13-04-22: Templeton Prize: Earth Day Spiritual Test: by Tygae Aex

Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr

22 April 2013 Templeton Prize Judges c/o: Ms. Judith Marchand, Director John Templeton Foundation 300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 500 West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 Tel: 610.941.2828 | Fax: 610.825.1730 info@templetonprize.org

Templeton Brd of Trustees & Advisors c/o: Ms. Judith Marchand, Director John Templeton Foundation 300 Conshohocken State Road, Ste 500, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 USA Tel: (610) 941-2828 | Fax: (610) 825-1730

Desmond Tutu c/o: Nomfundo Walaza Desmond Tutu Peace Center 42 Hans Strijdom Ave, Capetown, 8001 Tel: (21) 443 6760 | Fax: (21) 443 6768 E: info@tutu.org, vivian@tutu.org.za

Professor Steven Gish Auburn University at Montgomery Box 244023 · Montgomery, AL 36124-4023 Tel: 334-244-3958 | Fax: 334-244-3740 Email sgish@aum.edu

CC: Deep Green Resistance, Femen, Idle No More, Primitivist‟s, etc.

Templeton Foundation Board of Trustees & Advisors, Spiritual Test for Templeton Foundation: Confront „Templeton Prize for Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Spirituality‟ endorsement of (a) fraud, corruption and discrimination of 2013 Templeton Prize; (b) discrimination against non-patriarchal Ecocentric Primitivist spirituality. Spiritual Test for Templeton Foundation: If the Templeton Prize considers honesty a spiritual concept, should it not rename the Templeton Prize to the ‗Templeton Prize for Taker – Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric – Spirituality‘, considering that (a) All of the recipients for the Templeton Prize, for the past 40 years have been to individuals who are members of, or whose scientific / spirituality endorses, Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Religions; (b) Templeton Prize‘s endorsement of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Tutu‘s TRC Fraud and discrimination against Ecocentric, non-Patriarchal, Primitivist Leaver cultures; clearly shows Templeton‘s endorsement of Gender and Ideological Discrimination against Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spirituality? PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

Notification and Confirmation of Templeton Foundation Trustees and Board of Advisors Endorsement of Fraud, Corruption and Discrimination by (a) Templeton Foundation President and Chairman: Dr. John M Templeton Jnr, (b) Nominator of Archbishop Desmond Tutu for Templeton Prize: Archbishop Tutu‘s biographer: Steven Gish; (c) 2013 Templeton Prize Recipient: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and (d) Templeton Foundation Prize Judges: H.R.H. Princess Areej Ghazi, Stephen Barr, Prof. Russell Cowburn FRS, Gurcharan Das, Matthieu Ricard, Vladimir Shmaliy, Esther Sternberg, Faraneh Vargha-Khadem, Miroslav Volf. The nomination of the 2013 Templeton Prize was corrupt and fraudulent: Archbishop Desmond Tutu was nominated for the prize by his own biographer, who censored information from the Judges about Tutu‘s involvement in, and endorsement of, South Africa‘s TRC Fraud, and discrimination against nonpatriarchal Ecocentric Primitivist cultures. Tutu‘s biographer refused to withdraw the nomination. Templeton Prize Judges also refused to withdraw the award, endorsing Tutu‘s TRC Fraud and discrimination against Ecocentric, nonPatriarchal, Primitivist Leaver cultures.

Notification & Confirmation to Templeton Trustees & Board of Advisors: Notification and Confirmation of Templeton Foundation Trustees and Board of Advisors Endorsement of Fraud, Corruption and Discrimination by (a) Templeton Foundation President and Chairman: Dr. John M Templeton Jnr, (b) Nominator of Archbishop Desmond Tutu for Templeton Prize: Archbishop Tutu‘s biographer: Steven Gish; (c) 2013 Templeton Prize Recipient: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and (d) Templeton Foundation Prize Judges: H.R.H. Princess Areej Ghazi, Stephen Barr, Prof. Russell Cowburn FRS, Gurcharan Das, Matthieu Ricard, Vladimir Shmaliy, Esther Sternberg, Faraneh Vargha-Khadem, Miroslav Volf. Templeton Foundation Trustees1: Denis R. Alexander: Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion | Heather Templeton Dill | Nidhal Guessoum: Associate Professor of Physics at American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates | Stephen G. Post: Center for Medical Humanities, Stony Brook University & The Institute for Research on Unlimited Love | Eric Priest: James Gregory and Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Theoretical Solar Physics at the University of St. Andrews | Jeffrey P. Schloss: Distinguished professor of biology and T. B. Walker Chair of Natural and 1

http://www.templeton.org/who-we-are/our-team/board-of-trustees

Behavioral Sciences at Westmont College | John W. Schott: Harvard Medical School | Jane M. Siebels: Founder, chairwoman, and CIO of Green Cay Asset Management | Josephine (Pina) Templeton | Harvey M. Templeton, III | Gail Zimmerman: Chairman of the board of directors of Wyoming Financial (WERCS). Templeton Foundation Board of Advisors2: Durre S. Ahmed: Chairperson and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Gender and Culture in Lahore, Pakistan | James Arthur: Professor of Education and Civic Engagement and Head of the School of Education in the University of Birmingham | Francisco J. Ayala: University Professor and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine | John D. Barrow: Director of the Millennium Mathematics Project, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge | Mark C. Berner: CEO and co-chairman of Telos | Andrew Briggs: Professor of nanomaterials at Oxford University | William T. Cavanaugh: Senior Research Professor at the Center for World Catholicism and Intercultural Theology, and Professor of Catholic Studies at DePaul University in Chicago | S. Barry Cooper: Professor of Mathematical Logic in the School of Mathematics at the University of Leeds | Andy Crouch: Executive Producer at Christianity Today International | Pranab Das: Professor of Physics at Elon University | Gurcharan Das: Author, management guru, and public intellectual | Celia Deane-Drummond: Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame | Jean Bethke Elshtain: Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago | Thomas F. Farr: Visiting Associate Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University | John Fischer: Department of Philosophy at the University of California Riverside (UCR) | Michael Fishbane: Nathan Cummings Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Chicago | Bruno Guiderdoni: Director of the Observatory of Lyon | Hans Halvorson: Professor of philosophy at Princeton University | Jeff Hardin: Professor and chair of the department of zoology at the University of WisconsinMadison | Ian Hodder: Dunlevie Family Professor in the Department of Anthropology and Director of the Stanford Archaeology Center | Luc Jaeger: Associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) | Byron Johnson: Professor of the Social Sciences and director of the Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR) Baylor University | David C. Lahti: Assistant Professor of Biology at Queens College, City University of New York | Heinrich Liechtenstein: Assistant professor of financial management | Robert Martensen: Office of History at the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD) | Michael E. McCullough: Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Miami | Alan Mittleman: Professor of modern Jewish thought and director of the Tikvah Institute for Jewish Thought at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City | Aref Ali Nayed: Founder and director of Kalam Research & Media (KRM), Uthman Pasha Madrasa in Tripoli, Libya | Edward Nelson: Professor of mathematics at Princeton University | Robert Cummings 2

http://www.templeton.org/who-we-are/our-team/board-of-advisors

Neville: Professor of Philosophy, Religion, and Theology at Boston University | Howard C. Nusbaum: Professor at the University of Chicago | Kenneth A. Olliff: Director for Strategic Foundation Initiatives and Co-Director of Arete, The University of Chicago | Steven R. Quartz: Associate professor in the division of humanities and social sciences at the California Institute of Technology | Thomas Schmidt: Professor of philosophy of religion on the Roman Catholic theological faculty, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt | Martin Seligman: Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology and director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania | Arvind Sharma: Birks Chair in Comparative Religion, at McGill University | Ian Tattersall: Curator in the Division of Anthropology of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City | Neil Tennant: Humanities Distinguished Professor in Philosophy, Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, and Scholar at The Ohio State University Columbus | Robert M. Townsend: Professor of Economics at MIT | Roger Trigg: Senior Research Fellow at Kellogg College, University of Oxford | Ian Walmsley: Hooke Professor of Experimental Physics and Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of Oxford | Merold Westphal: Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University in New York City | Harvey Whitehouse: Chair in Social Anthropology at Oxford University and Professorial Fellow at Magdalen College | Andreas Widmer: co-founder of S.E.VEN Fund | David Sloan Wilson: SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University | David J. Wood: Senior Pastor of Glencoe Union Church, Illinois.

Spiritual Test for Templeton Foundation: „Templeton Prize for Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Spirituality‟ If the Templeton Prize considers honesty a spiritual concept, should it not rename the Templeton Prize to the ‗Templeton Prize for Taker – Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric – Spirituality‘, considering that (a) All of the recipients for the Templeton Prize, for the past 40 years have been to individuals who are members of, or whose spirituality endorses, Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Religions; (b) Templeton Prize‘s endorsement of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Tutu‘s TRC Fraud and discrimination against Ecocentric, non-Patriarchal, Primitivist Leaver cultures; clearly shows Templeton‘s endorsement of Gender and Ideological Discrimination against Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spirituality?

Templeton Prize‟s endorsement of Gender and Ideological Discrimination against Leaver Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spirituality: [1]

Patriarchy (pa·tri·arch·y):

[1.1] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and

(b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations. [1.2] Put differently a legal, political or social system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic equal legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth. [2]

Taker AnthroCorpocentric Civilization (civ·i·li·za·tion): [2.1]

Derrick Jensen: Civilization and Enlightenment3:

[2.2] ―Civilization is a way of life characterized by the growth of cities; and that definition is defensible both linguistically and historically. So what that means is that civilization comes from Civitas which means city. Historically that‘s pretty much where civilization starts is the rise of cities. A city is a collection of people, living in numbers large enough to require the importation of resources. A couple of things happen as soon as you require the importation of resources. One is that your way of living can never be sustainable. Because if you require the importation of resources, what that means is that you have denuded the landscape of that particular resource. As your city grows, you will denude an ever larger area. Because by definition you are requiring the importation of resources, which means its not there. Functionally your way of life will never be sustainable. You can talk about sustainability all you want, it won't last. The other thing it means is that your way of life must be based on violence. Because if you require the importation of resources, what that means is that trade will never be sufficiently reliable, because if you require a resource that the next village won't give to you, you will take it, because you require it. Which means we could all become the most enlightened beings, on the entire planet, and it wouldn't matter, the US military would still have to engage in militarism, because if not, how are we going to get access to our oil that is under someone else's land? Psychologically and socially it does not matter, you could have this huge transformation of the heart, and if you still require the importation of resources, what are you going to do about it?‖ [2.3]

Derrick Jensen Interview Pt3: On [Taker] Science4:

[2.4] ―According to scientific culture, power exists only in how you use raw materials -- the more raw materials you use more effectively than anyone else, the more power to you. And science is a potent tool for that. Thats the point of science. 3 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkEmLRCP078 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR2O5cvknvo

.[..]. The very epistemology of this [Taker] culture is based upon domination; such that how we know something is true, is by someone's ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on command and to predict what will happen and when. .[..]. Are hammerhead sharks better off, because of science? Is plankton better off because of science? Are traditional people's better off because of science? I think the answer is pretty obviously, NO. .[..]. Science is based upon the ability to predict and on objectification.‖ [2.5] ―Here's another perspective: If you ask ten thousand scientists if they believe the world was created for human beings, and all evolution existed so that human beings are the apex of evolution. The vast majority of them would probably say 'absolutely not'. Evolution has no point that way. Humans are not the apex of evolution. Its an absurd question and allot of them would laugh. But then when they are done laughing and they go back to work, what would they be doing? If you judge their answers by their actions, instead of by their theory, what you would find is essentially that all of them are working to make the world conform to industrial ends. Science is pernicious, its really harmful and it has been incredibly harmful to the natural world.‖ [2.6] ―Science is the latest monotheism really. Catholicism said that outside the church there is no salvation, and science says that outside of science there is no knowledge. Another way to put all this is that monotheism has been the problem. Abrahamaic monotheisms, Christianity, Catholicism and Islam did the heavy lifting. They took the divinity out of nature and put it in heaven. They took the divinity out of this tree, and this dog and this flesh, and to put it somewhere out there. All science did was come along, much later, and turn off the light out there, and remove meaning from the world entirely. You don't have to take my word for this. Once again Richard Dawkins is quite clear that the universe is meaningless. But he also says that we are put here to rise above nature, which is an extraordinary statement because why would you rise up out of something, and who put us here in the first place, when he doesn't believe in any meaning whatsoever. But anyway, science is on the main incredibly harmful. Sure science is able to record that global warming is happening, and sure they are able to study species extinction, but why is global warming and species extinction happening in the first place? .[..]. It doesn't help to study it, unless you stop it. .[..]. Catherine McKinnon says that law is how power organizes. I would say that science is the manual version of that. Law is how power organizes politically and science is how it organizes in physically. And there are other forms of knowledge that are not based on domination, but on relationship, non-mathematical relationship.‖

[2.7] Counterpunch (28 Oct 2009): Against Prometheus: An Interview with Derrick Jensen on Science and Technology5: [2.8] ―The stories we are told shape the way we see the world, which shapes the way we experience the world. R.D. Laing once wrote that how we experience the world shapes how we behave in the world. If the world is presented as resources to be exploited, then more than likely, you‘re going to exploit the world. For example, if one sees trees as dollar bills, then one will look at trees and treat trees one way; if one sees trees as trees, for what they are – as other beings to be in communion with – then one will see them and treat them another way. Philosophy is the telling of the world a certain way.‖ [2.9] Taker Utilitarian vs. Leaver Spiritual Relationship to Nature: ―If you do not perceive the fundamental beingness of others (i.e. nonhuman animals, trees, mountains, rivers, rocks, etc), or in some senses do not even perceive their existence, then nothing I say or write can convince you. Nor will evidence be likely to convince you, since, as already mentioned, you won‘t perceive it, or more accurately, won‘t allow yourself to perceive it. No matter how well I write, if you have never made love, I cannot adequately describe to you what it feels like to do so. Even moreso, if you insist that no such thing as making love even exists, then I will certainly never be able to adequately explain to you what it feels like. For that matter, I cannot describe the color green to someone who is blind, and who even moreso insists that green does not exist, could never exist; as well as to someone who knows that philosophers from Aristotle to Descartes to Dawkins have conclusively shown that green does not exist, could not exist, has never existed, and will never exist; or to someone who is under the thrall of economic and legal systems (insofar as there is a meaningful difference, since the primary function of this culture‘s legal systems is to protect—through laws, police, courts, and prisons—the exploitative activities of the already-wealthy) based so profoundly on green not existing; who cannot acknowledge that this culture would collapse if its members individually and/or collectively perceived this green that cannot be allowed to exist. If I could describe the color green to you, I would do it. I would drive you, as R.D. Laing put it, out of your wretched mind. And you might be able to see the color green. Or someone else could drive you out of your wretched mind. It certainly needn‘t be me. I‘m not the point. You‘re not the point. Your perceived experience isn‘t even the point. The point is your wretched mind, and getting out of it. And beyond that, the point then is your experience.‖ [2.10] Leaver‟s experience the world personally, emotionally, convivially and reciprocally with other beings, Takers experience the world as a set of objective truths for personal material gain or information, or as protocol

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/28/agaisnt-prometheus/

to maintain the status quo: ―This culture is based on the assumption that all of the world is without volition, is mechanistic, and is therefore predictable. The existence of the willfully unpredictable destroys a foundational assumption of this culture. The existence of the willfully unpredictable also invalidates this culture‘s ontology, epistemology, and philosophies, and reveals them for what they are: lies upon which to base this omnicidal system of exploitation, theft, and murder; it‘s much easier to exploit, steal from, or murder someone you pretend has no meaningful existence (especially if you have an entire culture‘s ontology, epistemology, and philosophy to back you up), indeed, it becomes your right, even your duty (e.g. war, genocide, death squads, mercenaries, etc). The existence of the willfully unpredictable reveals this culture‘s governmental and economic systems for what they are as well: means to not only rationalize but enforce systems of exploitation, theft, and murder (e.g., effectively stop Monsanto‘s exploitation, theft, and murder, and see how you are treated by governments across the world).‖ [2.11] Difference between indigenous spirituality‟s kinship with nonhumans, and absence of a utilitarian worldview over their landbase insofar as they perceived the natural landscape as a matrix of reciprocal relationships to enter into: ―In all of my books I‘ve emphasized that the fundamental difference between civilized and indigenous ways of being is that for even the most open-minded of the civilized, listening to the natural world is a metaphor. For traditional indigenous peoples it is not a metaphor. It is how you relate with the real world. This culture‘s way of life is based on exploitation, domination, theft, and murder. And why? Because it is based on the perceived right of the powerful to take whatever resources they want. If you see yourself as entitled to a resource, and if you‘re not willing or incapable of seeing this other as a being with whom you can and should be in relation with, then you‘re going to take the resource.‖ [2.12] How scientific philosophy galvanizes the exploitative utilitarian worldview: ―Richard Dawkins, the popular scientific philosopher—he‘s got almost as many Google hits as Mick fuckin‘ Jagger—states that we exist in ―a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication.‖ Implying that humans are the only meaningful intelligence on earth, and possibly in the universe, the world then consists of objects to be exploited, not other beings to enter into relationship with. Dawkins also writes: ―You won‘t find any rhyme or reason in it [the universe], nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.‖ Because the latter scientific assumption posits that nonhumans have no meaningful intelligence, they have nothing to say, to each other or to us. Thus interspecies communication is bunk, no matter who the nonhumans are: animals, plants, rivers, rocks, stars, muses, and so on. Anyone who

thinks otherwise, and this is key, is superstitious, that is, delusional, maybe primitive, maybe crazy, maybe childish, maybe just plain stupid. Suddenly science has a stronger hold on one‘s belief moreso than any religion. Scientific philosophy is much better at controlling people because if you don‘t buy into it, you‘re stupid. The fundamental religion of this culture is that of human dominion, and it does not matter so much whether one self-identifies as a Christian, a Capitalist, a Scientist, or just a regular member of this culture, one‘s actions will be to promulgate this fundamentalist religion of unbridled entitlement and exploitation. This religion permeates every aspect of this culture.‖ [2.13]

Has science provided the world with anything good?:

[2.14] ―That‘s a very common question that is asked: Hasn‘t science done a lot of good for the world? For the world? No. Show me how the world—the real, physical world, once filled with passenger pigeons, great auks, cod, tuna, salmon, sea mink, lions, great apes, migratory songbirds, forests—is a better place because of science. Science has done far more than facilitate the destruction of the natural world: it has increased this culture‘s ability to destroy by many orders of magnitude. We can talk all we want about conservation biology and about the use of science to measure biodiversity, but in the real, physical world the real, physical effects of science on real, living nonhumans has been nothing short of atrocious. Science has been given three hundred years or so to prove itself. And of course three hundred years ago great auks (and fish, and whales) filled the seas, and passenger pigeons and Eskimo curlews filled the skies, and soil was deeper, and native forests still stood. If three hundred years of chainsaws, CFCs, depleted uranium, automobiles, genetic engineering, airplanes, routine international trade, computers, plastics, endocrine disrupters, pesticides, vivisection, internal combustion engines, fellerbunchers, dragline excavators, televisions, cellphones, and nuclear (and conventional) bombs are not enough to convey the picture, then that picture will never be conveyed.‖ [2.15] Without science, there would not be ten times more plastic than phytoplankton in the oceans. The Nazi Holocaust was, as I made clear in The Culture of Make Believe, and as Zygmunt Bauman made clear in Modernity and the Holocaust, a triumph of the modern industrial rationalistic scientific instrumentalist perspective. Global warming, which may end in planetary murder, would not be running rampant without the assistance of science and scientists. Without science there would be no hole in the ozone. Without science and scientists, we would not face the threat of nuclear annihilation. Without science, there would be no industrial civilization, which even without global warming would still be leading to planetary murder. Sure, science brought us television, modern medicine (and modern diseases), and cardboard-tasting strawberries in January, but anyone who would rather have those than a living planet is, well, a typical member of this culture. If it‘s the case that evolution happened so that we would come to exist,

then it‘s pretty damn obvious we‘re fucking up whatever we were brought into being to do. How much sense would it make to have all of this evolution take place simply so that the point, the apex, the pinnacle of this evolution can end life on the planet? Talk about the world‘s longest and stupidest shaggy dog story.‖ [3] Patriarchy‟s „Civilized‟ (War Against Nature & AnthroCorpocentric (corporate human focussed) Spirituality:

Women)

“Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women” – Primitivist, John Zerzan in Patriarchy, Civilization, and the Origins of Gender6 “It may, I think, even be argued that Communism in Russia, National Socialism in Germany, and Capitalism and Liberal Democracy in the Western countries are really three forms of the same thing, and that they are all moving by different but parallel paths to the same goal, which is the mechanization of human life and the complete subordination of the individual to the state and to the economic process.” - Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Modern State7

[3.1] An in depth introduction into the concepts of primitivism (Leavers) and/or the history of patriarchy‘s relationship to totalitarian agriculture civilization, can be found in, among others: John Zerzan8: (2012): Future Primitive Revisited; (2010): Origins: A John Zerzan Reader; (2008): Twilight of the Machines; (2002): Running On Emptiness; (1999): Against Civilization (editor); (1994): Future Primitive; (1991): Questioning Technology (co-edited with Alice Carnes); (1999): Elements of Refusal. Richard Heinberg (1995): The Primitivist Critique of Civilization9. Daniel Quinn (1992) Ishmael; (1996) The Story of B; (1997) My Ishmael; (2000) Beyond Civilization. Robert McElvaine (2001): Eve's Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor and the Shaping of History; (2001): Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History. [4] Fundamental Differences between Gender Balanced Primitivism (Leavers) & Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization (Takers): [4.1] Problem Solving: Transparent Management Coercion Takers: A.

Listening

Leavers

Perception

Transparent Listening: Every individual deserves to be heard, where ideas are valued on their merit. Reputations are based upon an individual‘s commitment to total transparency which includes exposure of individuals and cultural skeletons for public analysis and cultural ownership.

John Zerzan: Patriarchy, Civilization, And The Origins Of Gender http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-patriarchy-civilization-and-the-origins-of-gender 7 Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Modern State (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935), xv. 8 http://www.johnzerzan.net/books/ 9 http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm 6

Perception Management Coercion: Only individuals who endorse breeding and consumption war socio-political values deserve to be heard; i.e. those with a large following or those with consumptionist materialist status symbols. Reputations are based upon an individual‘s capacity for perception management. Their ability to ignore, silence and censor critics.

[4.2] Ecocentric Insecurity Takers:

Masculinity

Leavers

AnthroCorpocentric

Masculine

Ecocentric Masculinity: application of a single human standard for all, irrespective of culture; cultural endorsement for taking personal responsibility for procreation and consumption below carrying capacity, where character and integrity are considered socio-political status symbols.

AnthroCorpocentric Masculine Insecurity: political correct application of different standards for men from different cultures, and between men and women; cultural endorsement for breeding and consumption wars as sociopolitical status symbols.

[4.3]

Law of Limited Competition Leavers vs Totalitarian Agriculture Takers:

Law of Limited Competition: Agriculture based upon producing enough for survivable needs, enables population control and provision of/sharing of resources to other species to enable their sustainable survival.

Totalitarian Agriculture: Agriculture based upon maximizing surpluses, to generate consumption war materialist status, enabling greater population growth, who are used as cannon fodder to conquer new territory and deny other species and groups access to ecological resources for food.

[4.4] Lifestyle Consciousness: Carrying Capacity Leavers vs Breeding & Consumption War Takers: A.

Carrying Capacity: Cultural values which value procreation and consumption practices below carrying capacity.

Breeding and Consumption Wars: Cultural values which endorse breeding and consumption wars as socio-political status symbols.

[4.5] See Annexure: Summary: Ecocentric Gender Balanced Primitivist Principles, for additional background to aforementioned principles. [5] Spiritual Test: Rename Templeton Prize to „Templeton Prize for Taker – Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric -- Spirituality‟ [6]

Templeton Prize Nomination Procedures:

[6.1] The Templeton Prize‘s focus on Taker Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric spirituality is clearly visible in its nomination procedures.

[6.2] The following information is required from an individual nominating another individual for the Templeton Prize10: The following nomination:

information

required

complete

your

The nominator's name, organizational affiliation, and valid email address The candidate's full name, gender, organizational affiliation, and contact information A detailed narrative explaining why the candidate is worthy of consideration for the Templeton Prize. This narrative can be of any length as long as it demonstrates the candidate's significant contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension. When writing your Templeton Prize Nomination narrative, please consider the following criteria. These criteria are all equally important aspects of a Nominee's candidacy. However, realistically no single nominee will reflect every dimension noted, but on the whole, the Nomination narrative should reflect the creativity, innovation, rigor and impact of the work of your candidate. Please consider all of the following when writing your Narrative, and to the best of your ability, define how the nominee's work is effective in each of these criteria: Spiritual Dimensions - How has the individual made exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimensions, whether through insight, discovery or practical works? Entrepreneurship - Does the individual capture the full meaning and breadth of being an "entrepreneur of the spirit" someone who has both explored and then achieved a substantial record of contributions to "spiritual progress" - especially in regard to truly innovative discoveries and then widely influential dissemination? New Insights regarding the Divine - From any domain of human effort: from science to philosophy - to social science - to theology - and/or to creation of new high-impact organizations - how has the individual demonstrated singular success or breakthroughs with clear evidence of progress in humanity's effort to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine? Spiritual Realities - Does the individual's work clearly represent innovative - theoretical - practical - and enduring impact in accomplishments and communications regarding previously unrecognized dimensions of "Spiritual Realities", including love, forgiveness, gratitude, creativity, infinity, ultimate reality and purpose in the cosmos? Spiritual Dilemmas in Life - What has the individual done to demonstrate breakthroughs in addressing the timeless spiritual 10

http://www.templetonprize.org/nomination.html

dilemmas of human life through open-minded humility in asking and seeking innovative answers to questions of substance and meaning and the challenging of assumptions? Nominee's Curriculum Vitae or Biography if Curriculum Vitae not available. A list of up to five relevant works (essays, book chapters, books, journal articles, lectures, blogs, or websites) that demonstrate the candidate's achievements or discuss the impact of the candidate's contributions to life's spiritual dimension. For those candidates with numerous publications, we ask that the nominator list only the works most relevant to the purpose of the Templeton Prize. A minimum of 3 (three) and a maximum of 5 (five) References who can speak to the qualifications of the candidate. Please list their names, organizational affiliation, and full contact information, and most importantly, their email addresses. Nominators are strongly advised to contact the list of References submitted and alert them regarding your submission of their name as a Reference. The Templeton Prize office will contact each Reference and ask them to submit a letter of concrete analysis as to the named candidate's significant contributions in any one of several of the listed criteria that strongly pertain to the goals and purposes of the Templeton Prize.

[6.3] Organized religion – i.e. an organizational affiliation – is a Patriarchal Anthropocentric religious concept, based upon patriarchal concepts of domination and the objectification of nature, accumulation of power, socio-political status, etc. Ecocentric and Primitivist religions do not objectify nature, or create corporate or organizational affiliations justifying the objectification of nature, they worship nature and living in harmony with nature; not corporations and power. [6.4] The language and concepts referred to in the ‗spiritual dimensions‘ ‗entrepreneurship‘ ‗New Insights regarding the divine‘ ‗Spiritual realities‘, ‗Spiritual dilemma‘s‘ paragraphs all reflect a Patriarchal Taker (Civilization) Anthropocentric perspective towards spirituality and life. [6.5]

For example:

―organisational affiliation‖ – endorsement of organized religion, which is a Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric religious concept. Ecocentric Primitivist spiritual teachers and practitioners do not establish organized religions, for domination, exploitation and conquering purposes.

―"entrepreneur of the spirit" - someone who has both explored and then achieved a substantial record of contributions to "spiritual progress" especially in regard to truly innovative discoveries and then widely influential dissemination?‖. Corpratization of spirituality: entrepreneur of the spirit… widely influential dissemination.

―creation of new high-impact organisations‖ – i.e. organisations with a high impact power to exploit raw materials; the more raw materials the corporation uses more effectively than anyone else, the more power – high impact – to it.

[6.6] In fact many of the ‗spiritual problems‘ of Takers – crime, war, racism, sexism, political correctness, resource war, scarcity, poverty, unemployment, mental illness, alienation, etc – are a direct result of the Taker Civilization lifestyle; i.e. the adoption of Patriarchal breeding and consumption war values, as the foundation for power and domination, by means of socio-political status or economic, political or military coercion. Templeton Prize Recipients (1973-2013): [7] According to the Templeton Prize website11, the following individuals were awarded the Templeton Prize for the following reasons: [7.1]

Mother Teresa (1973):

Taker Templeton‟s: Mother Teresa, founder of India‘s Missionaries of Charity, was recognized by the inaugural Templeton Prize (six years before she received the Nobel Peace Prize) for her extraordinary efforts to help the homeless and neglected children of Calcutta. Her heroic work brought about real change among those she served and continues to inspire millions around the world.

Leaver Primitivists: Mother Theresa‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. a. Vatican Crimes (24 Feb 2013): Deceitful and Dark Side of Mother Theresa Revealed by 3 Montreal Professors12; b. New Statesman (12 Jan 2012): Mother Teresa and the Paedophile13; c.

Christopher Hitchens: The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice14.

d. Christopher Hitchens: Hell’s Angel: Mother Theresa of Calcutta15: Facts: 1. The Catholic Church and the brainless mass media loved her. 2. She raised a ton of money, much of it from criminals who needed to recycle their image. 3. The money she raised was used primarily for

http://www.templetonprize.org/previouswinner.html http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2013/02/deceiftul-and-dark-side-of-mother.html 13 http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/nelson-jones/2012/01/mother-teresa-mcguire-abuse 14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position 15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG-lgmPvYA 11 12

additional self promotion and the few people her Order did help received the most low level assistance imaginable. [7.2]

Brother Roger (1974):

Taker Templeton‟s: Brother Roger was founder and Prior (director) of the religious brotherhood known as the Taizé Community in France. He initiated efforts to aide orphans in the region surrounding the community, which led to the founding of the Council of Youth and then the Intercontinental Meetings of Young Adults, which annually bring tens of thousands of young adults from throughout the world to pray and reflect in Taizé.

Leaver Primitivists: Brother Roger ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Brother Roger endorsing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.3]

Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1975):

Taker Templeton‟s: Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was President of India from 1962 to 1967. An Oxford Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics, he consistently advocated non-aggression in India‘s conflicts with neighboring Pakistan. His accessible writings underscored his country‘s religious heritage and sought to convey a universal reality of God that embraced love and wisdom for all people.

Leaver Primitivists: Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan endorsing Ecocentric nonPatriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.4]

Cardinal Suenens (1976):

Taker Templeton‟s: Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, was a pioneer in the research and discourse of the Charismatic Renewal Movement. The Cardinal‘s enlightened discourse provided guidance and reassurance about the movement, eliminating misunderstanding and offering thoughtful insight to followers and observers alike.

Leaver Primitivists: Cardinal Suenens ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Cardinal Suenens endorsing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.5]

Chiara Lubich (1977):

Taker Templeton‟s: Chiara Lubich founded and developed Italy‘s Focolare Movement, a community dedicated to serving the poor. With roots in Trent, it expanded to other Italian cities, followed by Focolare settlements worldwide, including in Belgium, Germany, France, the United States, Japan, and Hong Kong.

Leaver Primitivists: Chiara Lubich ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Chiara Lubich endorsing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.6]

Thomas Torrance (1978):

Templeton Takers: Thomas Torrance, former Moderator of the Church of Scotland, became one of the first religious thinkers to win the respect of both theologians and scientists. His insights on the rationality of the universe attempt to provide evidence of God through scientific reasoning.

Leaver Primitivists: Thomas Torrance ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle

Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Thomas Torrance endorsing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. [7.7] A.

Taker Templeton‟s: Nikkyo Niwano co-founded the Japanese Buddhist movement Rissho Kosei-Kai, which aims to establish ―the teaching of the true Law in the world, mutual exchange of thought among people of faith, and the perfection of the personality.‖ The movement blossomed from a handful of adherents into the world‘s largest Buddhist lay group. Niwano was also the founder of the World Conference of Religion and Peace.

Leaver Primitivists: Nikkyo Niwano‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Thomas Torrance practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. For example the Risshō Kōsei Kai‘s Peace activities16 totally ignore overpopulation and overconsumption (living above carrying capacity) as root causes of conflict.

[7.8]

Nikkyo Niwano (1979):

Ralph Wendell Burhoe (1980):

Taker Templeton‟s: Ralph Wendell Burhoe was the founder and editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. Burhoe pursued a passionate investigation into the differences and similarities between theology and science, becoming one of the world‘s most informed voices in communicating this evolving research.

Leaver Primitivists: Ralph Wendell Burhoe‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Ralph Wendell Burhoe practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d)

http://www.rk-world.org/peace.aspx

Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. [7.9]

Dame Cicely Saunders (1981):

Taker Templeton‟s: Dame Cicely Saunders spent years close to terminally ill patients as they expressed their physical, psychological, and spiritual pain. She went on to found the Hospice and Palliative Care Movement, combining a scientifically rigorous program with a unique social and spiritual awareness.

Leaver Primitivists: Dame Cicely Saunders‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Dame Cicely Saunders practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.10]

Billy Graham (1982):

Taker Templeton‟s: Billy Graham took his message of Christianity into the electronic world of radio and television, invigorating an entire generation with a simple and poignant message of salvation. He maintained a dignity that drew enormous audiences and enthusiastic support with an interpretation of the Gospel that still speaks to the problems and pressures of today.

Leaver Primitivists: Billy Graham‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Billy Graham practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.11] A.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1983): Taker Templeton‟s: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn‘s struggle for open expression made him one of the world‘s most respected men. Under the repressive Soviet regime, he held firm in his beliefs and shared his

worldview through powerful writings and devastating critiques of Russian Communism. His works renewed vitality in the Orthodox tradition and evidenced a profound spirituality. B.

[7.12]

Leaver Primitivists: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. Michael Bourdeaux (1984):

Taker Templeton‟s: Michael Bourdeaux, founder of Keston College in England, worked to examine and explain the systematic destruction of religion in Iron Curtain nations during the Cold War and to defend the rights of faiths in these countries to worship as they chose. When the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc regimes collapsed, Bourdeaux‘s efforts for universal religious freedom were widely embraced.

Leaver Primitivists: Michael Bourdeaux‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Michael Bourdeaux practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.13]

Sir Alister Hardy (1985):

Taker Templeton‟s: Sir Alister Hardy, founder of the Sir Alister Hardy Research Centre at Oxford, England, began his career as a marine biologist but went on to gain prominence for original empirical studies that used scientific methodology to investigate religious experience. He spent a lifetime seeking evidence of God‘s centrality to the human condition.

Leaver Primitivists: Sir Alister Hardy‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization

values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Sir Alister Hardy practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. [7.14]

James McCord (1986):

Taker Templeton‟s: James McCord was chancellor Theological Inquiry in Princeton, New Jersey and Princeton Theological Seminary. He spent his investigating the relationship between science and studies on the nature of reality.

Leaver Primitivists: James McCord‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of James McCord practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.15]

of the Center for president of the professional life religion through

Stanley L. Jaki (1987):

Taker Templeton‟s: Stanley L. Jaki, a Benedictine monk and Professor of Astrophysics at Seton Hall University, was a leading thinker in areas at the boundary of science and theology. His many books carefully delineate the importance of differences as well as similarities between science and religion.

Leaver Primitivists: Stanley L. Jaki‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Jaki practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.16]

Inamullah Kahn (1988):

Taker Templeton‟s: Inamullah Kahn, founder and former secretarygeneral of the Modern World Muslim Congress in Karachi, Pakistan, devoted his life to advancing peace among Muslims, Christians, and Jews. His interfaith activism provided important new opportunities to foster good will and understanding, in particular, by playing a crucial role in helping to settle the war between Iran and Iraq and to bring a message of peace to apartheid-era South Africa.

Leaver Primitivists: Inamullah Kahn‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Kahn practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.17]

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1989) (awarded jointly):

Taker Templeton‟s: Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker explored the intersection of physics, cosmology, and theology in work that placed him at the forefront of the reconciliation between religion and natural science. His key discoveries in nuclear physics, along with his application of nuclear physics to astrophysics, caused him to question the estrangement of religion and science and led to his investigation of Christianity‘s obligation to technology.

Leaver Primitivists: Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of von Weizsäcker endorsing/practicing Ecocentric nonPatriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.18] A.

Lord MacLeod (1989) (awarded jointly): Taker Templeton‟s: Lord MacLeod, founder of the monastic Iona Community on an island off the west coast of Scotland, spent his life reviving a prayer-centered spiritual movement. This ecumenical community‘s work continues, encouraging peace in the world and helping ordinary men and women with their personal struggles.

[7.19]

Leaver Primitivists: Lord MacLeod‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of von Weizsäcker endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. L. Charles Birch (1990) (awarded jointly):

Taker Templeton‟s: L. Charles Birch, Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney, Australia, engaged in adventurous reflection on questions of science and faith throughout his career as a biologist and geneticist. He saw modern discoveries about natural science as expanding the understanding of God as designer and creator of the universe and its creatures.

Leaver Primitivists: L. Charles Birch‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of von Weizsäcker endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.20]

Baba Amte (1990) (awarded jointly):

Taker Templeton‟s: Baba Amte left his comfortable life as a wealthy Hindu lawyer to follow a personal calling, developing modern communities to help those with Hanson‘s Disease (leprosy) and other so-called untouchables of his native India.

Leaver Primitivists: Baba Amte‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Amte endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.21]

Lord Jakobovits (1991):

Taker Templeton‟s: Lord Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth from 1967 to 1991, was a spiritual leader of steadfast principles and unwavering ethics for more than 50 years. His book, Jewish Medical Ethics, helped to establish that field. His prominent public voice extended his moral authority far beyond the Jewish community.

Leaver Primitivists: Lord Jakobovits‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Lord Jakobovits endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.22]

Kyung-Chik Han (1992):

Taker Templeton‟s: Kyung-Chik Han was the founder of Seoul‘s 60,000member Young Nak Presbyterian Church. His fervent work for refugees and the poor epitomized the growth of Christianity in South Korea. His experience as a survivor of war and political oppression made him one of his country‘s most respected religious leaders.

Leaver Primitivists: Kyung-Chik Han‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Han endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.23] A.

Charles W. Colson (1993): Taker Templeton‟s: Charles W. Colson, former special counsel to President Richard Nixon, began Prison Fellowship after serving a federal prison sentence for obstructing justice in the Pentagon Papers case. It is now the largest prison outreach program in the world, operating a network of ministries in more than 110 nations. The organization has made substantial gains in breaking the cycle of crime and recidivism.

[7.24]

Leaver Primitivists: Charles W. Colson‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Colson endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. Michael Novak (1994):

Taker Templeton‟s: A former university professor and U.S. ambassador and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Novak has developed influential new insights into the spiritual foundations of economic and political systems. His book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, and other writings won the enthusiastic notice of such world leaders as Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel.

Leaver Primitivists: Michael Novak‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Novak endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.25]

Paul Davies (1995):

Taker Templeton‟s: Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, holds the post of College Professor at Arizona State University. His research has been in the fields of quantum gravity, black holes, earlyuniverse cosmology, and astrobiology as it relates to the origin of life and the transfer of microorganisms between planets.

Leaver Primitivists: Paul Davies‘ ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Davies endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition

agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx consuming below carrying capacity. [7.26]

jurisprudence:

procreating

and

William R. “Bill” Bright (1996):

Taker Templeton‟s: William R. ―Bill‖ Bright began a person-to-person sharing of New Testament scripture on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles in the 1950s, calling his movement Campus Crusade for Christ. The organization grew to become an international ministry. His later efforts included calling for worldwide spiritual revival through prayer and fasting.

Leaver Primitivists: William R. ‗Bill‘ Bright‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Bright endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.27]

Pandurang Shastri Athavale (1997):

Taker Templeton‟s: Pandurang Shastri Athavale was 19 when he and his co-workers began bhaktiferi—devotional visits to villages in India to spread the message of love for God and others. Athavale and his coworkers developed the Hindu practice of swadhyaya, a form of self-study that inspires each individual to recognize an inner God, cultivate an increased self-respect, and abandon immoral behavior.

Leaver Primitivists: Pandurang Shastri Athavale‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Athavale endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.28]

Sir Sigmund Sternberg (1998):

Taker Templeton‟s: Sir Sigmund Sternberg, a British philanthropist and businessman, has encouraged interfaith dialogue for decades. His behindthe-scenes diplomacy and leadership have played a critical role in promoting better relations among Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Leaver Primitivists: Sir Sigmund Sternberg‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Sternberg endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.29]

Ian Barbour (1999):

Taker Templeton‟s: Ian Barbour is one of the world pioneers in the integration of science and religion. His books and articles have helped to expand the field of theology not only for Christianity but also for other faiths. A physicist and former chair of the religion department, Barbour is Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and Society at Carleton College.

Leaver Primitivists: Ian Barbour‘s ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Barbour endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.30] A.

Freeman Dyson (2000): Taker Templeton‟s: Freeman Dyson is a physicist and mathematician and Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey. His contributions to science include the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Dyson‘s writings on the meaning of science and its relation to other disciplines, especially religion and ethics, challenge humankind to reconcile technology and social justice.

[7.31]

Leaver Primitivists: Freeman Dyson‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Dyson endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. Arthur Peacocke (2001):

Taker Templeton‟s: Arthur Peacocke was a biochemist who, after pioneering early research into the physical chemistry of DNA, received a Bachelor of Divinity from the University of Birmingham and was ordained in the Church of England as a priest-scientist. In 1973, he became Dean of Clare College, Cambridge, where he pursued his interdisciplinary vocation. He also founded the Society of Ordained Scientists to advance the development of the field of science and religion.

Leaver Primitivists: Arthur Peacocke‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Peacock endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.32]

John C. Polkinghorne (2002):

Taker Templeton‟s: John C. Polkinghorne is a mathematical physicist and Anglican priest whose treatment of theology as a natural science has invigorated the search for an interface between science and religion. His writings apply scientific approaches to the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy and have brought him recognition as a unique voice for understanding the Bible and Christian doctrine.

Leaver Primitivists: John C. Polkinghorne‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any

evidence of Polkinghorne endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. [7.33]

Holmes Rolston III (2003):

Taker Templeton‟s: Holmes Rolston III is University Distinguished Professor at Colorado State University and a Presbyterian minister whose 40 years of research on the religious imperative to respect nature helped to establish the field of environmental ethics. His work assigns value not only to human beings but also to plants, animals, species, and ecosystems as core issues of theological and scientific concern.

Leaver Primitivists: Holmes Rolston III‘s ‗environmental ethics‘ ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorses Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness, with an ‗environmental ethics‘ twist. I was not able to find any evidence of Rolston advocating a return to an Ecocentric masculinity, the termination of totalitarian agriculture industrial civilization, or the adoption of jurisprudence limiting procreation and consumption to below carrying capacity levels. The value assigned to nature, plants, animals and ecosystems appears to stem from a philosophical perspective of taking care of it as human‘s property; for the benefit of humans; not from recognizing the spirit of plants, and nature, and relating to those spirits.

In Environmental Ethics17 he writes: ―Environmental ethics remained unknown until the mid-1970s… Environmental ethics applies ethics to the environment, analogously to ethics applied to BUSINESS (chapter 19), MEDICINE (chapter 17), engineering, LAW (chapter 13) and technology. Such humanist applications may be challenging: limiting population growth or development, questioning consumerism and the distribution of wealth, advocating the inclusion of women or aboriginal peoples, or fearing global warming. Environmental quality is necessary for quality of human life‖; ignoring environmental spirituality that has existed for millions of years. Environmental ethics is thus an anthropocentric concept, where humans are still the center of the universe, but simply realize they need to take better care of their objectified property: nature, for their own personal profits and benefits.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~rolston/ee-blackwell-comp.pdf

[7.34]

I have not been able to read all of Rolston‘s work, but Rolston‘s ‗environmental ethics‘ does not appear to endorse an Ecocentric spirituality; where nature is revered as the ‗spirit‘ or ‗source of life‘. Instead it remains Anthropocentric, where humans are the superior being, and choose to behave ethically towards nature, as its inferior object, by treating it ‗ethically‘ for the ‗sustainable development‘ (an oxymoron) profits of humans. Nature still remains anthropocentric human‘s object. Human is simply choosing to feel more self righteous about himself, by choosing to treat his ecological objects with more ‗respect‘; for his own ultimate benefit and profit. George F. R. Ellis (2004):

Taker Templeton‟s: George F. R. Ellis is a theoretical cosmologist and Professor Emeritus of Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He has investigated whether or not there was a start to the universe, if there is one universe or many, the evolution of complexity, and the functioning of the human mind, as well as the intersection of these issues with areas beyond the boundaries of science.

Leaver Primitivists: George F. R. Ellis‘ ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Ellis endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.35]

Charles H. Townes (2005):

Taker Templeton‟s: Charles H. Townes, Professor in the Graduate School at the University of California, Berkeley, shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics. His 1966 article, ―The Convergence of Science and Religion,‖ established him as a voice seeking commonality between the two disciplines. He describes his 1951 discovery of the principles of the maser—while sitting on a park bench—as a ―revelation‖ and an example of the interplay between the ―how‖ and ―why‖ of science and religion.

Leaver Primitivists: Charles H. Townes‘ ‗scientific spirituality‘endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Townes endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual

values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. [7.36]

John D. Barrow (2006):

Taker Templeton‟s: John D. Barrow is Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University and Gresham Professor of Geometry at Gresham College in London. His writings on the relationship between life and the universe draw insights from mathematics, physics, and astronomy, challenging scientists and theologians to cross disciplinary boundaries to test what they may or may not understand about the origins of time, space, and matter and the behavior of the universe.

Leaver Primitivists: John D. Barrow‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Barrow endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.37]

Charles Taylor (2007):

Taker Templeton‟s: Charles Taylor, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at McGill University, argues that problems such as violence and bigotry can be solved only by considering both their secular and spiritual dimensions. He suggests that depending wholly on secularized viewpoints leads to fragmented reasoning and prevents crucial insights that might help a global community that is increasingly exposed to clashes of culture, morality, nationality, and religion.

Leaver Primitivists: Charles Taylor‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Taylor endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.38]

Michael Heller (2008):

Taker Templeton‟s: Michael Heller, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Cracow, Poland, is a cosmologist and Catholic priest who has developed sharply focused and strikingly original concepts on the origin and cause of the universe. He engages a wide range of sources in mathematics, philosophy, cosmology, and theology, allowing each field to share insights that may inform the others without any violence to their respective methodologies.

Leaver Primitivists: Michael Heller‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Heller endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.39]

Bernard d‟Espagnat (2009):

Taker Templeton‟s: Bernard d‘Espagnat is a French physicist and philosopher of science whose explorations of the philosophical implications of quantum physics have opened new vistas on the definition of reality and the potential limits of knowable science. Much of his work centers on what he calls ―veiled reality,‖ a hidden yet unifying domain beneath what is perceived as time, space, matter, and energy – concepts challenged by quantum physics as possible mere appearances.

Leaver Primitivists: Bernard d‘Espagnat‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Bernard d‘Espagnat endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.40] A.

Francisco J. Ayala (2010): Taker Templeton‟s: Francisco J. Ayala, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, is known for his achievements as an evolutionary geneticist and for his opposition to the entanglement of science and religion while also calling for mutual respect between the two. He has been a major voice on the ethical issues related to the study of

human evolution and a frequent spokesperson in the debate between evolution and creationism. B.

[7.41]

Leaver Primitivists: Francisco J. Ayala‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Ayala endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. Martin J. Rees (2011):

Taker Templeton‟s: Martin J. Rees, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, Astronomer Royal, and former president of the Royal Society, is one of the world‘s leading theoretical astrophysicists. His distinguished achievements in cosmology and astrophysics have been exceptionally broad-based, and his pioneering research has contributed to the understanding of the origin and nature of the universe.

Leaver Primitivists: Martin J. Rees‘ ‗scientific spirituality‘ endorsed Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Rees endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

[7.42]

The 14th Dalai Lama (2012):

Taker Templeton‟s: The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is a Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader whose engagement with multiple dimensions of science and with people far beyond his own religious traditions has made him an incomparable global voice for universal ethics, nonviolence, and harmony among world religions. For decades he has focused on the connections between the investigative traditions of science and Buddhism, specifically, by encouraging scientific reviews of the power of compassion and its potential to address the world's fundamental problems.

Leaver Primitivists: Dalai Lama‘s ‗scientific spirituality‘ practices/endorses Taker Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization values of: Perception Management

Coercion, Masculine Insecurity, Totalitarian Agriculture, and Breeding and Consumption War Lifestyle Consciousness. I was unable to find any evidence of Dalai Lama endorsing/practicing Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spiritual values: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. a. The Great Deception:18 ―So much for Shangri-la and a ―holy‖ political leader. A Great Deception is a compelling account of Tibetan history and the activities of the current 14th Dalai Lama that stand in shocking contrast to popular perceptions. The aims of this book are religious – to end the Dalai Lama‘s illegal ban on a mainstream Buddhist practice.‖ b. Crosstalk: Dalai Lama: CIA Monk exposed19 | Penn & Teller: Dalai Lama the Slave Owner20 | Al Jazeera: People & Power: Dalai Lama the Devil Within21 | Dalai Lama expels thousands of monks and ostracizes Tibetan families 22 | Russia Today: The Dalai Lama: Front Man for a Feudal Clique, Darling of Wealthy Mystics and Cold Warriors23 | Dalai Lama - The Wrong Guy for a Nobel Peace Prize?24 | The Dalai Lama and prime minister enforcing the ban of Dorje Shugden25 | Documentary uncovers the persecution under the Dalai Lama26 | Michael Parenti: Friendly Feudalism – The Tibet Myth27 | Newsweek: When Heaven Shed Blood: Details Of The Cia's Secret War In Tibet Are Only Now Leaking Out, A Tale Of Daring Espionage, Violence And Finally Betrayal28 | Reuters: Female Living Buddha condemns Dalai Lama29 | Tibet: The Other side of the story30 | Documents present picture of brutal past31 | When the Dalai Lama ruled: Hell on Earth32 | The Tawdry Politics of Tibetan Buddhism33 | The Dalai Lama’s Hidden Past34 | CIA’s Secret War in Tibet35 | Tibet, the Great Game & the CIA36.

http://www.agreatdeception.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmw5FIjDDBY 20 www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7t2Ztb92mE 21 http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/video/dalai-lama-devil-within/ 22 http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/video/dalai-lama-expelling-monks/ 23 http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/video/mystics-and-cold-warriors/ 24 http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/video/dalai-lama-nobel-prize/ 25 http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/video/speeches-enforcing-the-ban/ 26 http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/video/dorje-shugden-documentary/ 27 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html 28 http://www.newsweek.com/id/88042 29 http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-33305820080429 30 http://news.deviantart.com/article/46683/ 31 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/10/content_7951789.htm 32 http://www.rwor.org/a/firstvol/tibet/tibet1.htm 33 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/tib-m22.shtml 34 http://www.greenleft.org.au/1996/248/13397 35 http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm/6 36 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8442 18 19

[7.43] Not one of the Templeton Prize‘s recipients from 1973 to 2012 ‗spirituality‘ practiced/endorsed Ecocentric non-Patriarchal, Primitivist spirituality: (a) Transparent Listening; (b) Ecocentric Masculinity; (c) Law of Limited Competition agriculture, and (d) Æquilibriæx jurisprudence: procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.

Nomination of the 2013 Templeton Prize was corrupt, fraudulent and discriminatory [8]

Professor Steven D. Gish: Desmond Tutu‟s Biographer: [8.1]

Auburn University describes37 Prof Gish as follows:

Originally from Iowa, Dr. Steven Gish joined the Department of History in 1997. He specializes in African history and conducts research on modern South African history. Among his publications are Cultures of the World - Ethiopia (Marshall Cavendish, 1996) and Alfred B. Xuma: African, American, South African (New York University Press and Macmillan, 2000). Most recently, he has published Desmond Tutu: A Biography (Greenwood Press, 2004).

[9]

Nomination of Desmond Tutu by Steven D. Gish:

[9.1] According to the Templeton Foundation38, the person who nominated Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was Steven D. Gish, Professor of History at Auburn University in Montgomery, Alabama. "To borrow Sir John Templeton's words, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a true 'entrepreneur of the spirit,' said Steven D. Gish, Professor of History at Auburn University in Montgomery, Alabama, in his letter of recommendation to the prize judges. "With his unfailing faith in 'God's dream,' he embodies the best instincts of us all."

[9.2] The Templeton Foundation do not reveal that Dr. Gish is also Archbishop Tutu‘s biographer. [9.3] The only article I could find which mentions that Gish is both Tutu biographer, as well as his nominator for the Templeton Prize, was from a newspaper in Alabama: Auburn University prof's nomination hands Bishop Desmond Tutu the Templeton Prize39: ―HUNTSVILLE, Alabama – Auburn

http://www.aum.edu/profile?email=sgish@aum.edu http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html 39 http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2013/04/desmond_tutu_templeton.html 37 38

University Professor Steven Gish, who has written a biography of Bishop Desmond Tutu, successfully nominated Tutu for the $1.7 million Templeton Prize.‖ [10]

Tutu Receives 2013 Templeton Prize Award:

[10.1] Taker Templeton‟s: Desmond Tutu rose to world prominence with his stalwart - and successful - opposition to South Africa's apartheid regime. After Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990 and subsequent election as president in the country's first multi-ethnic democratic elections, Tutu chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission employing a revolutionary and relentless policy of confession, forgiveness and resolution that helped shepherd his nation from institutionalized racial repression toward an egalitarian democracy. His deep faith and commitment to prayer and worship provides the foundation for his message of love and forgiveness, which has helped to liberate people around the world. [11] TRC Fraud Correspondence to Templeton Prize Judges, Tutu and Gish: [11.1] 04 April 2013, I submitted to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, copied to Templeton Prize admin and Judges: Questions to Archbishop Tutu; or if unanswered by Tutu and Prize Upheld by Templeton Prize Judges; (ii) Congratulations on Receipt of the Multinational Corporate Resource and Cultural Imperialists Templeton Prize for excellence in House Nigger subservience to getting rid of Boer Anti-Imperialists, and making SA safe for ‘Compulsive Developmentism’ Imperialists (i) cultural colonization of indigenous cultures, and (ii) resource plundering. (PDF40) Questions to Archbishop Desmond Tutu: 1. Please clarify in writing whether you believe the Templeton Judges are aware of the following Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and AntiApartheid Movement? 2. If the Templeton Judges are not aware of the following Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement, why are they ignorant of them? 3. If you (a) continue your policy of endorsing the censorship of the Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement, by refusing to transparently inform the Templeton Judges why you endorse the Anti-Apartheid movement and Constitutional Courts censorship of Radical Honoursty culture allegations of TRC Fraud; and (b) the Templeton Judges endorse your lack of honour and actions of censorship of your 40

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/130404_tutu-templeton1.html

involvement in TRC Fraud; we could fairly conclude that (c) You have been awarded the Multinational Corporate Resource and Cultural Imperialists Templeton Prize for excellence in House Nigger subservience to getting rid of Boer AntiImperialists, and making SA safe for „Compulsive Developmentism‟ Imperialists (i) cultural colonization of indigenous cultures, and (ii) resource plundering? Radical Honoursty TRC Fraud Fact Censored by Mandela, Tutu, ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movement: Corrupt Censorship by SA Constitutional Court of Radical Honoursty culture’s Application for Review of South Africa’s TRC Fraud: Mandela, Tutu, the ANC & Anti-Apartheid movement have censored and silenced the only South African who – for the past 12 years – has exposed South Africa‟s Anthropocentric and Ideologically biased TRC Fraud, and advocated on behalf of a brutally honest sincere and ecologically and scientifically credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission, focussed on exposing the underlying psychological, cultural, racial, Compulsive Development and Scarcity induced factors contributing to Apartheid‟s Political violence.

[11.2] 05 April 2013, I submitted to Archbishop Tutu and Templeton Prize Judges: President Zuma urges Archbishop Tutu to continue ANC, Anti-Apartheid Movements Censorship of their TRC Fraud.; Tutu’s Ultimate Spiritual Test. (PDF41) The Ultimate Opportunity to Test your House Nigga Commitment to Jesus vs. Pharisee Values of ‘Love and Forgiveness’.  Should you stand for Truth, Transparency based root cause problem solving?

and

scientific

 Should you find yourself a spiritual backbone to examine the evidence for South Africa‟s Anthropocentric and Ideologically biased TRC Fraud?  Should you advocate on behalf of a brutally honest sincere and ecologically and scientifically credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission, focussed on exposing the underlying psychological, cultural, racial, Compulsive Development and Scarcity induced factors contributing to Apartheid‟s Political violence? Only if your Spiritual convictions are an unswerving commitment to unbiased and unequivocal truth, 100 % transparency with fuck all concern about whose skeletons are being exposed, and scientific based root cause problem solving!

[11.3] 11 April 2013 I submitted to Prof. Steven Gish, Archbishop Tutu and Templeton Prize Judges: Radical Honoursty Culture and TYGAE Request for 41

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/130405_zumatrcfraud1.html

Withdrawal of your Nomination of Desmond Tutu as Recipient of Templeton Prize, due to your (a) biographer conflict of interest, and (b) failure to provide the evidence of Archbishop Tutu’s involvement in the cover-up and censorship of South Africa’s TRC Fraud. (PDF42)

[12]

Relief Requested:

[12.1] Amend the ‗Templeton Prize‘ to the ‗Templeton Prize for Taker – Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric – Spirituality‘; to accurately reflect the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric forms of spirituality Templeton endorses. [12.2] Withdraw the 2013 Templeton Prize from Archbishop Desmond Tutu for his (i) conflict of interest nomination, and (ii) involvement in, and endorsement of, South Africa‘s TRC Fraud, and discrimination against non-patriarchal Ecocentric Primitivist cultures. Dated at George, South Africa: 22 April 2013: Earth Day.

Lara Johnstone Member: Radical Honesty Culture Founder: Radical Honoursty Culture Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Founder: CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons Founder: Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: Equal & Balanced Eco/Anthropocentric Law Encl: Summary: Ecocentric Gender Balanced Primitivist Principles

http://sqswans.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/130411_tututempgish.html

Radical Honoursty Culture Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons AEquilibriaex: balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law www.guerrylla -law.co.nr

SUMMARY: ECOCENTRIC GENDER BALANCED PRIMITIVIST SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLES Problem Solving: Transparent Listening vs Perception Management Coercion: [1] Transparent Listening: Every individual deserves to be heard, where ideas are valued on their merit. Reputations are based upon an individual and culture‘s commitment to total transparency which includes exposure of individuals and cultural skeletons for public analysis and cultural ownership. [2] Perception Management Coercion: Only individuals who endorse breeding and consumption war socio-political values deserve to be heard; i.e. those with a large following or those with consumptionist materialist status symbols. Reputations are based upon an individual‘s capacity for perception management. Their ability to ignore, silence and censor critics, and skeletons. [3] For example: The TYGÆ Æx Party, based upon CommonSism Æquilibriæx jurisprudence principles, has bylaws, which require Party Officials to honestly answer all correspondence for their attention. Neither Political correctness, nor public relations image management is allowed. Officials are not allowed to engage in plausible deniability behaviour. To ignore anyone‘s correspondence is equivalent to castrating their voice or opinion, and castrating your own integrity an honour. If or where any individual‘s correspondence is ignored and denied an honest response from any party official, that individual may submit a Seppuku application to the party. Any TYGAE official found guilty of receiving correspondence and ignoring it, either by attempting to hide behind plausible deniability, or simply refusing to provide an honest answer, may voluntarily resign from the party, or if they wish to die an honourable member of the party, they can nominate a member of the party to assassinate them.

PO Box 5042 * George East, 6539 * Tel: (044) 870 7239 * Cel: (071) 170 1954

Ecocentric Masculinity vs Masculine Insecurity: [4] Eve‟s Seed: Patriarchy‟s History and „Control of Reproduction‟ Religion of Masculine Insecurity: ―What is history? The lie that everyone agrees on...‖ – Voltaire

[4.1] In Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History, and Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History, Robert McElvaine described it thus: ―Karl Marx had it wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate causative power in history: sex. Marx‗s famous formulation must be revised: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles based on the division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors derived from sex. Together, these closely related matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of reproduction has been even more fundamental to history than has control of the means of production... [4.2] Robert McElvaine ―throws down the gauntlet to academics and nonspecialists alike, daring a radical rethinking of the basic 'truths' on which cultures have been constructed.‖ He argues that ―there is nothing unique to Islam about male insistence on the subordination of and male control over women and their bodies.‖ McElvaine says misogynistic rulers may be religious fanatics, but their religion is not Islam, but Woody Allen‗s religion in his 2001 movie, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion: ―insecure masculinity‖. [4.3] Eve's Seed reviews ―some 94 centuries of human history, stretching from 8,000 B.C.E. and the invention of agriculture through the Middle Ages‖, to 20th century America, explaining how and why sexually insecure – ―not-a-woman‖ – men seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power, and have used their power to disproportionately influence the shaping of cultures. [4.4] According to John Pettegrew, Deepening the History of Masculinity and the Sexes: ―Vitally important to early economic and political history (bringing such changes as the creation of substantial material surplus and the rise of large states and war), agriculture—what McElvaine describes as the first of two "megarevolutions"—also sparked a massive male "backlash," as the female invention of planting crops and animal husbandry undermined the male role as hunter. Among the masculinist responses, men took over agriculture and invented war, as women became relegated to increasing the population needed for the new social order.‖ 2

[4.5] Subsequent cultural consequences being the â&#x20AC;&#x2022;conception misconceptionâ&#x20AC;&#x2013;, that men held all procreative power, and women were simply the dirt, wherein the seed was planted, which led to the assumption that the God-Creative-Force is male. The second mega-revolution occurred in the 16th century with the rise of geographic mobility and the marketplace. Manhood became associated with possessive individualism, however this conflicts with mans natural state towards association and cooperation formed during humanityâ&#x20AC;&#x2014;s long history of hunting in groups. [4.6] Women can do all the important things that men can (although, because of physical differences, in some areas not as well, on average), but there are some essential things that women can do that men cannot: bear and give birth to children and nourish them from their bodies. [4.7] Because of this relative incapacity, many men suffer, largely subconsciously, from what might be termed "womb envy" and "breast envy," or even the "non-menstrual syndrome." [4.8] To compensate for the things that they cannot do, men tell women that they may not do other things. Which activities women are excluded from varies from one culture to another, but some form of the procedure can be found in all societies. (A striking example of this practice in our own culture can be seen in a statement a Catholic bishop made in 1992: "A woman priest is as impossible as for me to have a baby.") [4.9] Because they cannot compete with women's capabilities in the crucial realms of reproduction and nourishing offspring, men generally seek to avoid a single standard of human behavior and achievement. They create separate definitions of "manliness" which are based on a false opposition to "womanliness." A "real man" has been seen in most cultures as "notawoman." [4.10] The "notawoman" definition of manhood leads men greatly to exaggerate the genuine, but small, differences between the sexes. Far from being genderbenders, men tend to be genderextenders. This produces the fallacious, but virtually universal, idea that women and men are "opposite sexes." This way of thinking can accurately be termed a bi-polar disorder. [4.11] Although this viewpoint actually begins with woman as the "standard" human and proceeds to define man by its supposed vast differences from that standard, people do not like to see themselves in negative terms, so men have generally sought ways to transform woman into a negative, thus making man positive. [4.12] These basic tendencies have existed throughout history, including what is inaccurately called "prehistory," but during the vast majority of human existence

both sexes had obviously essential roles. Women seemingly produced the children, nourished and cared for them, and also provided a large portion of the food for the group through gathering. Men provided meat through hunting and had the bulk of the responsibility for protecting the group from predators. This added up in many hunter-gatherer societies to some approximation of equality between the sexes. [4.13] Human life -- and the situation of both sexes -- was radically changed by the invention of agriculture, which in all likelihood was accomplished by women. These changes were so dramatic that they comprise one of two mega-revolutions in human existence. [4.14] Many ancient myths (including, most notably, chapters 3 of the Book of Genesis) constitute allegories for the invention of agriculture by women (Eve's eating from the Tree of Knowledge) and its long-term consequences (the loss of what seemed in distant retrospect to have been a pre-agricultural paradise in which people lived easily, without work, simply picking fruit from trees, and man having to go forth and till the soil to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow). The "Fall of Man" is a metaphor for an actual fall of men. [4.15] Agriculture moved Homo sapiens from what ecologists refer to as a Kselected reproductive strategy (limited resources make it appropriate to have a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each) to an r-selected reproductive strategy (abundant resources relative to population make it possible and desirable to have a large number of offspring). [4.16] This meant that the development of agriculture greatly enhanced the importance of one of the traditional female roles. Women would now be called upon to spend more of their lives in reproduction and less in production of food and other resources. [4.17] The development of methods for the intentional production of food (animal herding as well as agriculture) substantially devalued what men had traditionally done. Hunting was no longer needed and defense against other species declined in importance as groups of humans settled in growing numbers in farming areas into which predators ventured less frequently than their paths had crossed those of human hunter-gatherers. [4.18] The loss of value in their traditional roles left men adrift, seeking new meaningful roles, and increasingly resentful of women. The result was what can accurately be seen as a Neolithic and early Bronze Age backlash or "masculinist movement." [4.19] As men sought new roles, they took over what had previously been considered female roles. Agriculture itself was one of these. By the time plow agriculture began (ca. 4000 BCE), men were displacing women in the fields.

[4.20] At this point there arose an almost irresistible metaphor, the very widespread acceptance of which has shaped (or, more accurately, misshaped) human life through all of recorded history. The apparent analogy of a seed being planted in furrowed soil to a male's "planting" of semen in the vulva of a female led to the conclusion that men provide the seed of new life and women constitute the soil in which that seed grows. This metaphor has remained with us throughout history and it continues to mislead us in profound ways down to the present. [4.21] The seed metaphor reversed the apparent positions of the sexes in regard to procreative power. What had always appeared to be a principally female power was transformed into an entirely male power. No longer apparent bystanders in reproduction, men now claimed to be the reproducers, while women were reduced from the seeming creators to the soil in which men's creations grow. Women were left with all the work of procreation, but men now took all the credit. [4.22] During the Neolithic Age, then, women both ceased to be major producers (as men took over the production of plant food along with continuing their traditional responsibility for providing animal food) and ceased to be seen as having reproductive power. [4.23] The woman-made world of agriculture had, paradoxically, become a man's world to a degree unprecedented in human existence. Hell hath no fury like a man devalued. [4.24] The belief that men have procreative power led inevitably to the conclusion that the supreme Creative Power must also be male. The toxic fruit that grew from the seed metaphor was male monotheism. [4.25] The combination of the belief that God (or the god who is the ultimate creator) is male with the notion that humans are created in God's image yielded the inescapable conclusion that men are closer than women to godly perfection. Thus the line from the misconceptions about conception emanating from the seed metaphor to the belief, given its classic expressions by Aristotle, Aquinas, and Freud, that women are deformed or "incomplete" men is clear and direct. [4.26] As is suggested by the fact that the root of the word authority is author, it is the erroneous idea that men are the "authors" -- the creators -- that has formed the largely unspoken but pervasive basis for male authority throughout history. A clear example is the patria potestas that gave an ancient Roman man the power to "dispose of" his children. A father was thought to be the creator of "his" children and so he was granted the right to take away the life he was supposed to have given. [4.27] The seed metaphor and the mistaken conclusions that followed from it enabled men to stand womb envy on its head. The reversal was given its most

influential religious authority in the Bible. The human female is named woman (meaning "out of man") in Genesis 2 because we are told that the first woman was born from a man. And in Genesis 3 woman's creative power is reclassified as a curse and burden: "in pain you shall bring forth children." [4.28] The reversal of womb envy found its strongest "scientific" authority in Aristotle's Generation of Animals, where he argued that the great defect in women is that they lack generative power. In earlier times, when the male role in procreation was not comprehended, men had seemed like "infertile women" or "deformed women." Aristotle asserted that it was the other way around. By contending that menstrual fluid is a weak form of semen, lacking in the male fluid's life-giving powers, he also reversed the non-menstrual syndrome. He was saying, in effect, that men have the good genital discharge and menstrual bleeding is just a weak, infertile form of the powerful male secretion. [4.29] Once the seed metaphor had sprouted into the idea that God is male and so women are inferior, the original "notawoman" definition of manhood took on new and more menacing implications. Now what had been an essentially horizontal division became a clearly vertical one: traits and values associated with women were not simply classified as improper for men, but as inferior. [4.30] The total subordination of women throughout recorded history is but the first part of the devastating legacy of the Neolithic backlash and the seed metaphor. Equally important has been the concomitant suppression in men of all values, ideas, and characteristics associated with women and so defined as inferior. [4.31] Since many of the values classified as "feminine" (such as compassion, cooperation, nurturing, and self-sacrifice) are essential for the well-being of human societies, ways had to be found to bring them back, at least to a degree. This was accomplished principally through a series of male religious and philosophical figures, between the sixth century BCE and the first century CE, ranging from Confucius and the Buddha through the later Hebrew prophets and Jesus. These men preached the values that had been defined as feminine to men as well as women. [4.32] Religion has played a paradoxical role in the shaping of history based on sex. On the one hand, most religions since the rise of male monotheism have provided major weapons in advancing the argument of male superiority and female subordination. The paradox lies in the fact that religions have also been the principal means through which the more "feminine" characteristics and values have been urged upon society (especially men). [4.33] The need to appeal to men was at cross purposes with the objective of religions to restrain some of the maladaptive traits that are classified as "masculine" (e.g. quick resort to violence, hierarchical domination, and 6

competitiveness). Men were unlikely to listen to women telling them to act in ways that had been defined as "feminine," so a male priesthood seemed essential. But the men who took over Christianity had by the fourth century gone a long way towards "efeminating" (removing its feminine characteristics) the religion. [4.34] The basic problem insecure males have with sexual equality is that it threatens to re-establish a single human standard, one that includes areas in which men are unable to compete. Hence such men react fiercely and attempt to reinforce the wall they have erected between the sexes.

Law of Limited Competition vs Totalitarian Agriculture: [5] In Genetic feedback and human population regulation 1, Russell Hopfenberg argues there are only two agri-cultures on planet earth, and describes the consequences between the practices of these two Agri-Cultures: ―Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture. This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, ―The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.‖ Farb (1978) pointed out that ―intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.‖ He also asserted ―the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.‖ Farb’s statement makes clear that the ―adaptive change from foraging to production‖ is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties. These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).‖

[6] Primitive Sustainable Leavers: Ecological Law of Competition: “You may compete but you may not wage war”:

Limited

[6.1] Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: 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.

Hopfenberg, R. (2009)

[6.2] Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food. You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you. [6.3] A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law. [6.4] How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space. [6.5] Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory. [6.6] And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy. [6.7] When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated. [6.8] Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law, beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago. [6.9] Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go huntingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;even extremely aggressive animals like baboonsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them."

[6.10] Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone." [6.11] Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples." [7] Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Primitive Leavers and Unsustainable Civilized Takers: [7.1] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).2

Lifestyle & Jurisprudence: Sustainable RNR Carrying Capacity vs Unsustainable NNR Breeding & Consumption War: ―The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.‖ ― Voltaire

Hopfenberg, Russell (2007): Chapter 32-33: Before – After Forest Conversion to Cropland

―Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. If we hold that every right, ―natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights, including the right to breed. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem.‖ – Garrett Hardin, Limited World, Limited Rights3, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

The Birthday (1964): American-German artist Edward Kienholz: Woman in a Masonic doctors room (tiled floor), covered in dirt (dirt represents the furrow/earth of a woman's vagina, where the seed is planted). She is tied down (not consenting) while, screaming into a bubble (her voice is censored), and giving birth to missiles, implying Masonic use of women as brood sows for Human Factory Farming War Economy cannon fodder. Limited World, Limited Rights, by Garrett Hardin, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_limited_world_limited_rights.html 3

[8] AnthroCorpocentric4 Flat Earth Society5 Jurisprudence views the world from a firmly entrenched inaccurate Anthropocentric (human-centred) perspective, where there is always a brighter future, because the implicit assumption of our Anthropocentric political, economic and legal worldview is that there will always be ―enough‖ Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR‗s) to enable a brighter future, and all politics, religion and economics needs to concern itself with, is how to use these NNR‗s to provide ever improving material living standards for our everexpanding global population6. From a broader Ecocentric7 Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, beyond Peak NNR8, there is no hope for a brighter future, the future is one of depletion, austerity, resource wars & socio-economic and political collapse;9 because the fundamental assumption of ever-increasing NNR‗s, underlying our limited AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence perspective is inaccurate.10

[9]

Peak Oil is the end of cheap oil, it is the point where every barrel of oil is harder to find, more expensive to extract, and more valuable to whoever owns or controls it. As early as 2000, geological experts warned Peak Oil would occur sometime between 2000 and 200711. Cheap oil is the oxygen of the ―economic growth‖12 global economic system and industrial food production13. Scarcity: Humanity‟s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity‟s Consequences:

[10]

Overview:

Clugston (2012) (p.127): ―The AnthroCorpocentric perspective considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which natural resource inputs to a society‗s economy are converted into goods and services outputs (wealth creation). It also considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which goods and services (wealth) are allocated among a society‗s population. The fundamental assumption underlying the prevailing AnthroCorpocentric perspective is that notwithstanding periodic temporary shortfalls, natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities will remain sufficient to perpetuate global industrialism indefinitely.‗ – Scarcity, Clugston Chris (pg. 127) 5 Bartlett (1993) (1996/09) (1999/01) (2002); Hardin (1999); 6 Hardin (1985); Bartlett (2006/09); Guillebaud (2007); Leahy (2003) 7 ―The ecological perspective considers natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities as the ultimate limiting factors governing a society‗s economic/political processes and activities, its attainable economic output (GDP) level, and its attainable level of societal wellbeing—i.e., the material living standards enjoyed by the society‗s population.‖ – Scarcity, Clugston C (127) 8 Bartlett (2006/09); Clugston (2012): Peak NNR: ―NNRs are finite; and as their name implies, NNR reserves are not replenished on a time scale that is relevant to humans. More unfortunately, economically viable supplies associated with the vast majority of NNRs that enable our industrialized way of life are becoming increasingly scarce, both domestically (US) and globally. While there will always be ―plenty of NNR‘s in the ground, there will not always be ―plenty of economically viable NNR‘s in the ground. In fact, there are ―no longer enough economically viable NNR‘s in the ground to enable continuous improvement in human societal wellbeing at historical rates.‖ –Clugston, C: Scarcity 9 Scarcity (p.4) 10 Clugston Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‗s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity, page 4 11 On February 11, 2006 Deffeyes claimed world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005 12 Deffeyes (2006): "The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground." 13 Ruppert (2004): p.24: ―We eat oil. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed.‗ 4

Mr. Chris Clugston‘s14 Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon his analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that ―absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‗s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.‖15 [10.1]

[10.2] Scarcity‘s Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-4916) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNR‘s: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered ―scarce‖ globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are ―almost certain‖ to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will ―likely‖ remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered ―at risk‖. [10.3] NNR‘s at risk – i.e. years to global exhaustion of reserves – are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries); (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades).

Clugston, Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‗s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012). Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with everincreasing non-renewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. 15 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. ix 16 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 14

[10.4] Scarcity concludes ―Our Next Normal is Catastrophe‖: Our AnthroCorpocentric worldview does not recognize that ―from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,‖ to ―paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‗thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.‘‖17 [10.5] ―Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political ―fixes‖ are misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not ―broken‖; they are ―dying of slow starvation‖ for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs. [10.6] ―Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable, i.e. physically impossible – going forward.18 [10.7] ―Global humanity‗s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in selfinflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm. [10.8] ―All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the nottoo-distant future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. [10.9] We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm. [11]

Natural Resources and Human Evolution:

[11.1] During the past 2+ million years, humanity—Homo sapiens and our hominid predecessors—evolved through three major lifestyle paradigms: huntergatherer, agrarian, and industrial. [11.2] Each of the three paradigms is readily distinguishable from the other two in terms of its worldview, natural resource utilization behavior, and resulting level of societal wellbeing—i.e., attainable population levels and material living standards.

17 18

Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104

[12]

The Hunter-Gatherer Lifestyle Paradigm:

[12.1] The hunter-gatherer (HG) lifestyle paradigm spanned over 2 million years, from the time that our hominid ancestors first stood erect on the continent of Africa to approximately 8,000 BC. HG societies consisted of small nomadic clans, typically numbering between 50 and 100 individuals, who subsisted primarily on naturally occurring vegetation and wildlife. [12.2] The HG lifestyle can best be described as subsistence living for a relatively constant population that probably never exceeded 5 million globally. Huntergatherers produced few manmade goods beyond the necessities required for their immediate survival, and they generated no appreciable wealth surplus. [12.3] The HG worldview revered Nature as the provider of life and subsistence, a perspective that fostered a passive lifestyle orientation through which huntergatherers sought to liveâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;albeit somewhat exploitativelyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;within the environmental context defined by Nature. The HG resource mix consisted almost entirely of renewable natural resources such as water and naturally occurring edible plant life and wildlife. [13]

The Agrarian Lifestyle Paradigm:

[13.1] The agrarian lifestyle paradigm commenced in approximately 8,000 BC and lasted until approximately 1700 AD, when England initiated what was to become the industrial revolution.

[13.2] Agrarian societies existed primarily by raising cultivated crops and domesticated livestock. [13.3] The agrarian worldview perceived Nature as something to be augmented through human effort, by domesticating naturally occurring plant and animal species. The agrarian lifestyle orientation was proactive in the sense that it sought to improve upon what Nature provided. [13.4] While modest wealth surpluses were sometimes generated by agrarian populations, agrarian existence typically offered little more in the way of material living standards for the vast majority of agrarian populations than did the HG lifestyle—although the global agrarian population did increase significantly, reaching nearly 800 million by 1750 AD. [13.5] The agrarian resource mix consisted primarily of RNRs, which were increasingly overexploited by ever-expanding, permanently-settled agrarian populations. As agrarian cultivation and grazing practices became increasingly intensive, renewable natural resource reserves were increasingly depleted and natural habitats were increasingly degraded as well. [14]

The Industrial Lifestyle Paradigm:

[14.1] The inception of the industrial lifestyle paradigm occurred with England‘s industrial revolution in the early 18th century, less than 300 years ago. [14.2] Today, over 1.5 billion people—approximately 22% of the world‘s 6.9 billion total population—is considered ―industrialized‖; and nearly three times that many people actively aspire to an industrialized way of life. [14.3] Our industrialized world is characterized by an incomprehensibly complex mosaic of interdependent yet independently operating human and non-human entities and infrastructure. [14.4] These entities must function continuously, efficiently, and collectively at the local, regional, national, and global levels in order to convert natural resource inputs into the myriad goods and services that enable our modern industrial way of life. [14.5] [Note that failures within the industrial mosaic can disrupt, temporarily or permanently, the flow of societal essentials—water, food, energy, shelter, and clothing—to broad segments of our global population.] [14.6] Tremendous wealth surpluses are typically generated by industrialized societies; such wealth surpluses are actually required to enable the historically unprecedented material living standards enjoyed by increasingly large segments of ever-expanding industrialized populations.

[14.7] The industrialized worldview perceives Nature as something to be harnessed through industrial processes and infrastructure, in order to enhance the human condition. It is an exploitive worldview that seeks to use natural resources and habitats as the means to continuously improve human societal wellbeing—that is, to provide continuously improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of ever-expanding human populations. [14.8] The resource mix associated with today‘s industrialized societies is heavily skewed toward nonrenewable natural resources, which, in addition to renewable natural resources and natural habitats, have been increasingly overexploited since the dawn of the industrial revolution. [14.9] It is precisely this persistent overexploitation of natural resources and natural habitats—especially NNRs—that has enabled the ―success‖ associated with the industrial lifestyle paradigm—success being defined here as continuous increases in both human population levels and human material living standards. [15]

Nonrenewable Natural Resources—the Enablers of Industrialization:

[15.1] Our industrial lifestyle paradigm is enabled by nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)—energy resources, metals, and minerals. Both the support infrastructure within industrialized nations and the raw material inputs into industrialized economies consist almost entirely of NNRs; NNRs are the primary sources of the tremendous wealth surpluses required to perpetuate industrialized societies. [15.2] As a case in point, the percentage of NNR inputs into the US economy increased from less than 10% in the year 1800, which corresponds roughly with the inception of the American industrial revolution, to approximately 95% today. Between 1800 and today, America‘s total annual NNR utilization level increased from approximately 4 million tons to nearly 7 billion tons—an increase of over 1700 times! [15.3] In the absence of enormous and ever-increasing NNR supplies, the 1.2 billion people who currently enjoy an industrialized way of life will cease to do so; and the billions of people aspiring to an industrialized way of life will fail to realize their goal. [16]

NNR Scarcity:

[17] As their name implies, NNRs are finite—they are not replenished by Nature; and they are scarce—economically viable NNR deposits are rare. Persistent extraction (production) will therefore deplete recoverable NNR reserves to exhaustion. [Note: the terms NNR ―production‖ and NNR ―extraction‖ are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Although ―extraction‖ is the proper term—

humans do not produce NNRs—the term ―production‖ has gained wide acceptance within the NNR extraction industries.] [17.1] The typical NNR depletion cycle is characterized by: a period of ―continuously more and more‖, as the easily accessible, high quality, low cost resources are extracted; followed by a ―supply peak‖,8 or maximum attainable extraction level; followed by a period of ―continuously less and less‖, as the less accessible, lower quality, higher cost resources are extracted. [17.2] Since the inception of our industrial revolution, humanity has been the beneficiary of ―continuously more and more‖ with respect to available NNR supplies. [17.3] Unfortunately, in the process of reaping the benefits associated with ―continuously more and more‖, we have been eliminating—persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life depends. [17.4] Increasingly, global NNR supplies are transitioning from ―continuously more and more‖ to ―continuously less and less‖, as they peak and go into terminal decline. As a result, NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce—ever-tightening global NNR supplies are struggling to keep pace with ever-increasing global demand. [18]

The Analysis:

[18.1] The following Global Nonrenewable Natural Resource Scarcity Assessment quantifies the magnitude associated with increasing global NNR scarcity and the probabilities associated with imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls. The assessment consists of two analyses, both of which are based on US Geological Survey (USGS) and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. [18.2] The Global NNR Scarcity Analysis assesses the incidence of global scarcity associated with each of 57 NNRs during the period of global economic growth (20002008) prior to the Great Recession. [18.3] The Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis assesses the probability of a permanent global supply shortfall associated with each of 26 NNRs between now and the year 2030. [19]

Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis Findings:

[19.1] Fifty (50) of the 57 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Scarcity Analysis experienced global scarcity—and therefore experienced temporary (at least) global supply shortfalls—during the 2000-2008 period. Twenty three (23) of the 26 NNRs (88%) analyzed in the Global NNR Supply Shortfall Analysis are

likely to experience permanent global supply shortfalls by the year 2030. Each permanent NNR supply shortfall represents another crack in the foundation of our globalizing industrial lifestyle paradigm; at issue is which crack or combination of cracks will cause the structure to collapse?

[19.2] Permanent global supply shortfalls associated with a single critical NNR or with a very few secondary NNRs can be sufficient to cause significant lifestyle disruptionsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;population level reductions and/or material living standard degradation. [19.3] A permanent shortfall in the global supply of oil, for example, would be sufficient to cause significant local, national, and/or global lifestyle disruptions, or outright global societal collapse; as would permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 2-3 critical NNRs such as potassium, phosphate rock, and (fixed) nitrogen; as would concurrent permanent global supply shortfalls associated with 4-5 secondary NNRs such as the alloys, catalysts, and reagents that enable the effective use of critical NNRs.

[19.4] Given our vulnerability to an ever-increasing number of imminent and permanent global NNR supply shortfalls, the likelihood that the mix and volume of shortfalls will reach their ―critical mass‖ is a question of ―when‖, not ―if‖. [20]

Implications of Increasing Global NNR Scarcity:

[21]

Increasing NNR Scarcity:

[21.1] Available supplies associated with an overwhelming majority of NNRs— including bauxite, copper, iron ore, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphate rock, potash, rare earth metals, tin, and zinc—have reached their domestic US peak extraction levels, and are in terminal decline.16 Based on the evidence presented above, available supplies associated with a vast majority of NNRs are becoming increasingly scarce globally as well. [21.2] Because global NNR supplies are transitioning from ―continuously more and more‖ to ―continuously less and less‖, our global societal wellbeing levels— our economic activity levels, population levels, and material living standards—are transitioning from ―continuously more and more‖ to ―continuously less and less‖ as well.

[22]

Sustainability is Inevitable:

[22.1] ―Business as usual‖ (industrialism), ―stasis‖ (no growth), ―downscaling‖ (reducing NNR utilization), and ―moving toward sustainability‖ (feel good initiatives) are not options; we will be sustainable…

[23]

Unintended Consequences:

[23.1] It is difficult to argue that our incessant quest for global industrialization and the natural resource utilization behavior that enables our quest are inherently evil. We have simply applied our everexpanding knowledge and technology over the past several centuries toward dramatically improving our level of societal wellbeing, through our ever-increasing utilization of NNRs. [23.2] However, despite our possibly justifiable naïveté during our meteoric rise to ―exceptionalism‖, and despite the fact that our predicament was undoubtedly an unintended consequence of our efforts to continuously improve the material living standards enjoyed by our ever-expanding global population; globally available, economically viable supplies associated with the NNRs required to perpetuate our industrial lifestyle paradigm will not be sufficient going forward. [24]

Our Transition to Sustainability:

[24.1] Humanity‘s transition to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, within which a drastically reduced human population will rely exclusively on renewable natural resources (RNRs)—water, soil (farmland), forests, and other naturally occurring biota—is therefore inevitable. Our choice is not whether we ―wish to be sustainable‖; our choice involves the process by which we ―will become sustainable‖. [24.2] We can choose to alter fundamentally our existing unsustainable natural resource utilization behavior and transition voluntarily to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm over the next several decades. In the process, we would cooperate globally in utilizing remaining accessible NNRs to orchestrate a relatively gradual—but horrifically painful nonetheless—transition, thereby optimizing our population level and material living standards both during our transition and at sustainability. Or, we can refrain from taking preemptive action and allow Nature to orchestrate our transition to sustainability through societal collapse, thereby experiencing catastrophic reductions in our population level and material living standards. [25]

The Squeeze is On:

[25.1] It would be convenient if our unraveling were to occur in 1,000 years, or 500 years, or even 50 years. We could then dismiss it as a concern for future generations and go busily about improving our national and global societal wellbeing levels in the meantime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Great Recession was a tangible manifestation of our predicament—NNR scarcity was epidemic in 2008, both domestically (US) and globally. Our unraveling is in process. At present, however, only an extremely small minority of the global populace understands that NNR scarcity is the fundamental cause underlying our predicament and its derivative economic and political problems. When the general

public becomes aware of this fact and of the fact that NNR scarcity is a permanent, ever-increasing, and unsolvable phenomenon, collapse will ensue in short order. [26]

Public Ignorance:

[26.1] Historically, globally available, economically viable supplies associated with most NNRs were generally sufficient; NNR scarcity, when it occurred, was a temporary phenomenon. Incremental economically viable NNR supplies were available to be brought online, thereby restoring economic output (GDP) and growth to ―expected‖ levels. Because episodes of NNR scarcity have occurred periodically since the dawn of our industrial revolution, they are considered temporary ―inconveniences‖ associated with the boom phases of ―normal‖ commodity boom/bust cycles. [26.2] Today, despite the fact that NNR scarcity is becoming increasingly prevalent—as clearly demonstrated by the NNR Scarcity Analysis—and despite the fact that the impact associated with NNR scarcity has certainly been felt—as an underlying cause of the Great Recession—the general public remains almost completely unaware. This is understandable, as it is obviously in nobody‘s interest to see humanity fail. [26.3] Our opinion leaders—i.e., the political, economic, and other societal elites who have the greatest vested interest in preserving the status quo—continue to preach that historically robust levels of economic growth can be sustained forever. Some of our opinion leaders may still believe this to be true, although it is difficult to believe that many or most do. [26.4] [There currently exists considerable speculation regarding the extent to which our opinion leaders actually understand our predicament and its consequences, and are merely conducting a charade in order to perpetuate ―business as usual‖, from which most of them benefit disproportionately, for as long as possible. At the end of the day, the awareness levels and motives associated with our opinion leaders are irrelevant; the outcome—societal collapse—remains unchanged.] [26.5] The general public—given their cornucopian worldview and their almost complete lack of understanding regarding the enablers of their industrialized lifestyles—adheres steadfastly to the notion that ―every generation will have it better than the last‖. The vast majority of the general public undoubtedly still believes this to be true, despite stagnant or declining material living standards in much of the industrialized world. So long as myth supersedes reality and the general public remains ignorant regarding the nature of our predicament and of the fact that our predicament cannot be solved, complete societal collapse is unlikely. It is likely, however, that as our situation devolves, the general public will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and scared. 21

[26.6] ―We‖ will blame ―them‖—the government, corporations, foreigners, capitalists, communists, Christians, Muslims, the rich, the poor, anybody who is not ―us‖—for our continuously deteriorating circumstances. And we will become increasingly susceptible to the empty rhetoric of Hitleresque demagogues who promise—and fail—to restore ―normalcy‖, at the expense of our remaining freedoms. Through their ignorance, the general public will exacerbate our already deteriorating situation. [27]

Public Awareness: [27.1]

Within the next few years, however, NNR scarcity will become:

―Noticeable‖—NNR supplies will become increasingly constrained and prices will rise continuously; then

―Inconvenient‖—periodic and temporary shortages and rationing associated with NNRs and derived goods and services will occur with increasing frequency; then

―Disruptive‖—shortages and rationing associated with ever-increasing numbers of NNRs and derived goods and services will become permanent; and finally,

―Debilitating‖—supplies associated with ever-increasing numbers of NNRs and derived goods and services will become permanently unavailable.

[27.2] As this 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: A.

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‖.

[27.3] Ultimately, the general public will become aware of the fact that our predicament has no solution; and the following ―trigger‖ conditions for societal collapse will be met: NNR scarcity will become ―disruptive‖—the available mix and levels associated with economically viable NNRs and derived goods and services 22

will become insufficient to enable ―tolerable‖ day-to-day existence; and sufficiently large segments of society will: A.

Become aware of the fact that ever-increasing NNR scarcity is a permanent phenomenon; &

Acknowledge the fact that our predicament cannot be ―fixed‖; ―continuously less and less‖—continuously declining societal wellbeing—is our new reality.

[27.4] 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‖. [27.5] Social institutions will dissolve; law and order will cease to exist; and chaos will fill the void— nations will collapse. [27.6] Given that half of the 89 analyzed NNRs are either likely or almost certain to remain scarce permanently at the global level; that no extraterrestrial source NNR imports exists for the world as a whole, and that the global industrialized / industrializing population has increased nearly 5 fold since 1975… …it is highly likely that the interval between global societal wellbeing ―divergence‖ in 2008 and global societal collapse will be 35 years or less. [28]

Humanity's Predicament:

[28.1] During the course of our unrelenting pursuit of global industrialization, and our consequent ever-increasing utilization of the earth‘s increasingly scarce NNRs, we have been eliminating— persistently and systematically—the very natural resources upon which our industrialized way of life and our very existence depend. [28.2] Ironically, the natural resource utilization behavior that has enabled our historically unprecedented ―success‖—our industrial lifestyle paradigm—and that is essential to our continued success, is also pushing us toward our imminent demise. This is humanity‘s predicament. [29]

Humanity's Limited Perspective:

[29.1] To date, our distorted cornucopian worldview and limited anthropocentric perspective have rendered us incapable of understanding our predicament and its fundamental cause, which is ecological—ever-increasing NNR scarcity—not economic or political. The economic and political problems with which we concern

ourselves are merely manifestations of our predicament—they are symptoms, not the disease. Because none of the economic and political expedients that we employ to solve these problems can create additional NNRs, our attempted economic and political ―solutions‖ are irrelevant. [29.2] Metaphorically, the well is running dry, yet we insist on tinkering with the pump. What is Sustainable Consumption and Procreation Behaviour?: [30] In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace19, Dr. Jack Alpert argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their establishment of never ending or honoured ―peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals‖ which ―cause people to relinquish freedoms‖ but, ―do not stop (change) the behaviors that increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction‖20: ―result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict. Where, peace seekers have acted as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors of 6 billion people. That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict.‖ [30.1] Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict – according to Dr. Alpert -- is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the police, military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace. [31] In Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required: The Future of Social Conflict21, Dr. Jack Alpert challenges us to answer two questions AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Jurists sincerely concerned with the violent consequences of scarcity, have so far failed to ask themselves: [31.1] If Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person‘s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person.

www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom: www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 21 youtu.be/sK8WxeGxkPk 19 20

[31.2] There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the byproduct of other people's behaviour. ‗All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,‘ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‗The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,‘ and ‗The government is offering people welfare to breed more children‘ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group. [31.3] System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of South Africa‘s conflict is the sum of 50 million sets of intrusions. [31.4] Using this definition of conflict, any AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence legislator or Jurist sincerely concerned about whether and how South Africa‘s socioeconomic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; by determining the answers to the following questions: A.

How many children per family leads to peace; or conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals‘ ‗breeding war combatant‘ status? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert22, the answer is one child per family]

How much consumption relative to the nation‘s footprint carrying capacity leads to peace; or conversely how much consumption relative to the nations bio-capacity per person, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals ‗consumption combatant status‘?

What are the Consequences Procreation Behaviour?:

Unsustainable

Consumption

and

[32] In the absence of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence determining the answers to the aforementioned questions, and implementing Jurisprudence in accordance thereto; Dr. Alpert provides proof how AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Suicide Freight Train has as much chance of muddling through the coming ‗Falling Man Syndrome‘ (‗I‘ve fallen 90 stories in the past 5 seconds and nothing bad has happened yet‖ | ―In 200 years, our endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed and consume has resulted in the exponential consumption of over half of the Earth's resources, and nothing bad has happened yet...‖) Crisis of Conflict, as an

http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html

individual sitting in an unbelted car crash. (Non-Linearity and Social Conflict23) [33]

Carrying Capacity: Tragedy of the Commons:

[33.1] The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in ―The Tragedy of the Commons‖.24 [33.2] Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group. [34]

Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles:

[34.1] Garrett Hardin‘s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution. Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed. [34.2] Hardin‘s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices. [35]

Hardin‟s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions: [35.1]

23 24

The world is biophysically finite.

The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.

Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.

We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.

youtu.be/W5capqGod9A Hardin, G (1968/12/13)

Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.

Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.

[35.2] Over-population and overconsumption are exampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s of the tragedy of the commons (ToC). A.

Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.

Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, selfinterested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.

Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.

The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.

When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.

A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.

[35.3] The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned (as it has been for other resources). A.

In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.

but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).

It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."

Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.

"Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.

The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.

This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.

[35.4]

The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion.

People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.

Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.

Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.

[36] Reducing Human Impact on the Environment, requires population and consumption reduction. [37] The impact of humans on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology. [38]

The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that:

[38.1] the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of affluence, in a sustainable manner; and [38.2] [39]

Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.

Masculine Insecurity Patriarchy‟s Breeding & Consumption War: ―We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.‖ - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent, Humans: An Endangered Species25

[40] Insecure Male World Leader‘s advocacy/endorsement of the Control of the Means of Reproduction as a Weapon of War include President of Algeria: Houari Boumediene‗s ―wombs of our women will give us victory‖, PLO Leader: Yasser Arafat‗s ‗Palestinian womb is our greatest asset and weapon‘; ANC Leader: Nelson Mandela‗s ―Operation Production‖ forced sex and forbidden contraceptives policy;

www.jgbrent.com

New Black Panther Party Member: Dr. Khalid Muhammad ―kill the women as they are the military manufacturing center‖; Nazi Party: Adolf Hitler‗s ―importance of fertility to breed an above average number of children‖. [40.1]

Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria:

―The wombs of our women will give us victory.‖

―One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.‖ – Houri Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974 (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)]

[40.2]

Yasser Arafat: Palestine Liberation Organisation:

Palestinian Womb is his people‗s greatest asset. Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa University and a lecturer at the Israeli Army's Staff and Command college, first warned of the impending Jewish demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.

―Arafat had said that the womb of the Palestinian woman was a "biological weapon," which he could use to create Palestine state by crowding people into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.‖ ― Yasser Arafat [Goodreads]

"The womb of the Arab woman is my strongest weapon" - Yasser Arafat

[40.3] A.

Nelson Mandela‘s African National Congress (ANC): ANC ―Operation Production‖ Policy: During the ANC‗s ―liberation struggle‖ African women were forced (1) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Any woman who refused sex from an ANC cadre or was caught using contraception was detained, accused of being an 'Apartheid agent', given a People‗s Court trial, the sentence was usually Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina26.

Maki Skosana was an ANC comrade who was accused – for no observable reasons – of being an apartheid spy, given a people‗s court trial and publicly executed by necklacing in July 1985. The TRC made no effort whatsoever to investigate the motives for shoving broken glass bottles up women‗s vagina‗s who were necklaced. TRC Report: ―Moloko said her sister was burned to death with a tyre around her neck while 26

[40.4] A.

[40.5] A.

Johannes Harnischfeger, Witchcraft and the State in South Africa27: ―Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: ―They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ―come let's go.‖ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them‖ (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman‗s obligation to give birth to new ―soldiers‖, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as ―operation production‖. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:18928; Niehaus 1999:25029)‖ New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad: Kill the White Woman as the White Man‗s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad‗s 1993 'Kill the White Man' speech, at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others: ―Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.‖30 Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party: ―The selection of a racially highly worthy wife in itself still does not necessarily mean an improvement of the race. That only comes when the right mate selection is followed by the breeding of an above-average number of children. For what would the elimination of bad hereditary factors from the folk help, if simultaneously a reproduction of the good hereditary factors was not preserved and expanded? ... The birth rate will determine the future of our folk. The number of cribs must be much larger than the number of coffins. Only then can we offer successful resistance against all arising dangers and turn into deed our right, which is due us on the basis of our leading position in Europe. … Two weapons are at the

attending the funeral of one of the youths. Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee. Moloko added that a big rock had been thrown on her face after she had been killed.‖ www.doj.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/duduza/moloko.htm 27 Dr. Johannes Harnischfeger, Goethe University Frankfurt M., Frankfurt; German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/2000, S. 99-112 28 Delius, P. 1996. A Lion amongst the Cattle: Reconstruction and Resistance in the Northern Transvaal. 29 Niehaus, Isak. 1999. Witchcraft, Power and Politics: Exploring the Occult in the South African Lowfeld 30 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Abdul_Muhammad www.metacafe.com/watch/456363/khallid_muhammads_speech_kill_the_white_man

disposal of each folk in the struggle for survival: Its ability to fight and its fertility. Never forget that the ability to fight of a folk alone can never make it possible for a folk to survive into the far future, rather that the inexhaustible fountain of its fertility is also necessary."31 [40.6] Prof Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas, Founder and former party national chair of Raza Unida Party: A.

―We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it. We have to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.‖ - Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas, founder and former party national chair of Raza Unida Party

Sustainable RNR Carrying Capacity: Mosuo: Ecocentric Gender-Balanced Culture with no murder, rape, war, jealousy, jails or unemployment: [41] The Mosuo language is rendered not in writing, but in Dongba, the only pictographic language used in the world today. The Mosuo language has no words for murder, war, rape, or jealousy, and the Mosuo have no jails and no unemployment.32 [42] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as ―matrilineal‖, but still doesn't reflect the full truth. Accurately speaking have aspects of matriarchal culture, in that women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society. [43] Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee. [44] As an agrarian culture, much of the Mosuo daily life centers around tending to crops and livestock, with villages and households bartering between them for basic needs. [45] A typical Mosuo house is divided in to four separate structures around an open courtyard. Traditionally, families share the building with livestock, and the living and sleeping areas are communal.

SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines, translated from Original SS Publications by Libertarian National Socialist Green Party; original SS publication Glauben und Kampfen ("Faith and Struggle") 32 Tami Blumenfield (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths; Washington Univ http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 31

[46] Mosuo families have an incredible internal cohesiveness and stability; and Mosuo women do not (within their culture) face many of the struggles and barriers that women in many other cultures do. [47] Probably the most famous – and most misunderstood – aspect of Mosuo culture is their practice of ―walking marriages‖ (or ―zou hun‖ in Chinese), so called because the men will walk to the house of their ‗partner' at night, but return to their own home, within their own tribal family, in the morning. [48] The Mosuo generally live in large extended families, with many generations (great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.) all living together within the same house. For the most part, everyone lives within communal quarters, without private bedrooms or living areas. However, women between certain ages, after ―coming of age‖, can have their own private bedrooms. [49] Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. The man will walk to her house after dark (thus the description of ―walking marriage‖), spend the night with her, and return home early the next morning. [50] Although it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – and in fact, having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings are actually more long term. In fact, few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time, described by some anthropologists as ―serial monogamy‖. [51] Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family, and the children of his sisters and nieces; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property. [52] Significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name. [53] This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family, be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many ―aunts‖ and ―uncles‖, as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children.

[54] The result – as different as it may be from other systems – is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Divorce does not exist …there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care. [55] One particularly important result is the lack of preference for a particular gender. For example, in most Chinese and patriarchal cultures, the female will join the male's family when she gets married. The result is that if a couple has a lot of female children, they will lose them after marriage, and have no one to care for them in old age; but if they have male children, their sons (and their sons' wives) will care for them. So, in poorer populations in particular, there will be a strong preference for male children. [56] However, among the Mosuo, since neither male nor female children will ever leave home, there is no particular preference for one gender over the other. The focus instead tends to be on maintaining some degree of gender balance, having roughly the same proportion of male to female within a household. In situations where this becomes unbalanced, it is not uncommon for Mosuo to adopt children of the appropriate gender (or even for two households to ‗swap' male/female children). [57] Additionally the other focus is population control, avoiding overpopulation of the family, since the family is unable to kick the children out of the home, and wash their hands, as to the sustainable future of those children. The family matriarch has the responsibility to make sure that the family does not procreate beyond its capacity to support the entire family through difficult times. [58] Children are also raised with a gender neutral focus, where all the children dress the same and are treated in a gender neutral manner. At around the age of 12-14 years, the important event known as their coming of age ceremony occurs, where girls are given skirts, and men are given their pants; thus called the ―skirt ceremony‖ for girls, and the ―pants ceremony‖ for boys. [59] After coming of age, Mosuo females are entitled to their own private bedroom; and, once past puberty, can begin to invite partners for ―walking marriages‖. [60] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler33, who decided to find out what it was like to live in a non-patriarchal culture, and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China: ―Men live better where women are in charge‖ and ―Women have a different way of dominating.‖ [61] Coler asserts that while he expected an inverse patriarchy, he experienced something totally different, because 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 Ricardo Coler (28 May 2009): The Mosuo Matriarchy: 'Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge'; Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-mosuo-matriarchy-men-live-better-where-women-arein-charge-a-627363.html 33

nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; [62] What astonished Coler the most, was that there was no violence in the Mosuo culture: â&#x20AC;&#x2022;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. [If there is 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.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; [63] The Mosuo economy is largely agrarian, and they are capable of producing most of what they need for daily living; and consequently are by and large selfsufficient. In the past, Mosuo men would take trading caravans to other parts of China, to buy/trade products they could not produce locally. [64] The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. The Mosuo also practice Lamaism, a Tibetan variation of Buddhism. Most Mosuo homes dedicate a room specifically for Buddhist worship and for sheltering traveling lamas, or monks. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbors, who also support them.