choose, with any other eco-innocent; as long as both consent to whatever behaviour they are engaged in with each other; and other eco-innocents affected by such behaviour have no objections.
» EoP NWO SCF: EoP Scientific and Cultural Law.
One Child Family Planning Revolution.
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 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; ASPO: Al Bartlett on China’s One Child Population Policy.
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.
The one-child policy, a part of the family planning policy, was a population planning policy of China. It was introduced in 1979 and began to be formally phased out in 2015. The policy allowed exceptions for many groups, including ethnic minorities. In 2007, 36% of China’s population was subject to a strict one-child restriction, with an additional 53% being allowed to have a second child if the first child was a girl. Provincial governments imposed fines for violations, and the local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.
According to the Chinese government, 400 million births were prevented. This claim has been called “false” by scholars, because “three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy; and most of the further decline in fertility since 1980 can be attributed to economic development.” Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, have had similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy. Although 76% of Chinese people supported the policy in a 2008 survey, it was controversial outside of China.
On October 29, 2015, it was reported that the existing law would be changed to a two-child policy, citing a statement from the Communist Party of China. The new law became effective on January 1, 2016, following its passage in the standing committee of the National People’s Congress on December 27, 2015.
» IG: 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child; 17-08-28_danapittard-fplanning-2; 17-08-30_garrettmurtaugh-cnfamplanning.