14-02-23: Senate Judiciary Comm: MILED EoP Solitary Confinement submission

MILINT Earth Day Ecology of Peace submission to Senate Judiciary Committee: Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Hearing: Reassessing Solitary Confinement II: The Human Rights, Fiscal, and Public Safety Consequences, of 25 February 2014.

Chairman Durbin 309 Hart Senate Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-2152 (dick@durbin.senate.gov)

Anthony Annucci: Acting Commissioner: New York State Department of Community Corrections (DOCCS) Via: Terrence Tracy: Counsel (terrence.tracy@doccs.ny.gov)

Witnesses: Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. Federal Bureau of Prisons Tel: (202) 307-3198 via Public Information Officer (BOP-IPP/Public Affairs@bop.gov)

Hon Craig DeRoche President: Justice Fellowship Tel: 703.554.8607 (justicefellowship@pfm.org)

Piper Kerman Women’s Prison Assoc Phone: 646-292-7740 (info@wpaonline.org); (piperkerman@gmail.com)

Marc Levin Director: Center for Effective Justice Texas Public Policy Foundation (mlevin@texaspolicy.com)

Rick Raemisch Exec Dir: Colorado Dept of Corrections via: Rick Thompkins HR Director (rick.thompkins@doc.state.co.us)

Damon Thibodeaux Minneapolis, MN (info@damonthibodeaux.com)

Professor Alexander Reinert Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (areinert@yu.edu)

Donna Lieberman & Taylor Pendergrass NYCLU via (westernregion@nyclu.org) & Jennifer Carnig (jcarnig@nyclu.org)

Dr. James Austin President: JFA Institute (jfainstitute@gmail.com)

David Fioccola Morrison & Foerster (dfioccola@mofo.com)

Transparency Copies: Soffiyah Elijah Executive Director Correctional Association of NY (selijah@correctionalassociation.org)

Donn Rowe: President NY State Corr Offc & Police Ben Assoc (drowe@nyscopba.org): Stephanie Flanagan: Member Services (sclark@nyscopba.org)

Summary of Argument: Sustainable Security justifications for Hearings transformation policies to include following recommendations for transformation of prison policies from (a) unsustainable high tech industrial economy state funded and private

corporate-for-profit prisons with focus on punishment and/or rehabilitation to (b) sustainable low tech semi-agrarian economy self sufficient secular monastic prisons with focus on Tsedeq / Tsedaqah1 personal discipline and simple living reflection.

The earth is not flat and natural resources, upon which all of life depends for its survival, are not infinite. Nations social contract constitutions have not restricted human’s procreation and consumption to ecological carrying capacity limits. This has resulted in (a) a planet that consciously and unconsciously practices covert and overt slavery: profiting from human factory farming surplus (cannon, voters, producers, consumers, etc) human-fodder; and (b) failure to prevent (i) ecological overshoot, and impending ecological collapse; and (ii) overuse of natural resources, resulting in peak NNR, and the current and impending collapse of the industrial economy and industrial civilization.

There are two options for how humanity chooses to proceed: Armageddon MobJustice Genocide Option: Avoid addressing the root flat earth social contract causes of our predicament; and enabling the rule of force; ranging from organized violence mob justice genocides to industrial pollution ecological catastrophe genocides and a return to blatant organized violent overt slavery simplicity feudalism; with its accompanied race, religion and class wars.

CommonSism Eco-Civilization Option: Implement an Orderly Humane transition to a low tech agrarian world ‘world in balance’; both ecologically and politically; by amending our flat earth social contract constitutions to CommonSism social contracts, enabling societies founded on ecological reality rule of law; which (a) require all citizens to (i) procreate and consume below carrying capacity limits and (ii) engage in fully informed consenting agreements; have simple laws clearly explained and ecologically

1

The Hebrew word for righteousness is Tsedaqah. Tsedaqah is a noun in the feminine form; the masculine form of the word is tsedeq. Tzadeikas is the feminine term for Tzadik, aka as Tzedek, which is Hebrew for a righteous person. Tsedeq also refers to ecological balance. It is a commonly occurring word in the Bible, where it refers to "righteousness." Other pagan meanings are "rainfall in due proportion," from which words like "rightness," "justice" and "righteousness" arose as extensions and expansions of the original meaning.

Tsedeq originates from a Semitic word which means to be straight, firm, "steel-like determination of integrity in one's inner being.” The Arabic equivalent means to be mature, balanced, and fully developed.

Ringgren, in his book Israelite Religion, observes that tsedeq, usually translated as “righteousness,” “. . . is neither exclusively nor even primarily a juristic concept.” On the basis of Arabic, the original meaning of the root is something like “be right, stable, substantial.” In the military context, Ringgren says tsedeq can mean “victory which re-asserts the world’s just order.” On the cosmic scale it is used of rainfall sent “at the proper (tsedeq) time” (as it is expressed in the eighty-fifth psalm.) It is accordingly very similar to the Babylonian mesharu and the Egyptian Ma’at. The word tsedeq, in its fullest sense, means “world in balance” both ecologically and politically.

2

and socio-culturally justified and strictly enforced on all. Those convicted of cheating (social contract transgressions) are given one chance to demonstrate their sincere commitment to reflecting on their cheating and amending their behaviour; by agreeing to attend a Monastic Prison; and cheaters who refuse to reflect and amend their behaviour are given the option to choose their preferred form of execution to remove their dishonourable genes from the national genepool.

In order for Individuals sincerely and honourably committed to supporting the implementation of a CommonSism Eco-Civilization social contract future; they must learn how to engage each other honourably and sincerely focussed on problem solving founded on honest reason and logic.

Objectors to the CommonSism Eco-Civilization Option: Anyone capable of critical thinking and evaluating two contradictory options for the future; would imagine that everyone given the aforementioned choice, would choose the CommonSism option. However this is not the case. A significant number of individuals invited to support the CommonSism option; have (a) either declined to do so or simply ignored their invitations; and (b) if declined: have failed to honourably provide their evidentiary justifications for their objection.

Consequently I can only speculate as to their possible reasons for declining to support an orderly and humane process of de-industrialization, and favouring a mobjustice organized violence de-industrialized descent into slavery and genocidal race, religion and class wars.

Speculative Working Hypothesis reasons for objection by a significant number of individuals from the following ideological factions: 1.

Religious ideological factions (Christians and Muslims): They are addicted to their religious prophecies of Armageddon, the return of Jesus or Allah, and so on.

2.

Right wing racial ideological factions (Neo Nazis, etc): They are ideologically addicted to their ideologically prophesied impending race war.

3.

Left wing racial ideological factions (From Rappers, Hip Hoppers, Antifa Wiggers to Sharpton & Jackson et al): They are ideologically addicted to their ideological prophesied impending race war.

4.

Right wing racial ideological factions (Neo-Nazis): They publicly believe that the flock of the racial black left (Rappers, Hip Hoppers, Sharpton, Jackson et al; etc) are untermenschen: not physically or

3

intellectually capable of responsible procreation and engaging in fully informed consenting agreements.

5.



Left wing racial ideological factions (From Rappers, Hip Hoppers, Antifa Wiggers to Sharpton & Jackson et al): They secretly believe (a) that the Right wing racial ideological factions (Neo-Nazis) are correct about their own flock being untermenschen: not physically or intellectually capable of responsible procreation and engaging in fully informed consenting agreements; (b) do not have the honour and integrity to publicly admit to their secret beliefs, that their ideology of so-called ‘racial equality’ is subjectively nothing but an selfdeception illusion, because secretly they believe their own flock are nothing more than untermenschen: not physically or intellectually capable of responsible procreation and engaging in fully informed consenting agreements; and hence only worthy of being used as breeding and vote farm cannon fodder.

Table of Contents: Sustainable Security Justifications: o Our Flat Earth Social Contract ‘Rule of Force’ Ideological Prison: o Conclusion: Slavery Freedumb vs Responsible Freedom options: o Flat Earth Jurisprudence and Ecological Overshoot induced Impending Intra and Inter-Cultural Resource Scarcity Armageddon Mobjustice Genocide Conflict:



o Current Flat Earth Social Contract Rule of Force Prisons: CommonSism Eco-Civilization Option: o Judicial Procedures and Monastic Prisons under an International Law CommonSism social contract: o CommonSism Justice Must be Absolute: o CommonSism Rule of Law Social Contract Judicial Proceedings: 

CommonSism violations:  





Consumption violations Procreation violations Consumption or Procreation violations: Prison Sentence

Voluntarist: Fully Informed Consent violations:  

Shared cultural values: conviction proceedings



Different cultural values: conviction proceedings



Shared cultural values: sentencing proceedings Different cultural values: sentencing proceedings 4



Shared or Different cultural values: Prison Sentence

o Monastery Prisons focussed on enabling Prisoner Reflection: 

Prison Reflection Process: Voluntarist Violation:

o Reflection Process: Honourable Reason and Logic Problem Solving –v- Dishonourable Passive Aggressive Fundamentalist Violent Avoidance:  

Reflection Process: Honourable Reason and Logic Problem Solving Engagement: Reflection Process: Dishonourable Passive Aggressive Fundamentalist Violence Avoidance:

o Objectors to the CommonSism Eco-Civilization Option:

Sustainable Security Justifications: Our Flat Earth Social Contract ‘Rule of Force’ Ideological Prison: Any individual born into a tribe on a planet where the international law is founded upon flat earth 'rule of force' social contact jurisprudence (inalienable right to breed and consume above carrying capacity limits) is born -- consciously or unconsciously -- into one or other form of honest or dishonest ideological and/or physical prison slavery.

When the international law social contract allows any one or more nations, cultures, religions or races to procreate or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits; they are endorsing that culture's right to engage in imperialist conquer and culling of other cultures, races and religions, for their resources.

When the international law social contract allows tribes to overbreed and overconsume, then if or when a tribe breeds or consumes above its ecological carrying capacity limits, it must go elsewhere to find the resources it has over-consumed and degraded. If all of the ‘elsewhere’ is populated by other tribes, then economic, political or military resource conflict occurs. When many tribes overconsume or overbreed (above their ecological carrying capacity limits) this results in economic, political or military conflict between the tribes. For 2000 years the 'rule of law’ and consequently warfare has simply been the 'rule of force'. Whomever was the strongest in terms of capital for military intelligence and/or technology or had the greatest number of cannon fodder to sacrifice on the battlefield won. The 'rule of law' means and has meant since the beginning of totalitarian agriculture, the rule of force.

Every tribe from every race, religion and culture for the past 2000 years who

5

has overconsumed or overbred has engaged in conquering and culling of other tribes.

As explained by military geopolitical scientist Homer Lea: Effectively this results in everyone on that planet whose tribal territory comes into 'contact' with another tribe expanding their tribal territory; being forced into a form of breeding or consumption war slavery to survive and defend themselves, their family and property.

Homer Lea: “Investigation shows that whenever two nations have become engaged in warfare they have been advancing on converging lines of (resource acquisition for growing consumption or procreation) self-interest and aggrandizement. When the contact takes place, the struggle for supremacy, or even survival is at hand. This inevitable hour is approximately fixed and determined by the angles of convergence plus the sum of the relative (consumption / breeding war) speed by which the nations are moving along their respective lines. Thus it is that, when the angle of (breeding / consumption war) convergence of both or even one of the nations is acute and the speed or progress along one or both of the converging lines correspondingly great, war results in a few years or decades.�

When a nation’s procreation or consumption territorial expansion comes into contact with another tribe's territory; then economic, political and organized militant conflict occurs externally between the respective nations, as well as internally within both nations between its class, ethnic and cultural tribes.

Conclusion: Slavery Freedumb vs Responsible Freedom options:

6

This rule of Breeding & Consumption war Slavery Freedumb 'rule of force/law' can either continue -- and since the world is now in serious ecological overshoot -- become massively aggravated, meaning serious inter and intra-tribal organized violence conflict between races, classes, religions and cultures; that will make the civil war in Syria seem like a day at the beach; or the world's cultures, religions and races can choose to adopt a new system of responsible (ecologically literate breeding and consumption) freedom international law, where they all choose to practice responsible freedom.

Generally speaking the two extreme versions of defining freedom are.

CommonSism Responsible Freedom: to choose to be responsible by choosing to breed and consume below carrying capacity limits; to benefit from the resource abundance consequences.

Slavery Consequences Freedumb: the freedumb to choose to avoid personal responsibility for breeding and consuming below carrying capacity

7

limits; by denying personal responsibility for the resource war thieving organized violence consequences of collective slavery freedumb breeding and consuming decision-making.

The consequences of Slavery Freedumb: organized violence conquer and culling racism, sexism, nationalism, socialism, capitalism, nazism, islamism, zionism, corporatism, stalinism, etc; as people choose to join one or other ideological, religious, racial or cultural tribe to engage in resource war thieving to accumulate more resources to grow their tribe to enable it to protect itself from another tribes organized violence resource war thieving.

So the choices facing humanity are: (1) Slavery Freedumb Organized Violence on Steroids: organized rule of force violence conquer and culling racism, sexism, nationalism, socialism,

8

capitalism, nazism, islamism, zionism, corporatism, stalinism, etc on crackcocaine steroids; (2) CommonSism Responsible Voluntarist Association Freedom: implementing ecologically literate national and international law based upon ecological carrying capacity limits, where all tribes are required to implement legislation to reduce and once attained maintain their procreation and consumption below ecological carrying capacity limits.

The leaders of the respective nations, either implement: (A) national bilateral self-defence treaties or international law limiting all nations procreation and consumption to ecological carrying capacity limits (CommonSism); or (B) if unable to do so, (lacking sufficient support and commitment to the implementation of such a ecological carrying capacity social contract from other nations elite’s, or elite’s within their own nation or their followers); consider it necessary to resort to divide and conquer coercion towards their own lower ranked tribal members to coercively psychologically bribe, deceive or coerce them into contributing towards the tribes breeding and consumption warfare practices. Coercion includes breeding (i) cannon fodder to provide the military with many young bodies that can be easily recruited to defend the tribe; and (ii) economic consumer and production fodder; to provide the leaders with greater capital resource accumulation (excess production), to support the ‘rule of force’ enforcement class – the police and military – and the propagandizing class – the priests, intellectuals, and artists.

Flat

Earth

Jurisprudence

and

Ecological

Overshoot

induced

Impending Intra and Inter-Cultural Resource Scarcity Armageddon Mobjustice Genocide Conflict: ‘Organized violence (whether by official nation state military or dissident guerrilla warfare terrorists) warfare is an extension of political warfare, by other means.

Political warfare is an extension of economic warfare, by other means. Military, political and economic warfare are the resource-thieving warfare consequences of citizens living in tribes and nations whose social contracts -inalienable right to breed and consume indulgence for sale constitutions with total disregard for ecological resource carrying capacity limits -- are based upon international Flat Earth social contract jurisprudence.’ - amended quote of Carl von Clausewitz, ‘On War’.

9

Cultural conflict is a type of conflict that occurs when flat earth social contract legislatures enact legislation that enforces integration (as opposed to territorial segregation) between different racial, religious and ideological cultures; and consequently individuals with different cultural values and beliefs come into repeated contact with one another and a clash of cultural values occurs. It is not possible for cultural conflict to occur when individuals from cultures who prefer not to associate with members of other cultures are granted their own territory, remain in their own territory (i.e. do not engage in breeding or consumption war resource thieving practices) and are not coercively legislatively integrated. [For a more detailed legal analysis including Flat Earth Multicultural Conflict in Integrated and Segregated societies, see Amicus submission to Judge Russell Healy in the matter of Florida v Michael Dunn2].

Objectively there is much agreement on the reality that racial, religious and ideological inter-cultural conflict exists, and is getting exponentially worse, ranging from political and economic propaganda word wars to bullet wars. The list of individuals from various military and civilian cultures who believe themselves to be – socio-culturally, legally and for some militarily – engaged in Huntington’s clash of totalitarian agriculture and Primitivist cultural civilizations is significant and includes individuals from ideological (left to right), class, religious and ethno cultures; including for example Anders Breivik, Anjem Choudary3 and the US Army War College4; who specifically refer to the conflict being inter-cultural. Extensive Environment / Overshoot-Scarcity-Conflict documentation5 from military and intelligence agencies, united nations and governments, NGO’s and academic reports, collectively document how legislative failure to restrict humanity’s procreation and consumption to ecological cultural carrying capacity limits, and Legal Matrix Indulgences to Corporations legislation: Socialized Corporate 2

http://sqswans.weebly.com/fl-4th-judicial-crt.html

Islam4UK's Anjem Choudari agrees with Breivik that Islam and Non-Islam are at War in Europe http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/islam4uks-anjem-choudari-agrees-with.html 4 1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2012/05/1996-us-army-war-college-parameters.html 5 Bundeswehr (Sep 2010); Gizewski, Peter (Spring 1997); White House: National Security Council (1974/04/24); Bush, GW Snr (1986/02); White House: National Security Council (1974/12/10); White House: National Security Council (1975/11/26); White House: Nixon, R. (1969/07/18); White House: Nixon, R (1970/03/16); White House: Nixon, R. (1972/05/05); White House: Rockefeller Commission Report (1972/03/27); Development, Concepts and Doctrine Center (DCDC) (12 January 2010); United Nations: (1974/08): World Population Plan of Action; UNEP 2010 Annual Report; UNEP (2011) UN Water Policy Brief; United States Army: Murphy, R (2006/10/24); Dept. of Army (December 1994); Dept of the Army (25 July 2008); United States Army & TRADOC (2012); Freier, Nathan (November 2008); David, MAJ William E (April 1996); Butts, Kent (25 April 1994); Bush, Col BX (13 Mar 1997); Peters, R (1996); Peters, Ralph (Summer 1997); Ubbelohde, LTC Kurt F. (10 April 2000); Department of Defense: (Feb 2010); Defense Science Board Task Force (Oct 2011); Department of Defense (Jan 2012); United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18); U.S. Forest Service (Dec 2012); World Bank (18 Nov 2012). For full citations see list of authorities in Ecology of Peace Officer Amicus filed in Florida v. Michael Dunn http://sqswans.weebly.com/fl-4th-judicial-crt.html 3

10

Externality Costs: Trillion Dollar Thefts from Global Natural Capital Commons6, has resulted in humanity’s ecological overshoot of carrying capacity limits by between 700 to 400,000 percent 7; which include crossing urgent Planetary Boundary Tipping Points8: (i) Loss of Biodiversity and Species Extinctions9; (ii) Climate Change10; (iii) Nitrogen Cycle11; (iv) Ocean Acidification12; (v) Changes in Land Use13; (vi) Global Freshwater Use14; (vii) State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere15; (viii) Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources: Scarcity16; with current ecological overshoot climate-resourcescarcity-conflict, and impending ecological collapse, the collapse of industrial civilization and climate collapse all acting as threat multiplier aggravating factors in humanity’s ‘scarcity-conflict’ death spiral.

The disagreement about the current and impending aggravated reality of racial, religious and ideological inter-cultural conflict occurs between the inter-cultural conflict (a) honourable problem solvers; and (b) dishonourable parasite profiteers.

The MILINT Earth Day group of individuals17 from various ideological, racial, class and religious Primitivist and totalitarian agriculture cultures are engaged in a problem solving orientated campaign to abolish the breeding and consumption war totalitarian agriculture root causes of inter-cultural conflict; to establish international jurisprudence requiring all countries to reduce and once attained, maintain their citizens procreation and consumption to ecological carrying capacity limits.

The other group is either unaware of MILINT Earth Day efforts and goals; or if aware refuse to (i) publicly commit to supporting MILINT Earth Day’s efforts to abolish the breeding and consumption war root causes of intercultural conflict; or (ii) if honourably legally objecting to MILINT Earth Day’s submission; to file a legal brief of objection; instead insisting on engaging in breeding and consumption wars, ranging from passive aggressive Violent Fundamentalist Avoidance word wars to intra and inter-cultural bullet wars to expand their tribal cultural territory.

http://tygae.weebly.com/corp-externalities.html http://tygae.weebly.com/ecological-overshoot.html 8 http://tygae.weebly.com/tipping-points.html 9 http://tygae.weebly.com/biodiversity-loss.html 10 http://tygae.weebly.com/climate-change.html 11 http://tygae.weebly.com/nitrogen-cycle.html 12 http://tygae.weebly.com/ocean-acidification.html 13 http://tygae.weebly.com/land-use.html 14 http://tygae.weebly.com/freshwater-use.html 15 http://tygae.weebly.com/biosphere-state-shift.html 16 http://tygae.weebly.com/peak-nnr-scarcity.html 6 7

17

http://tygae.weebly.com/milint-earth-day-sign-up.html

11

Current Flat Earth Social Contract Rule of Force Prisons: “New York’s Rikers Island: This was the armpit of New York City: A place for detaining excess populations who are unemployable. Jails like rain to a farmer – just make sure you don’t get too much of it. Jail was a chance, with little risk, to impress gangsters from the Neighbourhood; there were men in all the New York jails who knew my father and grandfather. On the street, I had to work for a rep, but in jail I could build it easily, pick up the law from older Neighbourhood fellas, names I could use to drop on the outside, like “You was with Yago,” or “You was with Irving the Banker.”” – John Maher, as quoted in John Maher of Delancey Street: A Guide for Peaceful Revolution in America,

by Grover Sales.

Generally speaking, the majority of individuals who find themselves in physical prisons (whether general population or solitary confinement) are ‘surplus population’ symptoms of national inter-tribal class, race and cultural resource thieving conflict.

A minority of individuals who find themselves in physical prisons are generally political, socio-cultural or ideological dissidents of one or other breeding or consumption war ideological prison.

In my personal experience, of engaging many political prisoners (from the far right to the far left) my working hypothesis conclusions are that less than 0.1 percent of history’s minority dissidents (political prisoners) have found themselves incarcerated because of their dissenting opposition to the flat earth ‘rule of force’ social contract, demanding it to be abolished and replaced with a social contract founded on ecological carrying capacity limits.

To the contrary their dissenting political motivated criminality was consciously or unconsciously motivated towards upholding the flat earth ‘rule of force’ social contract, but amending it by force to enable the growth of their respective breeding or consumption war tribe, for greater access to depleting resources.

CommonSism Eco-Civilization Option: Judicial Procedures and Monastic Prisons under an International Law CommonSism social contract:

12

As documented at MILINT Earth Day submission to the Swiss Federal Council; Re: Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, in terms of Articles 142 & 14318; a significant minority number of individuals from left and right wing political ideologies, rich and poor socio-economic classes, various ethnicities/races, religions and cultures accepted their legal invitations to support the implementation of an international law CommonSism social contract requiring all nations to reduce (and once attained maintain) their nation’s procreation and consumption to ecological carrying capacity limits.

Put simply the proposed CommonSism social contract would proceed to turn back the clock to eliminate the three root causes of ecological overshoot: (a) population above ecological carrying capacity limits; (b) consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits and (c) because consumption and procreation would be reduced and limited to carrying capacity limits, this would drastically reduce socio-economic hierarchy; hence (d) reduce or eliminate resource motivated criminal violence resulting from ecological overshoot. [For detailed argument of Scarcity – Conflict relationship see work of Dr Jack Alpert19 and Dr. Thomas Holmer-Dixon20] This would result in the only individuals being imprisoned being (a) CommonSism Cheaters: those who violate consumption or procreation carrying capacity limits; or (b) Voluntarist Cheaters: those convicted of engaging in any activity in a public or private space without obtaining the

18

http://tygae.weebly.com/milint-earth-day-sign-up.html http://sqswans.weebly.com/dr-jack-alpert.html 20 http://sqswans.weebly.com/conflict-dr-thomas-homer-dixon.html 19

13

fully informed consent of other individuals involved in such activity, or present in such public or private space.

CommonSism Justice Must be Absolute: This submission agrees with Judge Jason Brent, that in order for a CommonSism Social Contract to work for all; it must be absolute; i.e. applied to everyone in equal measure.

This submission disagrees with Judge Brent that (a) only procreation cheaters should be executed, and (b) that anyone convicted of cheating, should not be given one opportunity to suspend execution, by choosing to demonstrate their sincerity to enrol in a Monastery Prison to reflect and rehabilitate themselves.

As argued by former Municipal Court Judge Jason Brent, in Humans: Endangered Species21: And now get ready for the most provocative portion of the book! .. [H]umanity cannot wait many years to commence the reduction of human population. Steps must be taken today which will reduce population growth to a negative number.

Steps must be taken today which will reduce the human population below the current 6.7 billion who live on this planet. The survival of our species depends on action today.

The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple---limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child窶馬ot one child for the male and one child for the female.

These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female.

It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.)

The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal 21

http://www.jgbrent.com/

14

to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate prenatal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.

Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.

Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child窶馬o religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.

In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child.

CommonSism Rule of Law Social Contract Judicial Proceedings: CommonSism violations: 15

In any judicial proceedings involving any individual accused of violating consumption or procreation carrying capacity limits, the court would require all individuals involved in such judicial proceedings, from judge, to prosecutor, attorneys and plaintiff, to submit to the court their evidence in support of their Eco-Innocent procreation and consumption footprint.

Consumption Violations: Individuals found guilty of violating consumption social contract limits; would be required to (A) either relinquish their excess consumed products; or if already spent pay an appropriate financial fine; to a conservation trust fund or similar; and (B) sign a legal agreement – similar to the MILINT Earth Day Ecology of Peace Oath (PDF22) – with law enforcement authorities to commit to consuming below carrying capacity limits, and failing to honourably do so authorizing a Judge to authorize law enforcement officials, to remove their dishonourable genes from the national genepool.

Procreation Violations: Individuals found guilty of violating procreation social contract limits; would be required (A) to (i) relinquish said child for adoption (if wanted to be adopted by a family) and agree to be permanently sterilized; and (ii) sign a legal agreement – similar to aforementioned MILINT Earth Day Ecology of Peace Oath – with law enforcement authorities to commit to consuming below carrying capacity limits, and failing to honourably do so authorizing a Judge to authorize law enforcement officials to remove their dishonourable genes from the national genepool; (B) if no adoptive family is found; both parents and children are to be given their choice as to how they prefer to be humanely executed.

Consumption or Procreation Violations: Prison Sentence: If the court determines that the violations were sufficiently egregious, but the transgressor argues that they request an opportunity to reflect on their transgressions, prior to being forced to agree to their execution and the removal of their genes from the national genepool; the court may require the individual to participate in a prison reflection process for a year to determine the underlying causes related to their conscious or subconscious motives for their CommonSism violations. See Prison Reflections further below.

Voluntarist: Fully Informed Consent violations: In a judicial proceeding involving the violation of fully informed consent between two or more individuals the courts only interest is in deciding (a) are 22

http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-06-18_milint-earth-day-wyft-support-troopsoath_cert.pdf

16

the plaintiff and accused from the same culture; i.e hence share similar moral cultural values; or (b) from different cultures; i.e. share enough different cultural or sub-cultural values requiring the state to arbitrate between two conflicting sets of cultural morality norms; (c) were the actions between the plaintiff and defendant fully consensual; and (d) if not, whom violated the principle of fully informed consent in the specific acts; and finally (e) to what degree was the principle of a fully informed consensual act violated; i.e. from subjectively unintentional to premeditated malice. The focus of the court is not based on any uniform code of morality, but on specific relevant culture’s cultural norms. For example in the Seychelles littering is considered a cultural offence. Alternatively in honourable militant culture’s two individuals may consent to participate in an honourable duel at a time or place that does not violate other parties cultural values, and even though another culture may consider the death of the loser, to be ‘murder’; because the act involved all relevant parties fully informed consent, the act would not be considered a cultural offence.

Shared Cultural Values: Conviction Proceedings: If violation of consent dispute involves individuals who subjectively agree that they share each others relevant similar gender, ethnicity, religion, or any other related cultural values; then the court proceedings simply enquire whether the acts were fully consensual, if not, who violated the principles of consent; and to what degree; within any relevant parameters of the parties particular cultural practices and norms.

Shared Cultural Values: Sentencing Proceedings: Once it is determined who the consensual transgressor was, and to what degree the consensual transgression occurred; the transgressor and transgressed parties should submit to the court their respective arguments and preferences for (a) how the violation of consent should be resolved: i.e. what punishment they consider appropriate for resolving the transgression ; (b) whether the party wishes to continue associating with the other party; or not; (c) if the parties preferences are to continue associating with each other, to negotiate an agreement as to how they intend to engage in fully informed consenting agreement association with each other; and (d) if the parties preferences are to discontinue associating with each other; to negotiate an agreement as to how they intend to commit to avoid any future association with each other.

Different Cultural Values: Conviction Proceedings:

17

If violation of consent dispute involves individuals who subjectively consider themselves to share different gender, ethnicity, religion, or any other related cultural values; and that their dispute was a consequence of misunderstandings related to their different cultural values; then the court proceedings enquire whether the acts were fully consensual, if not, who violated the principles of consent; and to what degree; within the context of a conflict of laws and cultural norms judicial enquiry; evaluating the violation of consent to find a balance between the parties particular conflicting cultural practices and norms.

Different Cultural Values: Sentencing Proceedings: Once it is determined who the consensual transgressor was, and to what degree the consensual transgression occurred; the transgressor and transgressed parties should submit to the court their respective arguments and preferences for (a) how the violation of consent should be resolved: i.e. what punishment they consider appropriate for resolving the transgression ; (b) whether the party wishes to continue associating with the other party; or not; (c) if the parties preferences are to continue associating with each other, to negotiate an agreement as to how they intend to engage in fully informed consenting agreement association with each other; and (d) if the parties preferences are to discontinue associating with each other; to negotiate an agreement as to how they intend to commit to avoid any future association with each other.

Shared or Different Cultural Values: Prison Sentence: If the individual transgressed (a) submits to the court an argument that the transgression of consent was sufficiently malicious to justify the sentencing options of incarceration for a period of reflection or execution; and (b) the court agrees with such argument; the (c) transgressor should be given the option of choosing between (i) agreeing to be incarcerated to reflect on their transgression; or (ii) refusing to be incarcerated in preference of humane execution; and given the option to choose how they wish to be executed.

If the Transgressor chooses to be incarcerated to reflect on their transgression, the individual transgressed agrees to honourably engage the transgressor as part of his reflection process; for a period of one year.

Monastery Prisons focussed on enabling Prisoner Reflection: A prison conducive to enabling prisoners sincere about engaging in a reflection process about their CommonSism or Voluntarist cheating; should be in many of its management processes be similar to a well run monastery or

18

nunnery. The closest state run prison system that could be compared to include management factors that encourage personal responsibility23, and a somewhat monastic reflection experience for some of its residents, willing to engage in such a reflection experience24; would plausibly be the Norwegian prison system. [Related Note: while the Norwegian prison system may be the most superior state run system in the western world; Norway’s psychiatric system is plausibly one of, if not the most inferior, encouraging the very opposite of personal responsibility25. Superior and inferior are based on whether ‘it works’ or not. The most superior rehabilitation system, not run by the State, is Delancey Street Foundation26.]

A truly secular monastic prison enabling prisoner reflection process would include monastic practices, such as for example: (i) self sufficiency: involving all individuals in food production and other duties to maintain its self-sufficiency; (ii) encourage thrifty use of resources; (iii) enable all of its residents to engage in times of quiet reflection, including having spaces for total silence; (iv) enable either the study of relevant spiritual or philosophical literate; or group therapy processes to encourage the transgressor to engage in self-examination reflection to confront and take personal and social responsibility for the underlying subconscious issues that contributed to their actions.

Prison monasteries would be classified as Maximum Security Reflection (accept transgressors whose actions included physical violence); or Minimum Security Reflection (accept transgressors whose actions did not include physical violence).

Upon arrival at any Prison Monastery (Maximum or Minimum Security) the transgressor would be required to confirm his sincere reflection 23

Hardened Criminals Held in Freedom: Doing Time on Norway's Island Prison: No bars. No walls. No armed guards. The prison island of Bastøy in Norway is filled with some of the country's most hardened criminals. Yet it emphasizes self-control instead of the strictly regulated regimens common in most prisons.

For some inmates, it is more than they can handle. http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hardened-criminals-held-in-freedom-doing-time-on-norway-sisland-prison-a-744851.html 24 In May 1994, Varg Vikernes, at the time described as a Neo-Nazi was sentenced to 21 years in prison for murder: stabbing Øystein 'Euronymous' Aarseth to death; and arson: burning down numerous Christian churches. He served almost 15 years of his sentence, and was released on parole in early 2009. In French Trial of Varg Vikernes Postponed, Vikernes, says that he experienced his time in the Norwegian prison system similar to being forced to spend time in a monastery. Vikernes is no longer a Neo-Nazi, currently claims to be an ethno-nationalist. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/french-trial-of-varg-vikernes-postponed/ 25 Einar Øverenget Dr. of Philosophy: Psychiatry in Moral Crisis http://norway-vbreivik.blogspot.com/2012/04/einar-verenget-dr-of-philosophy.html ||| Fampo: Norway, the Last Soviet Republic: Censorship, Child Protection and Psychiatry Worthy of a Dictatorship http://norway-vbreivik.blogspot.com/2012/02/norway-last-soviet-republic-censorship.html 26 http://www.delanceystreetfoundation.org/

19

motivations by entering into an agreement, that s/he intends to take personal responsibility for remaining at the Prison Monastery; until Monastery authorities or the court determine the transgressor has satisfactorily completed their reflection process. Furthermore the transgressor should unequivocally agree in writing, in a language clearly understood by the transgressor, that should s/he violate such agreement and depart the monastery premises without authorization from Prison Monastery authorities, such Prison Monastery authorities are thereby authorized to notify relevant Law Enforcement authorities, who are authorized to execute transgressor upon capture; and remove the dishonourable transgressors gene’s from the national genepool.

Prison Reflection Process: Voluntarist Violation: The Transgressor’s Reflection process includes all parties agreeing to (a) commit to honourably engage to finding a resolution to their dispute; i.e. enabling the transgressor to understand how it occurred, and addressing how to avoid it occurring again; or (b) commit to avoid engaging in violent or passive aggressive violent avoidance of addressing the underlying causes (emotional, psychological, or otherwise) that resulted in their absence of consent dispute.

If the Transgressor either refuses to honourable engage the individual’s transgressed, or engages in passive aggressive avoidance; the matter may be referred back to the court to decide on the plausibility of whether extended incarceration may amend the transgressors stubbornness, and if not, provide the transgressor with the option to choose how he wishes to remove his dishonourable genes from the national genepool.

If the transgressed individual/s either (a) refuse/s to commit to honourably engaging the transgressor to finding a resolution of their dispute; i.e. understanding how it occurred, and addressing how to avoid it occurring again; or (b) engages in passive aggressive avoidance of addressing the underlying causes (emotional, psychological, or otherwise) that resulted in their violation of consent dispute; then the (c) transgressor should either be released from his prison reflection agreement; or the alleged transgressed individuals should be found guilty of violating their agreement to consent to engaging a resolution of their dispute; and both parties be required to engage in reflection, and if any party refuses; without justifiable reason, such party should be provided the opportunity to choose their preferred option for removing their dishonourable genes from the national genepool; and the other party released.

20

Reflection Process: Honourable Reason and Logic Problem Solving – v- Dishonourable Passive Aggressive Fundamentalist Violent Avoidance: Put simply and generally speaking: there are two ways of ‘being’ for humans in the world.

• There is a way of being that respects honourable reason and logic problem solving engagement.

• There is a way of being that respects dishonourable passive aggressive fundamentalist violent avoidance.

It is not easy to consistently spend time in a state of being that respects reason and logic.

Most of humanity unconsciously spend most of their life in relationships in a state of being that respects violence, while bullshitting themselves they respect reason and logic.

Reflection Process: Honourable Reason and Logic Problem Solving Engagement: Generally speaking you are in a state of honourable reason and logic problem solving engagement in any relationship to the extent that you are willing to: (a) sincerely and actively listen to the evidence from any individual, irrespective of their political ideology (right wing to left wing), religion, race or culture; (b) actively listening means you verify that your interpretation of their statements is accurate; before concluding that you have ‘heard their argument’; (c) you focus on simplifying the issue discussed, using as much as possible descriptive words27 (as opposed to abstract concepts; and where you do use abstract concepts; you are willing to define your meaning of that abstract concept within that circumstance) (d) you evaluate their argument based upon the evidence they present, not their race, religion or political ideology; etc; (e) if you are not convinced by their evidence on any particular issue; you are willing to agree to disagree on that particular issue, and remain in the

27

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm

21

conversation until you find agreement (if ever); and support each other on other issues that you do agree upon. (f) if conflict arises in the discussion about the issue, you are committed to remaining in the conversation and finding a way to resolve the conflict, by allowing yourselves to get over your anger (as opposed to requiring yourself or others to suppress their anger for political correct ‘lets pretend we are getting along’ reasons) (g) if their evidence proves any of your evidence for any of your ideological or other working hypothesis theories or beliefs to be inaccurate; you love reason and logic more than your ego-identity and hence you are willing to publicly change your mind, on that particular subject and amend your ideological working hypothesis or belief with the new evidence provided.

Reflection Process: Dishonourable Fundamentalist Violence Avoidance:

Passive

Aggressive

Generally speaking you are in a state of dishonourable passive aggressive fundamentalist violent avoidance (ideological, intellectual, emotional or physical) in any relationship to the extent that you: (a) avoid sincerely and actively listening to the evidence from any individual, particularly from individuals whom you identify as belonging to a particular race, political ideology (left or right wing), religion, race or culture (b) consciously or unconsciously deliberately avoid actively listening to verify that your interpretation of their statements are accurate; before concluding that you have ‘heard their argument’; (c) you focus on complicating the issue discussed to deliberately create ambiguity; using as much as possible abstract concepts 28; and refuse or avoid defining your meaning of that abstract concept within that circumstance; (d) you avoid addressing their argument or their evidence, or deliberately misrepresent their argument or evidence; generally for conscious or unconscious motives related to their membership of some political ideological group, race, religion or culture; (e) if you are convinced by their evidence on any particular issue; you avoid admitting such; and you also refuse to agree to disagree on that particular issue, and remain in the conversation until you find agreement (if ever); and support each other on other issues that you do agree upon.

28

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm

22

(f) you consciously or subconsciously attempt to create conflict in the discussion; to avoid addressing their argument or evidence; and when such conflict arises; you use the conflict as an excuse to withdraw from the conversation; and avoid exploring opportunities to allow yourselves to get over your anger (as opposed to requiring yourself or others to suppress their anger for political correct ‘lets pretend we are getting along’ reasons); and remain in the conversation; (g) if their evidence proves any of your evidence for any of your ideological or other working hypothesis theories or beliefs to be inaccurate; you love your ego-(political/racial/cultural)-identity more than reason and logic, and refuse to change your mind, on that particular subject and amend your ideological working hypothesis or belief with the new evidence provided.

Objectors to the CommonSism Eco-Civilization Option: Anyone capable of critical thinking and evaluating two contradictory options for the future; would imagine that everyone given the aforementioned choice, would choose the CommonSism Eco-Civilization option. However this is not the case. A significant number of individuals invited to support the CommonSism option; have (a) either declined to do so or simply ignored their invitations; and (b) if declined: have failed to honourably provide their evidentiary justifications for their objection.

Consequently I can only speculate as to their possible reasons for declining to support an orderly and humane process of de-industrialization, and favouring a mobjustice organized violence de-industrialized descent into slavery and genocidal race, religion and class wars.

Speculative Working Hypothesis reasons for objection by a significant number of members (not all) from the following ideological factions: 1.

Religious ideological factions (Christians and Muslims): They are addicted to their religious prophecies of Armageddon, the return of Jesus or Allah, and so on.

2.

Right wing racial ideological factions (Neo Nazis, etc): They are ideologically addicted to their ideologically prophesied impending race war.

3.

Left wing racial ideological factions (From Rappers, Hip Hoppers, Antifa Wiggers to Sharpton & Jackson, some Liberal Muslim factions, et al): They are ideologically addicted to their ideological prophesied impending race war.

23

4.

Right wing racial ideological factions (Neo-Nazis): They publicly believe that the flock of the racial black left (Rappers, Hip Hoppers, Sharpton, Jackson et al; etc) are untermenschen: not physically or intellectually capable of responsible procreation and engaging in fully informed consenting agreements.

5.

Left wing racial ideological factions (From Rappers, Hip Hoppers, Antifa Wiggers to Sharpton & Jackson, some liberal Muslimc factions, et al): They secretly believe (a) that the Right wing racial ideological factions (Neo-Nazis) are correct about the left wing racial ideological factions flock being untermenschen: not physically or intellectually capable of responsible procreation and engaging in fully informed consenting agreements; (b) do not have the honour and integrity to publicly admit to their secret beliefs, that their ideology of so-called ‘racial equality’ is subjectively nothing but a selfdeception illusion, because secretly they believe their own flock are nothing more than untermenschen: not physically or intellectually capable of responsible procreation and engaging in fully informed consenting agreements; and hence only worthy of being used as breeding and vote farm cannon fodder.

So the racial right wing thinks that although the racial left wing’s flock are untermenschen, it is (a) possible such constructive criticism may be incorrect, and that such racial left wing flock, may in fact listen to constructive criticism and amend their untermenschen behaviour; or (b) that even if they are in fact untermenschen; they at least deserve to be treated honestly and provided with such honest constructive criticism.

The racial left wing’s actions towards their flock however, indicate that they unequivocally believe (i) their own flock to be untermenschen and (ii) of such an inferior state of untermenschen, that they are incapable of the psychological, moral and intellectual character traits to hear such constructive criticism and better themselves; hence (iii) their untermenschen flock are unworthy of honest tough love constructive criticism about their possible untermenschen characterises, so as to be able to confront them, and overcome them.

From personal experience, of living and travelling around the globe, interacting with individuals from different ideologies, classes (including socalled functionally illiterate classes) the author’s personal experience is that indeed no two people are equal, every individual and groups of individuals have superior and inferior physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual skills and capabilities.

24

No matter how illiterate or uneducated, individuals and groups of individuals who are sincere about learning and growing value honourable tough love problem solving orientated constructive criticism from their peers or even enemies, about any of their inferior characteristics or skills; were the ones who were willing to struggle to overcome that particular inferiority in their character or skill set and better themselves. They overcome their inferiority insecurity on any issues, by accepting constructive criticism and working to overcome the inferiority and thereby removed their inferiority insecurity.

Individuals and groups who value political correctness pleasant ideas about nobody being inferior or superior and everyone somehow being magically equal in all character traits and skills; who shun and vilify constructive honourable tough love criticism, thereby avoid addressing their own, friends or followers inferiority insecurities. The result of this denial and avoidance refusal to confront the reality about their inferiority insecurity; preferring to project their inferiority insecurity bigotry; with cries of ‘racism’ onto those who insist on pointing out the existence of the inferiority insecurity; only aggravates their own inferiority insecurities about their own, friends or flocks untermenschen character and skills.

Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 23 February 2014

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539, South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 jmcswan@mweb.co.za

25