Fair Start Movement

Category: Media Critique & Fact-Checking

Fact Check: Harvard’s Animal Law Professor Kristin Stilt Does More to Privilege Her Kids Than Benefit Animals.

Professors are influential, and when they make public benefit claims, they should do some from clear baselines, and in a way that does not hide inequitable and disenfranchising growth. Not dealing with baselines is evidence to support the Fair Start thesis: That wealth obtained by violating the rights of future children now drives public interest narratives and outcomes to hide and violate those rights.

*This critique is intentionally done outside of customary back and forth academic discourse. A constitutive discourse is more public, and rather than treating values like animal protection as abstract, it assesses the value and impact claims influential people make that fundamentally benefit them, through a system of illegitimate and disentrancing growth and birth positionality, at deadly cost to others and in contravention of academic neutrality.

Professor Kristin Stilt is Faculty Director of the Animal Law & Policy Program, Harvard Law School, and in leadership at the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy.

The Program’s website states it is: “Committed to analyzing and improving the treatment of animals through the legal system.”

That statement is inaccurate. Stilt and the program use an illegal baselining and equity fraud standard that creates a fantasy world of benefit for animals that is undone, upstream, by inequitable and disenfranchising growth.

Stilt’s work on the illusory concept of “rights of nature,” the benefits of which are undone by growth every day, is exemplary of her approach. Claims of using animals benefiting animals are the worst example of the Winners Take All phenomenon because animals are the most numerous category of vulnerable entities, and because claiming our current political inequity-based system of growth can benefit them are outlandish.

Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to animals than the program ever did good. Use of that valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Relative to that harm, on many levels, our work was insignificant and thus performative – and in terms of the underlying business model – mimics Coca-Cola’s model of discounting future lives, especially lives of color, at exponential levels.

Fair Start and Truth Alliance will be taking legal action, in addition to our petition before the United Nations, to block the use of the standard by Harvard.

Backgrounder on Equity Fraud

The fundamental unit of moral currency is the influence one has over the outcomes of their political system, or what is loosely understood as political equality / equity though common conceptions are incomplete. Other currencies, like welfare, cannot exist outside of systems of political and legal obligation or “oughtness” and the primacy of how people are positioned relative to others and Earth’s ecologies at birth.

This equity is consistent with an objective “one person, one equal and influential vote” (equal offsets of influence relative to zero) standard, empowering persons to limit the influence others have – including ecologically and socially – over them. This is also consistent with more collective systems of family planning in which no child is treated as worth more than another, an outcome ensured through a threshold or level of empowering birth and development conditions and relations outside of which no child should be born.

While world leaders after World War Two were obligated by the emerging human rights regime to use this standard as the fundamental baseline for governance, this was functionally blocked by use of the dominant “separate but equal” standard in universal reproductive rights regimes – in the birth and development-based creation of actual power relations. This system reversed the concept of freedom by treating the act of having children as more self-determinative of the parent than other-determinative of the children and the communities they would comprise – determining political equity for all in the process.

This physically disembedded persons from any effective role in their political systems. It also allowed those in power, both with political authority and entitlements to wealth defended by that authority, to avoid having to legitimate their power by actually, and measurably empowering those subject to it. Rather than seeing the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, nations treated symbolic or representative instruments like treaties and constitutions as themselves authoritative.

While civil rights movements made headway in areas like housing, employment, and education, the notion of autonomy without equity amounted to the privatization of the creation of power relations, and the totally arbitrary basis for the concentration of extreme levels of generational white wealth – over the span of decades – that drives many of the outcomes we see today. That wealth never had to pay the costs of legitimacy – and the full impacts are now being revealed.

Within less than a few generations the regime caused unsustainable growth, vast political, social, and ecological inequity, the destruction of world ecologies, and the decline of democracy. This inequitable and disenfranchising growth breached political, ecological and social thresholds for objective values we all share like comfortable temperatures, equality of opportunity,

Public interest work and outcomes during these decades and into today have generally oriented from arbitrary, ever-changing and illegal (both because they disenfranchise and otherwise harm children, relative to a host of accepted legal standards usually only applied to existing rather than future children) baselines that violate the “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard. High levels of climate emissions championed by “environmental” organizations that enrich some at deadly cost to others, still permitted and defended by coercive authority of nations, are an example.

Use of these baselines represents an undemocratic, diluted and commercial form of freedom, rather than values consistent with political freedom, that is more akin to “free market” choice” of a shopping mall more than the political influence of a functional town hall.

Public interest interventions to challenge greenwashing and humanewashing have failed because they themselves did not account for the massively countervailing impacts of growth on the interventions themselves – growth that for instance has created more climate emissions than the interventions removed, while bringing children into the world without the resources or political influence to deal with them.

And yet accounting for growth by itself would not account for the inequity of the relations formed by that growth.cIt would not account for how some benefit at deadly cost to others based simply on their birth and developmental positionality, with benefits defended by nations on the false premise that all are empowered equally at birth. One of the false assumptions at work was that some children were magically born poor and others rich, instead of the reality of a policy choice to elevate family autonomy (and not in the sense of being free of the climate crisis, but free in a “free market” sense) over family equity and political legitimacy.

Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, living in poverty, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. They are subject to top-down abstract rules, not rules derived from the inclusive creation of power relations by those subject to them.

Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth – like Tim Midura – have helped conceal this with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.

For example, Fair Start activists were funded by such funders in their work with prior organizations, and prominent activists turned business owners today benefit from having used assessment and reporting models that each year allowed them to claim progress for vulnerable entities – like animals – that was easily being undone on exponential levels by birth-inequity based growth. The hallmark of equity fraud involves the fraudster omitting from evaluation and reporting the largest driver of the relevant outcome – the birth-based creation of power relations – in order to exploit that process.

The solution?

The FalseClaimsChecker.org accounts for this minimum necessary condition of political equity by replacing those assumptions – and the illegal baselining – with a base assumption that political authority and the entitlement to wealth it can generate must be derived from a “one person, one equal and influential vote” / “no child is worth more than another standard,” thus situating those making the value assessments and impact reporting themselves as part of, or outside of, a discourse legitimacy moving towards a just future. This accounts, at a most fundamental level – at a constitutional or basic system of obligation level, for the driver of the polycrisis.

This allows us to begin to see the creation of actual (relative to the legal baseline) empowering relations as the source of political authority, and treat how each person assesses value and report impacts to determine the alternative baseline from which they proceed.

These claims situate them in their political system, and allow us to assess how they arbitrarily benefit from, or suffer the costs, of the “separate but equal” standard.

When someone makes a value assessment and impact claim, we should ask: Relative to what?

You will find rampant use of shifting baseline – moving goalposts – that allow claimants to appear to create value and beneficial impact with no functional protections for the most vulnerable, infants and animals, as the climate crisis, autocracy, and massive inequity worsens. That means the impact is being undone relative to the minimum legally required threshold, or an illegal baseline – illegal because it does not account for legitimacy, or the need to measurably empower those subject to the legal system, including ensuring minimum levels of health-as-enfranchisement for all infants.

This is called growthwashing, or more accurately equitywashing. Why the latter? Because to treat humans quantitatively as numbers is less accurate than to see them as living in complex qualitative relations, and because past certain ecological, social, and political thresholds, growth has devastating nonlinear impacts – with climate emissions triggering things like ecological feedback loops.

We can use these claims to demonstrate the problem, that the values and impact they claimed would have been undone relative to the legal / preemptive as opposed to arbitrary baselines, and encourage reforms towards the legal baseline and their becoming part of an empowering system of truly self–determining persons by realigning fundamental authority and entitlements around a system of fair birth positionality, consistent with the values that they are signaling in their claims This is a state of autonomy through political equity by rearranging constitutional entitlements, sufficient to ensure Dasgupta’s optimality, but in the qualitative sense of empowering relations.

Given that few if any use the legal “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard, this exercise generally entails their having to admit benefiting from arbitrary birth and developmental positionality (national, racial, intergenerational, etc.) at deadly cost to others, and having disparate influence over others defended by unlegitimated authority, and threat of coercion, of the state.

We admit: Being part of a system of birth inequity that treats children of color as deserving fewer resources and influence, including omitting this as a countervailing factor in our value assessments and impact reporting, by overshooting ecological, political and social thresholds does more harm to our values than we do to further them.

This “Tell the Truth” discourse creates an opportunity for permanent resistance to oppression because it protects, through the use of an intergenerational justice threshold, the most vulnerable, Infants and animals and identifies those who reject that protection, and systems of mutual self-determination with it.

See the fallacious claims by prominent food entrepreneur Paul Shapiro, who ironically started his work as an animal rights activist climbing to a level of national influence on a false advertising campaign against egg producers for humane washing, His claims to have saved animals while explicitly refusing to back equity reforms or qualify his claims, make them inaccurate and out of context because he omits how he chose underlying policies that did vastly more harm to animals than he did good. His omission enables him to exploit financial systems – as lead at a profitable food company with military contracts – that in turn growth exploit animals and elevate his voice above those pursuing on-balance reforms.

Initial attempts, in other scenarios, by Fair Start Movement and Truth Alliance advocates to implement this preemption were met with sabotage by public interest entities hiding liability for decades of inaccurate claims, usually for micro interventions undone – relative to a true system of empowerment – by macro forces that enriched those involved, and their funders, at deadly cost to others.

As a practical matter one can challenge illegal baselining, or political equity and impact fraud, using inexpensive and widely available consumer protection and unfair competition laws to enjoin public and private business valuation, and impact reporting, that don’t comply with the minimum baseline of inclusive legitimacy.

Given that political authority, including to entitle wealth, derives from having to empower those subject to the authority, these cases get to the ultimate question of political freedom: Are we obligated to a political system that does not empower us? And what are the limits of self-defense against such a system?

After 1948 and the inception of universal human rights that limited national authority, nations were obligated to derive their authority and any entitlements protected under it from the equitable empowerment of their subjects. This requirement is widely reflected in the Bill of Human Rights instruments and their references to the right to self-determination – and one person, one equal and influential vote. This requirement should have created an interpretation of the collective pronoun that premises those documents, like the reference to “we the people,” treating a level of influence in one’s political system (“oughtness” or an “influl” that precedes a “util”) as a fundamental currency that precedes utility and welfare.

The textual basis for this interpretive rule is clear – these pronouns are the linguistic premise of the language that follows. Such a currency and universal linguistic rule of interpretation would have entailed a harsh principle: Each person in a system of law and obligation would be owed the level of public protection, or oughtness, they would account to the most vulnerable: Infants, and the animals whom the infants would impact. The value of self, versus other, determination would require it. Again, a racist system of self-determination blocked this change.

Regardless, the principle creates a textual basis to interpret law as requiring the inclusion and empowerment of those subject to it, consistent with standards for intergenerational justice, and ensuring equal offsets of influence relative to a zero baseline and the idea that no child is worth more than another. At a policy level this would have required a fundable, minimum threshold of empowerment beneath which no child should be born, with future children holding entitlements sufficient to create collective family planning systems based on readiness, delay, and the equitable distribution of levels of influence among children. The threshold ensures equal offsets relative to zero, or the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from things like a climate crisis, autocracy, deadly inequity, etc.

Put simply:

If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims has been using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.

Those willing to pay the costs of a legitimate political system that avoids arbitrary benefits of birth positionality and conditions authority on empowerment could never compete against those willing to exploit others, and they need not given that any authority to govern or assign wealth derives from first empowering those subject to these things. The other solution to inequity-gained wealth backed by state violence – as the oppression it is – is to treat that violence as illegitimate and triggering the right to self-determinative self-defense against “trolley targets” who benefit themselves at deadly cost to others.

It’s this truthful and obligation-creating discourse, a Tell the Truth campaign, that is most preemptive and legally authoritative over all conflicting obligations, including treaties and constitutions.

Take action: Urge her here to tell the truth.

April 20, 2026
Fact Checking Nandita Bajaj and Population Balance. Take Action.

Treating humans as numbers, and framing the world’s crises in terns of population, hides political inequity – the true driver of the crisis. It hides legitimate demands for birth equity reparations, putting millions of lives at risk.

Nandita Bajaj leads the entity Population Balance.

According to the Population Balance website:

We inspire narrative, behavioral, and system change that shrinks our human impact and elevates the rights and wellbeing of people, animals, and the planet.

We are proud to be the first and only organization globally that uses an anti-oppression lens to draw connections between pronatalism, human supremacy, social inequalities, and ecological overshoot, and offer resilient, life-affirming pathways to address their combined impacts on the planet, people, and animals.

That is not accurate. Bajaj and the organization use the same fundamental standard – birth inequity – that caused the polycrisis.

Their claims use the same degraded and commercialized version of freedom, rather than measurable political equity, that enriches some children at deadly cost to others.

Yes pronatalism – urging women to have children – is bad.

But what fundamentally drives pronatalism are concentrations of wealth and power that were able to exploit growth for decades – and able to do so because of the same reproductive rights model Bajaj backs and that Fair Start was designed to replace, one in which there is no requirement to ensure children are measurably empowered.

Opposing pronatalism in word without changing the entitlement structure can do more harm than good.

A Twentieth Century power grab by elites used the “separate but equal” standard to treat the act of having children as a matter of parental bodily autonomy, rather than political equity for all. This blocked the measurable empowerment of each child – the measurable political equity that is a necessary condition of being free – and ensured unsustainable and inequitable growth that created extreme concentration of wealth, disenfranchised citizens, and irreparable harm to the environment.

Today women “liberated” by this reproductive rights regime, as well as their children, are dying in growth-based heat waves, with no way to use their political influence to save themselves or their children. Worse yet, wealthy funders benefiting from that inequitable growth masked it for decades with the downstream charade interventions discussed above, and low standards for defining terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable” designed to enrich their own children at deadly cost to others.

There are a legion of professionals ensuring the white supremacy of this wealth bubble – lawyers, academics (many of whom do not account for birth positionality and thus lose neutrality in their work), reporters/editors, campaigners, and paid fundraisers – who create a fantasy world of legitimacy and social justice progress with performative, micro-level and downstream interventions easily undone by inequitable, disenfranchising, and upstream growth. These professionals protect and expand mostly white wealth by omitting the countervailing impacts of children entering the world in conditions that violate the children’s rights and disenfranchise them, impacts that contradict the value assessments and public interest impacts the professionals claim. They want the benefits of the privileged birth positionality system, including using it to appear to engage in public interest work and the furthering of key values, without acknowledging and mitigating the costs of that system to these values.

Fair Start activists worked with Bajaj for some time.

During that time, and now, she and the organization have rejected birth-equity based reforms, and framed the threat around human population rather than political inequity – a move that panders to funders keen to avoid questions of white supremacy and birth equity liability, and that deprives those most impacted by the climate crisis of the equity reparations they deserve.

In fact, Population Balance removed Fair Start modeling, which shows that it is illegal to treat children of color as deserving less than white children, from their podcast. Their work does not change the fundamental entitlement structure that caused the climate crisis, and is akin to performative equitywashing.

It’s not about population – humans are not numbers.

The issue is political equity. Bajaj provides a convenient offramp to avoid dealing with what we owe future generations, especially children of color.

“There’s a hard truth we can’t keep avoiding. In the fight for climate justice and birth equity, the path is not always clean. Sometimes, the very systems meant to support this work pull organizations into spaces that raise real legal and ethical concerns. The pressure to secure funding can quietly shift the focus from justice to survival and in doing so, it can reinforce the same power imbalances we are trying to dismantle”

– Mwesigye Robert

Take action:

Contact Bajaj at nandita.bajaj@populationbalance.org and ask her to disclose how they account, and have been accounting, for the costs of children entering the world relative to a legitimate standard that empowers children to be part of a system of political self-determination.

Our Tell the Truth and Act campaign is simple: We admit not ensuring all children a fair start in life did more to harm our values than we did to further them, and we commit to changing that.

Fair Start activists are eager to debate Bajaj publicly on her modeling. Urge her to accept the offer.

Fact:

If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims was using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.

March 27, 2026
Factchecking Professor Justin Marceau. His Animal Advocacy Does Not On Balance Liberate Animals. It’s a Facade That Hides Liability for the Climate and Inequity-Driven Deaths of Millions.

Did the University of Denver really spend millions of dollars to create charade of animal liberation, saving a few here and there, while embracing an underlying model of animal propertyhood, birth inequity, and unsustainable growth that kills countless more, and harms vulnerable children?

“Today’s animal rights movement is hindered by an unmet need: While relying heavily on activists and insiders to uncover wrongdoing and urge systemic reform, there has historically been a dearth of available legal support. The Animal Activist Legal Defense Project fundamentally alters this state of affairs, with significant and distinctive benefits for the future of the animal rights movement and for the future of animal well-being.”

—Professor Justin Marceau, Director, Animal Activist Legal Defense Project

That statement is not accurate.

Relative to what standard does Marceau, or those like Paul Shapiro, benefit animals? Factor in the inequitable growth that put vastly more animals into suffering than they saved, and you find them moving the goalposts away from on-balance protecting animals in order to to appear to win, and appear so for those who use growth-based wealth to fund the efforts. That well-funded charade drowns out the voices of those who engage in fundamental reforms, and it costs lives as the climate crisis intensifies and women and children go without the resources they need to respond to it.

I co-founded the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project with Justin, in the wake of serious misconduct at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, including illegal baselining skewing how courts evaluate harm to the environment, the Board paying a settlement to the former executive director Stephen Wells to hide this, and continued illegal baselining that hides liability for philanthropists’ and nonprofits’ role in exacerbating the climate crisis. Part of the founding of the clinic at Denver, in records now removed from the school’s website, was a commitment to total liberation that accounted for many forms of justice. That quickly changed – consistent with funders’ growing concern about what the commitments would reveal and require.

When I mentioned to Justin the book “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World,” he responded: “This is a story as old as time. I admire the fact that you think you can solve it.” The work we did, if anything, exacerbated this phenomenon.

In the years that I served with the program we never implemented that standard, but used the same illegal, racist (it starts with the assumption children of color deserve less than white children) and anthropocentric standard for evaluating the value and impact of our work that fundamentally caused the climate crisis, the standard the Animal Legal Defense Fund has used and still uses.

In fact, leadership at the school removed me from a grant project involving a funder I had brought in to the process, one willing to address the macro issues (or what he calls the “necro”), and then repurposed the grant towards low-impact, charade-level work, keeping part of the grant even after the funder broke from the school and asked that it be returned.

Justin’s statement above reflects a fantasy world that hides the liability of those who benefited from decades of anthropocentric, inequitable and disenfranchising growth – those who fund his work.

Fact: Inequitable growth that enriched mostly wealthy, white children at deadly cost to countless children of color did exponentially more harm to animals than we, at the program, ever did good. Use of that valuation and reporting model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the absolute infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Relative to that harm, on many levels, our work was insignificant and thus performative – and in terms of the underlying business model – mimics Coca-Cola’s model of discounting future lives, especially lives of color, at exponential levels.

Marceau’s work is a facade meant to create the impression of animal rights and law, while maintaining an illegal anthropocentric standard from which he benefits. While originally part of Animal Legal Defense Fund litigation that would have reset the baseline around the unity of interests between nonhumans and vulnerable persons, Marceau dropped out after leadership caved to Julia Olson and Our Children’s Trust – an anthropocentric environmental group – pressured the organization to drop the case. His advocacy since derives from illegal baselining that, like the advocacy of Tim Midura at the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy, does more to protect wealth and white privilege than on balance benefit animals.

How could that happen? For decades reproductive rights systems built on “separate but equal” ideology enabled inequitable growth that – absolved from having to pay the costs of equitizing birthrights – created extreme concentrations of wealth. That wealth now funds downstream, micro, and charade-level interventions that hide the macro process and create a fantasy world of progress that hides liability for the polycrisis.

That wealth, not on-balance values like the full measure of protecting animals, accounts for public interest policy and interventions.

Animal liberation can entail the symbolic rescuing a handful of animals and doing a few show trials, while growth drives the harm of trillions of more animals than activists protect.

To protect animals – to practice animal law actually capable of that – requires accounting for the relations they have with humans, relations that start as humans enter the world. But that entails accounting for things like racist child inequity, the countervailing impact of growth, questions of what we owe future children harmed by the climate crisis and whether that debt overrides competing interests, etc.

We, like the Brooks Institute for Animals Rights Law and Policy that funds the animal law program Justin manages as well as his title, chose greater harm to animals than we as animal lawyers could ever do good with our downstream and micro interventions, a choice made we made in order to evade difficult questions around birth inequity, while benefitting ourselves and those funding us, at cost to animals. It was a deliberate choice of macro (human / nonhuman indivisible) animal propertyhood over macro personhood, and in contravention of the wishes of Brooks McCormick Jr. to protect animals – a fact that Fair Start will show in the years to come.

Following the true intent of Brooks McCormick Jr. to protect animals requires the funding of reforms at the level of the creation of power relations between humans and animals. Based on what I saw at the University of Denver, Tim Midura and his daughters – whom he hired to lead the Institute – will have spent more on lavish events than on developing and implementing a norm that could on-balance protect animals by rearranging entitlements at the most fundamental level, accounting for and reversing overshoot and the inequitable and disenfranchising growth that causes it.

Relative to inequitable and disenfranchising growth, Midura’s use of the money had a negligible beneficial impact on animals – and he made that choice, to not even take the first necessary step of altering his conception of animal law and its basic content.

Trump did not simply win. The public interest sector became corrupt, and they and those they fund are betting they can use their wealth to suppress these truths, and that audiences will simply not hear them nor act upon them. The programming is further evidence that public interest interventions often do more to protect the growth-based wealth that funds low-impact charades, made at cost to children’s and animals’ rights, than to actually further those rights.

The baseline for progress in the programming, and the school in general, was set closer to growth economics based on treating children of color as deserving less that white kids, a standard that has nothing to do with animal welfare, exacerbating situations like the ejiao trade in equines and it’s projected growth. Original intent in the founding of the programming aside, that standard used is illegal because it violates a host of laws, including the fundamental rule that persons obligated to a legal system should first be empowered by it.

Marceau, instead of dealing with animal rights in the context of the subject-level relations of reproductive rights, intentionally chose to silo the issue away from birth equity in order to triple-dip: 1) benefit from his arbitrary but very privileged national/racial/class birth positionality, 2) benefit from growth-based wealth unimpeded by the rights of future children, and 3) pretend to be an animal savior while ensuring a comfortable life for him and his children at cost to animals. Pushed to do animal law as reforming the express or implied “we” reference that is the premise of all fundamental legal instruments like constitutions and covenants, their concern for animals fades relative to their desire to preserve their children’s unearned privileges.

Macro animal personhood and rights, the sort that accounts for the actual lived experience of all nonhumans, marked from the birth-creation of their relations with humans, is designed to prevent this sort of charade-level work and distractivism.

The lives animals experience cannot be separated from the creation of the humans with whom they will interact. Justin divides the two issues to get the benefit of appearing to be a hero, while using an underlying system – and its funds – that does much more harm to animals than he does good.

That’s a charade. And it’s illegal.

What Marceau did – part of a larger example of public interest advocates selling out, cost macro reforms that on-balance benefit animals substantial funding and time. And that cost the lives of mostly persons of color.

The University of Denver, and its funders, now have an opportunity to change the way it assesses value and report impacts – to eventually be able to substantiate its claims of furthering animal rights and liberation, the highest standard of environmental protection one can imagine and something that cannot be separated from the future prospects and lives of all children.

Fair Start and Truth Alliance activists have called upon the University to join the Tell the Truth campaign, and back preemptive standards for human rights and constitutional reforms that would truly liberate all animals.

The University has done the micro version of animal liberation and personhood. Now it can do the macro.

If it’s illegal to use a business model that prohibits hiring or housing persons of color, it’s illegal to structure cost/benefit business models to enrich some children at deadly cost to children of color. Use of that model hides liability for the deaths of tens of millions as the climate crisis intensifies, and reflects the academic and public interest practice that ensured the polycrisis: Constantly moving goalposts away from the infant-health-as-enfranchisement standard necessary for political legitimacy in order to falsely claim truth, or victories, and to thus raise funds.

Unless a person or company claiming to add value to the world can show they were evaluating and reporting by accounting for the preemptive costs of having to measurably empower all children equitably as they enter the world – and at a standard where those children could protect themselves from the climate crisis, autocracy deadly inequity, etc. – the person or company making the claims was using an illegal baseline, a Ponzi/equity-fraud standard that benefits them at deadly cost to others, and mostly children of color.

What do we do about it?

Use of that illegal baseline constitutes unfair and illegal (actually uniquely unconstitutional) competition. Entities willing to pay the costs of legitimacy by refusing valuation and reporting models that don’t actually empower children as they enter the world at a measurable level of “one person, one equal and influential constitutional vote” could never compete against those who refuse to do that, those who triple dip on their arbitrary birth positionality in an unsustainable system of growth to benefit from a system that quietly does more harm to their professed cause than they do to further it.

And the just need not be subjected to unfair and unconstitutional competition: Because governments’ authority, including to entitle /incorporate private entities and assign wealth, derives uniquely from the obligation to empower those subject to that authority and those entitlements, governments are under a preemptive obligation to prioritize the elimination, through things like consumer protection actions that can enjoin the underlying business models, of illegal baselining.

“National legitimacy is, and should have always been, contingent on measurable birth equity or
the empowerment of each child to eventually control the outcomes of their political systems. The
Tell the Truth campaign, which is a universal discourse in which all admit wrongly assuming
children legally deserve with the prospects they are born with rather than what racial justice,
their rights, and political equity require, and commit to prioritizing those things, is the best
pathway to that legitimacy. Ensuring this change, especially in post-reconstruction scenarios, is
the first order of business for everyone, and a discourse of our birth-equity obligations – in which
it takes a village to plan for a child – is preemptive.”

– Pierrette Kengela

March 17, 2026
Fair Start Fundamental FactCheck: Paul Shapiro and His Claims Regarding Impact on Animals
The following is an AI simplification of a longer draft, in progress, below it regarding one example of Fair Start’s Tell the Truth campaign, which urges constitutional discourse to target the fundamental driver of the political, ecological, and social crises we see in the world today: Birth-based political equity.

All facts, and the claims that use them, are relative to values. Ensuring the right set of values when assessing the accuracy of claims, and contrasting what we find when we use the wrong set of values, let’s us see problems in the world today at a deeper level, as well as how to fix them.

Fair Start reforms offer the most just and effective way to address many of today’s overlapping crises—but only if public-interest claims are evaluated using the right standard. Anyone claiming positive impact should be asked a basic question: How did your cost-benefit model account for children entering the world, and did it meet what those children’s legal rights, political equity, and national legitimacy require?

In most cases, the answer is that it did not. Children are typically treated as economic inputs driving growth, while the ecological, political, and human costs of that growth are ignored or illegally discounted. This produces “free” wealth that depends on worsening conditions—especially for children of color—and contradicts the values advocates claim to hold, such as safety, equality, and sustainability. The result is continued overshoot of ecological and social thresholds that both humans and nonhumans need to survive.

If a business or nonprofit used a valuation model that counted racial exclusion as a benefit, it would be subject to civil-rights enforcement. A model that enriches mostly white children while imposing deadly climate, political, and ecological costs on mostly children of color—often through disenfranchisement—is worse, not better, and is also illegal. Yet this model is widespread.

The model uses a sliding baseline that gives future children fewer resources and less political power as conditions worsen. This is the same growth-based Ponzi scheme—identified by a Nobel laureate—that shifts costs onto those least responsible while violating children’s legal rights. Impact claims made under this model are therefore inaccurate because they omit a decisive factor: the harms caused by inequitable and unsustainable growth itself.

The remedy is straightforward: call such claims in, and require advocates to change how they assess and report impact.

Paul Shapiro as an Example

Paul Shapiro, founder of a major alternative-protein company, recently claimed in a Medium essay that he has helped animals over more than two decades. That claim is misleading.

Since the early 2000s, factory farming has expanded dramatically, with hundreds of billions more animals suffering today than when Paul began his work—far exceeding any animals “saved” through food reforms. This outcome was driven by a factor Paul and many others relied on and benefited from: unsustainable, birth-inequitable growth paired with valuation models that illegally discount future human and nonhuman lives. Instead of focusing on fundamental justice, Paul and other activists used a focus on farmed animals as a vector to focus on food, monetizing animal rights in a way that benefited Paul and alternative protein food investors more than animals, and at cost to our ecologies, democracies, and the most vulnerable humans. Had they actually moved to liberate animals, they would have had to account for the fundamental creation of power relations between humans and animals – a costly move that would require dealing with racial justice, political equity, and other issues that cannot be reduced to an investment strategy masquerading as charity.

Activists working alongside Paul at Compassion Over Killing and later at the Humane Society consistently used this same flawed standard. It created the appearance of progress through narrow, downstream interventions while upstream growth quietly overwhelmed those gains. The model violated legal protections for children and animals, undermined racial justice, and entrenched political inequity by ignoring the impact of children entering the world without guaranteed birth or political rights.

The question is not whether Paul did better than worse actors. The question is relative to what standard he claims to have helped animals. Using a floating baseline—rather than a legally required threshold of empowerment—allows one to claim success even as conditions worsen overall. That is how animal suffering could increase dramatically while advocates claim victory.

Much of the funding for these efforts came from wealth produced by the same inequitable growth system—wealth that carries a “death debt” as climate harms accelerate. Charity distributed from this system does not outweigh the damage it causes.

The Core Failure

The standard Paul and others used treats harm as relative and adjustable rather than absolute. As ecological and political conditions degrade, the baseline simply shifts downward, normalizing injustice. This allows advocates to appear to help animals while benefiting from a system that does far more harm than good.

True animal protection cannot be separated from human political equity. Humans are animals, and any serious attempt to reduce nonhuman suffering must account for how children enter the world, how power is distributed at birth, and whether governance is legitimate. Ignoring these relationships turns animal protection into a charade.

Laws protecting animals have negligible impact compared to the effects of unchecked, inequitable human growth over generations. Food reforms and similar interventions are minor and often self-serving when measured against these macro forces—and they frequently obscure growing political illegitimacy.

The Alternative: Fair Start

A legitimate model begins with birth and political equity. Government authority—and the wealth it entitles—must be derived from the measurable empowerment of those subject to it. This is a yes-or-no condition, not a matter of ideology.

Fair Start treats caring for children as the foundation of freedom and democracy, not as a private matter divorced from political legitimacy. It replaces growth-based exploitation with a standard that ensures no child is born below a threshold of empowerment and preparation. This approach aligns with ecological limits, racial justice, democratic self-determination, and genuine animal protection.

Call to Action

Paul should tell the full truth about the context of his impact, including how growth undermined it. He should abandon models that exploit infants and animals and instead support a Fair Start standard that prioritizes birth and political equity as prerequisites for legitimate impact.

Specifically, he should support efforts—such as forthcoming FTC action—to prohibit the use of deceptive “equity fraud” valuation models in public-interest claims. This is a collective action problem, but it will not be solved unless those with influence lead.

This is not a personal attack. The personal is political, and Paul has the opportunity to help correct a systemic failure. Telling the truth about how we failed future generations—and committing to a just standard going forward—is the first step toward real accountability and real change.

Paul Shapiro Can Do More to Help Animals, at an Exponential Level

Fair Start reforms are the most just and effective way to end many of the crises we see in the world today, but you have to ask the right question of anyone making a public interest impact claim to understand why. Ask the person making the claim to explain how their value assessment (cost/benefit) model, and impact reporting, accounted for the factor of children entering the world, and entering in conditions that satisfy what those kids’ legal rights, right to political equity, and right to national legitimacy, require? Most likely they were not accurately accounting for those rights, but were instead treating children as economic inputs who are simply driving growth, and the “free” money that magically comes from unsustainable growth. Most likely the person making the claim was using a standard that contradicts their own values (like being made safe rather than put into a vulnerable position), and ensures the ongoing overshoot and degradation of multiple ecological/social thresholds that infants and animals need to survive.

Lots of inputs go into the outcome of more animals suffering despite the efforts critiqued below, but everyone has to choose the lens through which they weigh values and report impacts, and everyone can choose a model that requires a threshold of empowerment for all children. We are all responsible for that choice, because we benefit from the system that impacts them.

If anyone used in their business or nonprofit work a valuation model premised on valuing as a benefit not hiring persons of color, they would be subject to civil rights injunction by state government, as described below. Using a model that generally enriches mostly white children at deadly climatological and other costs to mostly children of color, doing so in part by disenfranchising them, is worse than a discriminatory hiring model, and is also illegal.

If the person making the claim was using this model/standard, they were mostly likely doing so in order to personally benefit, and using a sliding scale baseline that gives children (and mostly children of color) less and less as things worsen ecologically and politically in the world, heaping costs on those least responsible. This is the same scale that ensures the ongoing and illegal Ponzi scheme (as noted by one Nobel laureate) that fundamentally drives outcomes in the world today, and is designed to enrich some children at deadly cost to others, all in violations of children’s legal rights. And that means the claims the person is making are inaccurate – usually because they are omissive of a key factor, e.g. an animal advocate omitting the largest driver of animal suffering, as discussed below. The fix? Call the claimant in, and ask them to change how they assess and claim impact.

I have done this. Paul can too.

Paul Shapiro is an influential person and can use that influence to make a massive shift that does not disproportionally elevate his own prospects, and by embracing a macro or total liberation of not just nonhumans but humans as well.

Paul Shapiro and his recent claims to have helped animals over the span of more than two decades

Recently Paul Shapiro, founder of a highly valued alternative protein company, wrote a piece for Medium about his work at the animal protection organization Compassion Over Killing (now Animal Outlook) going back to the early 2000s. Paul is well respected and liked by many, including at Fair Start, but the subject below involves a system that causes unimaginable suffering. And while his work has inspired some to take up animal protection and leave lucrative careers, their goal was always to help animals on balance and as Paul pushed for in the early days, to liberate them.

Paul is better off than when he and other activists there started their work. Animals, and the most vulnerable humans, are much worse off, with horrific prospects for the future.

What went wrong? In his Medium piece Paul refers to helping animals in various ways over his career. For example, Paul says:

I’m grateful to the numerous animal advocates who helped build COK during my decade there. I’m also grateful to the animal advocates around the world who came both before and after us and are still today working to effectuate a better world for animals.

Those statements are inaccurate, and out of context.

Paul is trying to rewrite history. Factors of growth, impact, and damage to equity – and the cumulative and accelerating effect of all of these – should be and should have been taken into account by anyone doing public interest work when designing strategy and tactics.

There are hundreds of billions of more animals suffering in factory farming since 2001, exponentially more than Paul saved, and all from a factor Paul spent decades benefitting from while shuffling the costs of onto others: Unsustainable, and birth inequity-based growth, and the use of manufactured numbers in value assessments and impact reporting that illegally discount future human and nonhuman lives, rather than measuring harm from a zero baseline, as described below.

Activists today working with Fair Start also worked with Paul and others at the Compassion Over Killing, since roughly 2001, and after that at the Humane Society of the United States. During their entire experience, the activists and Paul all consistently used a fraudulent equity and impact standard – #equityfraud – that created a fantasy world of impacts on a micro and downstream level that were quietly being undone on a macro, and upstream level by a Ponzi scheme of inequitable growth.

Using the wrong standard – clouding the world with misinformation and skewing the baseline – threatens ongoing efforts to ensure accurate and life-saving climate reparations.

The model the activists used was based on a decades old and illegal growth arc that violated a variety of legal protections for infants and animals, and effectively subverted racial justice movements of the Twentieth Century by ensuring unsustainable and inequitable growth and massive political inequity. Ask Paul how he was factoring in children entering the world relative to what their rights require, 2001 to date, and you will find him assuming and benefiting the current reproductive rights system – the system most responsible for factory farming itself. He started his work, and starts today, with a growth model that contradicts his own claims. The lives of animals lost to growth are of no less value than the lives Paul saved in his food reform work.

The standard Paul and many others used treats the baseline for harm as floating rather than fixed, and as things get worse in the world ecologically and politically, it does more harm. Why talk about Paul, and not big companies like Coke, for example? Fair Start does talk about Coke, but Coke never claimed to be saving animals. By doing so, Paul sets a standard.

This is the question truly just people will ask: If Paul helped animals, he did so relative to what standard? Yes, he did better than Donald Trump, but using a floating scale, rather than the legally required threshold, leads to the situation we all face today: How could he be helping animals, while things have gotten worse for them on balance?

The animal protection efforts of Paul and the activists were funded by the wealth illegally produced by that growth. That wealth (much of it intergenerational and derived from the arbitrary birth lottery – where and with what you are born determining your benefits and burdens – we see in the world today) drives much of the public interest work one sees today, and the death debt it owes as the climate crisis accelerates outweighs the charity it doles out.

That growth arc has caused the death of millions as the climate crisis accelerates, and it is driving wealth – made at growth-driven cost to objective values like safe temperatures, participatory democracy, and equal opportunities in life – into the hands of a few.

Use of that standard means Paul was and is part of a well-documented and illegitimate system of disenfranchising growth that did much more harm to animals, to say nothing of children, political equity, and legitimate and inclusive democracy, than he did good. But he benefited from that system, and does today. That standard uses manufactured numbers in assessing and reporting value – and fundamental justice means not using it. Yes, this constitutes fraud – benefitting at deadly cost to others based on the omission of material information – in terms of the most fundamental or constitutive sources of law: the norms that empower those subject to legal systems.

Paul values those norms too – things like safe temperatures, being heard and valued, a future with exponentially less animal suffering, having some control over the governments that have control over him, etc. That’s the nature of objectivity. But as things get worse with greater emissions, each person having less of an effective voice in their democracy, wealthy white children living at deadly cost to children of color, Paul’s business model accepts that degraded conditions as the new normal, as an acceptable baseline. If Paul were part of a system of mutual obligation and value, he would assess and report in a way that entitled all to the good things he values, and move towards Dasgupta’s optimality as discussed below.

Paul continues to use that standard of illegally discounting future lives, with his public interest work having acted ass a decoy to enable his private success. He does so despite several written conversations with Fair Start activists urging him to change course, and join the Tell the Truth process of legitimating macro systems by elevating in his for-profit and non-profit modeling birth/political equity as the measure of political legitimacy, and accurate cost/benefit analysis. His position reflects a phenomenon we see time and time again. Persons, like Paul, back the idea of Fair Start in the abstract because they get something from that, but pushed to apply the standard in their lives and they will refuse, or in some cases go out of there way to hide liability.

But the truth is, there is no such thing as an anthropocentric animal protectionist. If one care about nonhumans, they will choose a future and limitations on the powerful to minimize animal suffering. Using a growth arc is the opposite. It would be physically impossible to protect animals without accounting for the relations they will form with humans, which means one has to invert the entire power structure to actually protect them.

Part of the failure involved the organizational structures Paul and the other activists used – salary-based organizations designed to scale, but which simultaneously became reliant on the problems they claimed to want to solve.

Run an AI query on how inequitable growth, on many levels, impacted animals relative to vegan and other food-based interventions over the last few decades. It will show the latter are relatively insignificant. Then run the query on how inequitable growth impacts political equity. Not only were food interventions ineffective and usually self-serving for those promoting them – they hid growing political illegitimacy. Self-determination has as a requirement each person being an influential part of a political system, holding political equity, a necessary condition blocked by the legal fiction of reproductive autonomy, which functionally reduced autonomy to the body – now disconnected – not needing to be part of an effective system of self-governance.

There is a difference between using one’s privileged birth positionality in an illegitimate birth lottery to appear to make the world a better place, and actually making it a better place by legitimating the system itself through birthright empowering those subject to it. In particular, a key funder of the activists’ work at Compassion Over Killing used that same fraudulent standard to simultaneously limit the scope of animal law’s development through selective funding at key leading law schools, and in a way that exploited inequitable growth, benefitting him and others at deadly cost to animals, and vulnerable persons.

Laws meant to protect animals have a negligible effect on their lives relative to the effect of humans having children, children that grow and interact with those animals, generation after generation, creating broader ecological and other outcomes. The former, by comparison, are charade version of impact.

Paul used his influential positioning in the animal protection movement to focus efforts on farmed animals as a vector to engage in relatively low-impact food reforms, premised on and omissive in reporting of, growth and an absence of children’s birthrights, and then positioned himself to benefit from that move at deadly cost to others absorbing the ecological, social and political costs of that growth. Farmed animals are not the most numerous category of existing animals exploited by humans, and future animals outnumber existing animals by far, but a farmed animal focus allows animal rights to be monetized around food reforms, and it was.

In many ways this move is the greatest example of the Winners Take All phenomena, because that original assessment of how social justice becomes a charade did not account for animal-inclusive liberation, the highest form of social justice.

The children of the funders Paul aided over decades are rich, and made so through a system of growth and birth inequity that is killing millions of other children. Many of those same funders pushed Fair Start activists to treat this injustice as a matter of downstream “population” framing, rather than upstream preemptive political equity, and to go to other funders for charity-based resources rather than birth equity entitlements and reparations. It’s more about disempowerment, given the overshoot of multiple thresholds including reasonable levels of representatives to voters and other measures of political equity, than overpopulation.

They did so knowing that Fair Start and the vulnerable entities we represent would not be able to compete against the fraudulent modeling, and the wealth it creates.

Facts:
- Paul’s model exploits growth that treats children of color as worth significantly fewer resources and more risk. No child is worth more than another, but the model Paul and other activists used was premised on the opposite, and illegitimate, assumption. Humans are animals, and any attempt to protect nonhumans starts by accounting for the actual relations that form between them and children as they enter the world. Paul’s model skips this step and assumes total animal propertyhood, (and future person propertyhood as well) dividing nonhumans off into the object rather than subject and relational phase of the sentence, which allows him to appear to benefit them while benefitting from a system that fundamentally exploits them. Paul is then able to appear to benefit animals – selling vegan products – but not pay the costs of a growth-based system that does more harm than he does good.
- The model ignores the fact that government’s authority, including to entitle wealth, has to be derived from the measurable empowerment or birth/political equity of those subject to it. Measurable birth equity as the overriding basis of legitimate governance is a yes or no proposition. This is not about liberals versus conservatives, vegans versus meat eaters, or pro-Palestinians versus Israelis. It’s about those who believe governance requires empowering those subject to it, and those who do not believe it. One of the costs of the model Paul uses is violence, with illegitimate state violence driving violence in general in societies, a situation in which the innocent – rather than the beneficiaries of injustice – are targeted.
- Use of the model is preempted by a variety of laws, and can be targeted as unfair competition under state law because vulnerable entities and those who represent them, like TruthAlliance.Global – most who operate without access to the capital Paul has access to almost entirely through the current system of birth positionality- can’t compete with those who use the equity fraud model, appearing to help animals while converting the harm caused to them – through growth – into a benefit for themselves. Like many with influence, it’s likely that Paul will resist this preemption, and instead rely on a system of coercive governance built on exploiting infants and animals to protect his wealth, influence, and false legacy, rather than choose to on balance protect animals. But we hope we are wrong. State Attorneys General (AGs) can enjoin illegal business models by targeting deceptive practices, unfair competition violations, misleading marketing, and fraud, often using state UDAP laws and working with federal agencies, leading to settlements or injunctions against the entire business model. All political obligation is premised on the express or implicit “we” in the legal instruments that purport to organize nations, the constitutions, but it would be physically impossible to create such self-determining relations without an empowering threshold.
- The alternative model treats caring for children as the genesis of human freedom – not resistance to the state, but inclusion in it. Instead of using the idea of reproductive autonomy to undermine freedom and then sell back to people in a “free market” economy what they are owed in a legitimate democracy – nonhuman liberation, equality of opportunity, an influential voice, etc. – it makes allegiance to a political system contingent on such things shaping the power relations formed in birth and development.
But how does the model actually work?

After World War Two, nations were legally obligated to derive and condition their authority on objective limitations – called human rights – of the power humans have over one another. Instead leaders used a subjective reproductive rights system devoid of child equity standards in order to privatize the creation – at birth – of power relations, a move initiated by wealthy and white concentrations of power at the United Nations. This is the fundamental injustice and driver of all the suffering we see today, as upstream growth that benefits a few undoes downstream interventions that should be benefitting many.

These men started reproductive rights as a system that ensured they need not share power.

One way to think of it:

Women are told in the 1960s that terminating a pregnancy and having kids are both forms of bodily autonomy – a standard devoid of child equity, and child rights-based reproductive rights. By today many of those women, their kids and certainly grandkids will die in growth-based heat waves enabled by the absence of children’s birthrights, with their voices having been drowned out by population growth and political inequity. In short, they were robbed of enough influence over their political systems to stop the horrible outcomes. Worse yet? Environmentalists and animal rights activists would have hidden the problem for decades with downstream micro interventions undone by macro growth benefitting them and their funders, and with greenwashing/humanewashing interventions that looked good, but that defined “green” and “humane” with ridiculously low standards designed to benefit the investors/philanthropists funding the environmental and animal organizations at deadly cost to women and children.

Today the massive bubble of money made in those decades hides what happened, drowning out vulnerable voices with wealth. What happened? World leaders used a fundamental system that defined power and freedom around visions of the coercive power of the state and escape/safety from it, rather than empowering citizens through measurable birth/political equity so that one is part of a legitimate state and need not fear and run from it. Had world leaders done the latter we would have gotten Dasgupta’s optimality – but with equity. They did not, and today when Paul and others go to assess value and report impact, they do so from a completely arbitrary baseline (the same one baselining the arbitrary birth lottery / privatized creation of power relations reproductive rights system driving the Anthropocene) that has nothing to do with the real world – nothing to do with the conditions that infants and women of color need to be free. His version of saving animals and the growth arc it assumes – the money he spends on elevating his voice – these things block a reform that would allow humans to actually limit the power others have over us, and save countless lives in the process.

Instead humans vastly overshot ecological carrying capacities, legitimate political representative ratios, levels of equality of opportunity, minimal standards of birth-based child welfare, etc., with power relations that have little to do with the actual and measurable self-determination of peoples. And when Fair Start activists showed this research to wealthy U.S. funders in 2019 along with evidence their philanthropy was doing more to enrich their kids than further their stated missions, their reaction was to retaliate and hide liability. We are now in the process of telling this story, and bringing legal actions against these funders – who would rather ensure inaccurate legacies than actually do what they claim by factoring in birth/political equity as the key driver impacting the work.

Take Action:

Urge Paul to Tell the Truth about the full context of his impact on animals, including use of a model that exploits macro forces like growth. Urge him to replace a growth-based model that exploits infants and animals and has no minimum threshold of empowerment for those infants as they enter the world, with a model that preemptively prioritizes a threshold of empowering/enfranchising resources, and equitable preparation, beneath which no child should be born. A fair start standard would ensure measurable self-determination for all, and specifically through a collective discourse that encourages parental delay, smaller families, parental readiness, and a collective process of birth-equity distribution inverse to wealth.

Specifically, and especially given Paul’s work on false advertising, he should speak out in favor or a better future and embrace brith equity override, as others have done. He can also back forthcoming efforts at the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit use of the equity fraud model by both private and public entities.

In Paul’s defense, this is a collective action problem and those first changing the model face a lot of resistance – but it will not be changed unless some come forward and animal advocates have a lot of failure to make up for. What passed as “victories” for animal protection advocates in the United States over the last several decades shows a standard that fully explains the political and ecological state of affairs we see today.

This is not a personal attack on Paul – the personal is political, and Paul has the ability to make a great change.

Telling the Truth about how we failed future generations, what we owe them now, and what we intend to do, is a discourse – and unlike top-down and abstract national constitutions and even international human rights instruments – it actually obligates us in an empowering and self-determining way, situating us justly relative to others and at the most fundamental level.
December 18, 2025
Vox’s Coverage of the Climate Crisis, Oligarchic Threats to Democracy, and Animal Rights Does More Harm Than Good. Act.

If you comb through coverage on the Vox news site regarding a variety of issues – including the environment, population, democracy, animal rights, etc. – you will see something odd.

They never trace all of these problems back to the source: Unsustainable and inequitable family models that exploit future children for economic growth. Each day those models make the problems being covered worse. Like most concentrations of wealth and power the news outlet’s values do not outweigh their desire to exploit growth and their own birth positionality, even when that exploitation drives a deadly climate crisis. And even when doing so makes their coverage hypocritical.

Fact: Our collectively violating children’s right to a fair start in life, and assuming children of color deserve fewer resources and more risk, has done more to harm our values and missions than we have done to further them.

Wealth in the world today was made through growth and at cost to children’s rights, in what some call the #famscam. In the scheme, nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into birth and development conditions compliant with children’s rights and the political equity from which legitimate governance derives.

They chose a form of unsustainable reproductive autonomy that was akin to the racist separate but equal scams, but one which will kill far more persons. Governments said we were equal and then ensured some children had nothing and others everything under the lie that parental autonomy could exist outside of political equity.

Because of the crisis we owe children and future children reparations based on zeroing out our harming them, using at least eight metrics to assess what we owe.

Anything that starts with less is inherently oppressive and non-inclusive. People, rather than documents, constitute nations as they are born, raised, and emancipated. What we think of as growth is actually political inequity. We have an overriding or preemptive right to take the wealth that was stolen and use it to fund family reforms, or the constituting of a just future.

Those who subverted the civil rights movements decades ago, by ignoring children’s rights in the idea of reproductive autonomy, were avoiding the override – the fact that political equity always comes first and would allow the needy to take the correct resources by all means. National borders, rules and entitlements derive from the sovereignty or self-determination of constituents, and that derives from relations developed in birth, development and emancipation.

The many funders that framed and defined social justice over the last several decades never created real value in their vast wealth, relative to an objective standard like a healthy climate. Instead they first used inequitable family planning to create their own audiences and artificial demand by ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, violating their own professed values (like animal protection and children’s rights) and treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens.

They did this while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was actually being diluted to uselessness. A system of fundamental entitlements likely to kill millions of innocent persons, and which could instead have achieved better outcomes by actually investing in children, is generally considered a failure.

The baseline those like Vox uses has subverted the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements by undoing with family inequity upstream the good they seem to be doing downstream – a move that exponentially catalyzes the climate and related crises, while aiming the harm of the crises towards the least responsible for it, and most vulnerable to it.

If the Three-Fifths Compromise in U.S. history fractionalized the worth of persons of color, the one-tenth and greater illegal disparities in generational wealth that violate legally enforceable children’s rights regimes will now mean the death of millions of children of color in a climate crisis caused primarily by white wealth.

Wealthy, mostly white, families and other entities are now funding charities, media, politicians and academics who silo social justice issues away from birth equity, and use omissive messaging – a form of entitlement and impact, or equity, fraud – that hides their liability and the illegal macro entitlement systems ensuring the death of millions as the climate crisis accelerates. Fraud is intentionally benefitting at harm to others based on misinformation, including omissions.

Exploiting mothers’ vulnerability to ensure growth, and not first ensuring reparative family reforms that assure children birth and development conditions consistent with the Children’s Condition, does more harm to all of our missions than we are doing good, because the power dynamics that choice creates is degrading the ecological capacity of the planet to ensure infant health – the first and only measure of value.

Take Action:

Contact Swati, a key lead at Vox, and urge her to report in a way that covers the real driver of the problems we face. Ask her if she thinks all kids deserve a fair start in life.

Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation

January 21, 2025
Fair Start Fact Checking Animal Rights Philanthropist Brad Goldberg. Take Action.

The field of animal law, rights, and protection has been around for a long time. It is one of the most aspirational areas of justice, aiming to protect and liberate nonhumans from the horrors humans inflict upon them. But as the climate crisis unfolds, and more animals are harmed each day by humans, we should look for what must have gone wrong in the field to bring us to today.

Brad Goldberg has been one of the most influential figures in the field of animal rights and law, having used his wealth to in a definitive way, funding and advising organizations, academics and activists for decades. He seeded animal law programs at some of the leading schools in the nation, and has written extensively about funding and activism for animals.

He funded much of the work that today is considered “animal law,” much of which is based on assumptions about legitimacy and human rights that allow investors (like Brad) to make money on growth-based markets that do more harm to animals than any granular reforms do good.

But if one closely analyzes his public statements, his giving, and the results of his giving, something foundational is missing. He never seems to account for how children entering the world, and the very different resources they have when they do, impact the lives of animals.

That’s not ideal, given that is the largest determinant of animals’ lives. Claims of animal protection, in the face of the growth and inequity driving the climate crisis, are some of the most falsifiable impact claims being made in philanthropy. Growth and inequity has done more to harm animals than those working in the field have done to save them.

Is there a more macro way to think about animals?

Humans are animals. Seeing ourselves as such moves us away from anthrocentric thinking that ensured the climate crisis, and will kill millions. So, what we refer to as animal rights and law would focus on nonhumans not because of their species, but because of their unique vulnerability. In other words, animal law cannot merely be law that happens to refers to animals.

A more functional and less abstract form of animal law would have to start – as a first necessary condition – with the capacity to actually protect nonhumans, especially in the creation of their relations with future humans who will determine much about their lives. Animal law in the best sense thus starts with inclusive birth and child welfare policies that create empathetic relations capable of benefitting animals. Nonhuman and human liberation are tied because the creation of our mutual relations is the biggest driver of outcomes.

Neither business nor government has been historically tasked with defining the ideals of social justice. The wealthy families behind philanthropy generally did that, and in avant garde movements like animal rights and liberation. But by simultaneously individualizing the idea of reproductive autonomy to isolate women, evade child equity, and ensure unsustainable growth, they created a false reference point for self-determination- both for humans and animals.

The base – and in this case the base of what Brad assumed as a legitimate legal system – treated children of color as worth exponentially less investment in birth and development, and by fundamentally enabling growth, triggered a climate crisis killing some while enriching others.

This base has historically subverted the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements by undoing with family inequity upstream the good these families claimed to be doing downstream – a move that exponentially catalyzed the climate and related crises, while aiming the harm of the crises towards the least responsible for it and most vulnerable to it. If the Three-Fifths Compromise in U.S. history fractionalized the worth of persons of color, the one-tenth and greater illegal disparities in generational wealth that violate legally enforceable children’s rights regimes will now mean the death of millions of children of color in a climate crisis caused primarily by white wealth.

These unsustainable practices and systems ensured children entering under just thresholds, and thus overshoot of ecological carrying capacities, the degradation of those capacities, and the disempowerment of the average person to respond to the ensuing crises. They allowed wealthy white families to amass wealth, at illegal and deadly cost to generations of black families.

Activists now with the Fair Start Movement, in prior employment, had to omit facts that would have shown public interest information and interventions being vastly undone by growth and inequity. This was a charade of environmental sustainability and social justice that is still today being vastly undone every day as children enter the world without the resources they need. Activists working with fair start can literally attest to using wealth made at cost to their stated missions to drown out the voices of the vulnerable – especially communities of color – who could actually accomplish the mission through more fundamental reforms.

If those Fair Start engages truly value the things (like animal rights) they took credit for protecting, they will be eager to now cover the costs to others of not having previously included the value in our basic language and systems of constitution and obligation, and to include these things they claim to value as we constitute relations going forward.

Fact: When impacts are correctly measured, not prioritizing a measurably fair start in life for all children did exponentially more harm to most stated missions of organizations than those organizations did good.

Intergenerational justice legitimates nations, making them capable of representing their constituents. We all do this together, by ensuring no child is born beneath a threshold of investment that would give them an influential equity stake in their democracies. Not having done this to date has condemned millions to die in a climate crisis, while the children of the wealthy families who benefited from illegitimacy have been enriched.

Why Fair Start?

Funding that ensures no child is born beneath a set level of entitlement, consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention and Right to a Healthy Environment, is exponentially the most just and effective way to protect our future and free all of us. The creation of power relations – through birth, development, and emancipation – is usually the biggest driver of social justice outcomes because it operates on many levels, compounding impacts simultaneously.

Fair Start’s recent action before the United Nations asks anyone relying on any legal authority to derive back to the most preemptive source of legitimacy, an exercise that inevitably ends with the need to prioritize entitlements that would measurably empower all children through improved birth and development conditions, ensuring them a fair start in life and share equity in democracy.

Under the universally preemptive standard that ensures fair starts in life for all kids, we can remove extractive birth entitlements where children of color get a tenth or less of the wealth as white kids, are largely excluded from the political system, and bear the deadly cost of an ecocide they did not create.

In this effort Fair Start is urging officials to contrast the claims of beneficial public impact being made by many entities and those they fund with actual harms to women and infants – correctly measured relative to a neutral position rather than the fictitious standards that created the climate and related crises.

Not omitting the impacts of children entering the world, admitting the use of failed and fraudulent standards, and inverting our obligation from the powerful to first women and children, can save both human and nonhuman lives.

TAKE ACTION: Urge Brad here to assess how children entering the world over the last several decades impacts his claims about the field of animal law, rights and protection, how that impact alters his legacy, and to consider how – in light of this factor – he would alter his advice to those he funded.

Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation

December 8, 2024
Factchecking the Weeden Foundation.
Funding that ensures no child is born beneath a set level of entitlement, consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention and Right to a Healthy Environment, is exponentially the most just and effective way to protect our future and free all of us. We can do it using the extreme wealth in the world today that was made by not paying the costs of avoiding harm to future generations.

This transfer is also required by law, in things like the Children’s Rights Convention and under the Right to a Healthy Environment. All law must first be interpreted to assure legitimacy, or the measurable inclusion and empowerment of those subject to it, so that truly representative government is possible.

But there are specific barriers blocking this work.

There are wealthy families and other concentrations of power in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis who benefitted from unsustainable reproductive rights models. These models used a false premise (that having children is more personal than interpersonal) to avoid the overriding need to ensure measurable empowerment of each citizen, or to first account for our generational, racial and other positionalities in reforming legal systems.

This subverted the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements by undoing with family inequity upstream the good they claim to be doing downstream – a move that exponentially catalyzed the climate and related crises, while aiming the harm of the crises towards the least responsible for it, and most vulnerable to it. If the Three-Fifths Compromise made fractionalized the worth of persons of color, one-tenth and greater illegal disparities in generational wealth, disparities that violated legally enforceable children’s rights regimes, will now mean the death of millions of children of color in a climate crisis caused primarily by white wealth.

These unsustainable models and systems ensured the overshoot of ecological carrying capacities, the degradation of those capacities, and the disempowerment of the average person to respond to the ensuing crises. The models allowed wealthy white families to amass wealth, at illegal and deadly cost to generations of black families. These wealthy families and other entities are now funding charities, media, politicians and academics who silo social justice issues away from birth equity, and use omissive messaging that hides their liability, and illegal macro entitlement systems ensuring the death of millions as the climate crisis accelerates.
- The Weeden Foundation claims: “The Foundation embraces the protection of biodiversity as its overarching priority. Frank Weeden, the Foundation’s founder and original benefactor, established the Weeden Foundation to address the impact of growing human populations and overuse of natural resources on the biological fabric of the planet.”
- Donald E. Weeden, who ran the Foundation for many years and has been influential for decades in international reproductive rights and environmental protection, has also been a leader in securities and other markets that relied upon a fundamental model of inequitable entitlements that ensured the climate crisis. The unsustainable model would have benefitted Donald and his family, at deadly costs to other and to biodiversity.
- Fact: The Weeden family and Foundation do not treat equity as a fundamental value in their work. Under their model the least responsible for the crises we face today suffer the greatest cost.
- Not prioritizing reforms that measurably ensure a fair start in life for all children has done exponentially more harm to biodiversity – given the role of entitlements in the climate crisis – than the Weeden Foundation has done to protect it. Even if other forces, like the church, had blocked equity in negotiating international regimes it was incumbent on leaders not to relinquish it as a goal. They did.
- First constituting a legitimate entitlement system, by ensuring all kids a threshold of intergenerational justice that includes an influential equity stake in their democracies as their first birthright, is first and necessary condition for justice. Instead, under the status quo, nations use a narrow view of autonomy to enable a woman to terminate her pregnancy only to die months later in a heat wave because she was born black and hence with a fraction of the average wealth, could not afford air conditioning, and had little influence over her political system. By dividing bodily autonomy from political equity, and our generational and other positionalities, governments are killing millions.
- The alternative would be for free persons to condition any obligation to follow the law on being empowered. How can states entitle anyone’s wealth, or claim authority to use coercion to defend entitlements, without first including and empowering their constituents.
- The Weeden family and Foundation have benefitted from this inequity, as we all have, at deadly cost to future generations. We have all, to very different degrees harmed the most vulnerable by not ensuring fundamental political reforms that would have required measurable equity for all as the standard for reproductive rights. There is no such thing as public interest work that starts with zero functional protections for the most vulnerable, infants and animals.
- The Weeden Foundation also funds anti-immigration activities that run counter to political equity as an effective solution to biodiversity loss and climate migration. There are several reports critical of the Weeden’s role. This suggests a preference for current national entitlement systems over funding equity in a way that would universally reduce family size. Fair Start looks for this contradiction, a fraudulent, sleight-of-hand family policy nesting in contradictory antecedents – the “we” implied in all philanthropic impact claims – that is being used to hide climate reparations. and exacerbate a key driver of the crisis – the slow replacement of democracy with commercial relations.
Ensuring Justice for All

Fair Start is now urging states attorneys generals and other responsible agencies to 1) track the multifaceted impacts of infants entering the world in the U.S. and abroad on their and their mothers’ capacity for self-determination – the highest standard for evaluation, using the eight concrete metrics urged as the zero-baseline form of harm-assessment standardization at the United Nations. We are asking these and other officials to then 2) contrast these impacts with current and historic (ten years back, as a minimum) sustainability and equity claims, and the use of fundamentally unsustainable and fraudulent family entitlements used by prominent leaders and organizations within their jurisdictions. This tracking enables preemptive reparations, structured to prevent harm to future generations and their right to self-determine.

Under this entitlement scheme there are two standards for justice: The real or what should have been, measured at a zero baseline using concrete markers for assessing equity, and self versus other determination. There was also a widely used decoy standard, which centered on assumed legitimacy of white wealth supremacy at birth, and an illusion of bodily autonomy that conflated freedom with the capacity to harm others.

Those who use the latter are choosing that the least responsible for the climate crisis suffer its greatest cost, with no justification.

This is a fair question: Are concentrations of wealth, like the Weeden Foundation and other assets held by the family, now partially subject to climate reparations claims? Do they owed enough funds to be used to reform the fundamental reproductive rights models and compensate victims? Will Donald, the foundation and the family back reforms that will offset their benefits, consistent with their stated values?

Donald Weeden’s life is worth no more than the lives of children who will otherwise die in a crisis without a change in incentive structures, and abandonment of models derived from fallacies that benefited Donald and his family.

Donald should admit birth inequity did more harm than he did good, and any role he had in promoting the idea of biodiversity that would be undone upstream by not ensuring infants measurable capacity for self-determination. If he truly valued things like biodiversity he would be eager to cover the costs of not having previously included the value in our basic systems of obligation, and to include the value going forward.

Background: Hidden and deadly racism

The climate and related crises we face today were largely driven by the absence of any child equity and empowerment standards in near-universal reproductive and human rights regimes dating back to 1948.

The wealthy families and governments driving these regimes were avoiding measurable democratic equity as the overriding value behind political legitimacy, and evading its ability to override existing entitlements. But by avoiding equity, they seeded racist inequity, unsustainable growth that would trigger the climate crisis, and the development of fundamentally illegitimate political systems that never measurably empowered their subjects enough to gain representative capacity and authority.

These families have historically subverted civil rights and anti-apartheid movements by undoing with family inequity upstream the good they claim to be doing downstream – a move that exponentially catalyzed the climate and related crises, while aiming the harm of the crises towards the least responsible for it, and most vulnerable to it. If the Three-Fifths Compromise made fractionalized the worth of persons of color, one-tenth and greater illegal disparities in generational wealth, disparities that violated legally enforceable children’s rights regimes, will now mean the death of millions of children of color in a climate crisis caused primarily by white wealth.

By isolating women in the family planning process and ignoring child equity, wealthy families have for decades ensured inherited poverty, or commercially exploitative rather than legitimate and inclusive relations. “The real trouble with eugenics is not that it can be coercive; it is that the state can use it
to create the citizens it wants to govern.” If we look beyond individuals and towards the nature of our relations, how is the ubiquity of economic pronatalism in the face of the climate crisis not evidence of this occurring?

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?” That condition derived fundamentally from the use of illegal family entitlements that undermined all civil rights and created a generational apartheid that Fair Start and others is now dismantling with women’s networks in the United States and Europe engaged in reparations recovery and preemptive self-defense.

Fundamental illegitimacy

As discussed above this created a fake, top-down version of social justice based on hollow legal institutions and laws that never derived from any legitimating authority, but rather hid the actual creation of power relations in birth, development, and emancipation. They did so by using a narrow conception of reproductive autonomy to fundamentally cloud our conception freedom, and our ability to differentiate between self versus other determination.

If after 1948 national legitimacy and authority were contingent on inverting the flow of authority from government to the governed, this move represents the height of colonization because it assumed claims to authority wealth that should instead have gone through a process of familial legitimation. Not doing so cannibalized freedom, taking from us what we are owed in democracy and trying to sell it back in commerce. The difference between self-determination relative to zero baseline markers, and exploitation, is what these families owe in reparations. Without fair starts in life, there is no capacity to form organizations of persons capable of representative governance, via the measurable self-determination of its constituents. Family planning reparations enable this process, and given that wealth was already taken and the benefits already consumed, it is owed as share equity (equal offsets of influence relative to zero) for each child.

Wealthy families and other concentrations of wealth and power in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis are now funding a fantasy world of charities, media, academics, etc. who use omissive messaging to evade the liability they and their children carry from inequitable growth. They frame what is obligatory as charity. They use decoy versions of public interest work – by organizations, academics, media, etc. – the impacts of which are being exponentially undone, each day, by family policies that enrich mostly white families at deadly cost to countless children of color. This involves literally using wealth made at cost to their stated missions to drown out the voices of the vulnerable, who could actually accomplish the mission through more fundamental reforms.

There is no legitimacy authority or entitlements without the measurable political equity, or entitling children enough so they offset each other’s influence relative to a neutral position – testable through things like the feasibility of a constitutional convention. Instead, the model urged by these families assures zero functional protections for infants and animals, and uses a sleight of hand that conceives of freedom in terms of an arbitrary form of autonomy from the state, rather than as political equity to choose who has influence over you, ecologically and socially.

Here are questions for anyone claiming to do good in the world today: How can we assure justice without improving the conditions in which children are born and develop, given the intergenerational justice requirements of minimum thresholds for all children? How do we become free without honoring the rights of others, especially the future majority? If you value some outcome, who will cover the child inequity and entry costs to that outcome – growth undoing climate mitigation, for example – and evade more of it? Is the entity doing more harm than good by ignoring entry without equity? What formula do they use to assess damages in climate, civil rights, environmental justice, etc. cases? How do they define the term power in the context of being free from power? Who is their intended audience?

The families and concentrations of wealth and power driving the fundamentally unfair systems have never created value, relative to an objective standard like a healthy climate. Instead they first used poor family planning to create their own audiences and artificial demand by treating children as means rather than ends, ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, violating children’s rights and treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was actually being diluted to uselessness. A system of fundamental entitlements likely to kill millions of innocent persons is generally considered a failure.

Activists now with the Fair Start Movement, in prior employment, had to omit facts that would have shown public interest information and interventions being vastly undone by growth and inequity. This was a charade of environmental sustainability and social justice that is still today being vastly undone every day as children enter the world without the resources they need. These families routinely funded decoy nonprofits that silo social justice into various downstream issues in order to hide upstream entitlement and reparations fraud, using a false premise to benefit from a system that undoes the good they seem to do. This does more to benefit the rich, white children of the funders backing their programs, and at deadly cost to countless children of color, than it does to accomplish the missions.

Taking action

As discussed above, Fair Start is now urging states attorneys generals and other responsible agencies to track the multifaceted impacts of infants entering the world on their capacity for self-determination – the highest standard for evaluation, using the eight concrete metrics urged as the zero-baseline form of harm-assessment standardization at the United Nations. We are asking these and other officials to contrast these impacts on the most vulnerable and numerous entities, with fraudulent sustainability and equity claims, and the use of fundamentally unsustainable standards, used by prominent leaders and organizations.

The disparity between what we think and say, and the reality of what we do to children and animals relative to objective measures, opens a doorway to legitimacy and freedom.

To constitute, as in national constitutions, means to be obligated. Our debt to children is a chance to actually constitute a just society, and from the base rather than under the standards of those who act as if they are above us. Covering these costs as an obligation, before taxes, liberates more than oppresses. But this requires, and would be impossible without, the admission of the specific harm we have caused and the linguistic inversion of our obligation from those in power instead towards infants and animals. Where else would liberating / obligatory relations come from? This requires reprioritizing wealth to incentivize and entitle would-be mothers so that no child is born beneath a measurable threshold of self-determination.

National legitimacy derives from and is contingent upon including in a measurable way subjects as free and equal constituents, so that they have the capacity to choose who has influence over them, and legal institutions have the capacity to represent its constituents. Reorienting from being obligated top-down to empowering from the bottom-up also holds promise to reduce violence by rejecting any legitimate representative authority of the state to use it to block reparations, or to otherwise role model illegitimate violence those around us. If we never treated others as ends in a political system, such that their influence offsets equally, why do they owe us duties, to respect our lives, for example?

There is now an action before the United Nations that redefines what it means to constitute a just nation where subjects are empowered enough in the creation of actual relations, through birth, development and emancipation, to move from being treated as subjects to being included as constituents, and obligated to follow laws only because they have the measurable capacity to control the legal system. Those who do not back ensuring all children a fair start in life logically fall outside of any system of collective obligation, and protection.

The action before the UN seeks to escalate climate and other reparations – specifically designed as family planning entitlements – by trillions of dollars, through the concept of equity fraud, in order to save millions of lives. Many are using illegal tactics to block the high valuation.

But the UN work goes beyond targeting greenwashing towards finding the concealment of liability for the death – through a sustainability scam involving both false and omissive claims – of millions in the escalating climate crisis. Some of the most falsifiable claims were made in the animal rights sector, in a #demandscam where charities focused on vegan food reforms that benefitted their funders, knowing full well that growth was undoing the benefits for animals.

By revealing the truth, Fair Start reforms become an evolution of animal rights towards a more macro level: If we can’t steal abused animals because animals are not property, if in fact we are only saving them, then we also can’t reduce them to property in human reproductive rights regimes that ignore their rights, and do not treat children well enough so that they would be inclined to treat animals well.

The base, not an option

Every entity in the United States should be forced to comply with civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring, housing, education, etc. But not extending protections to infants who would suffer the consequences of historic injustice – maintaining the separate but equal doctrine there – was a horrific mistake. It seeded in our brains the idea that our birth and developmental positionality was organic, rather than the result of illegitimate policy. But the mistake is one that we can fix with universally preemptive standards for fair starts in life.

Antiracism requires removing a system of birth entitlements where children of color get a tenth or less of the wealth as white kids, are largely excluded from the political system, and bear the deadly cost of an ecocide they did not create. Thresholds of protection for birth, development and emancipation enable a permanent resistance to oppression by linking the measurable needs of the most vulnerable to our own liberation.

Fair Start’s action before the United Nations enables this liberation. It simply asks anyone relying on any legal authority to derive back to the most preemptive source of legitimacy, an exercise that inevitably ends with the need to prioritize entitlements that would measurably empower all children through improved birth and development conditions, ensuring them a fair start in life and share equity in democracy.

Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
November 21, 2024
Factchecking the Organization “We Don’t Have Time.” Take Action.

Finding: The organization perpetuates inequities by failing to address the climate and social costs of inequitable births.

Their Claim:

“We Don’t Have Time is a movement and a tech startup that leverages the power of social media to hold leaders and companies accountable for climate change.”

“Its principal purpose is to contribute to a reduced climate impact and an ecologically sustainable environment.”

They have published a manifesto here.

Facts:

The organization and its lead, Anette Nordvall, assume for their work fundamentally unsustainable birth inequity and child welfare standards, and consistently publish and platform information that omits the full impacts of children entering the world on the climate and related crises. This benefits their children at deadly cost to others, and replicates the fundamental cause of the crises by being nonconstitutive.

The entity is literally using wealth made at deadly cost to the values they claim to be protecting to drown out the voices of the most vulnerable. They do not prioritize zeroing out the harm we are causing, using freedom as the base metric, nor do they admit there are climate reparations liens on the wealth they are using based on that standard.

Key Idea

To “constitute” in the context of governance means to be obligated. Our societal obligation to children offers an opportunity to build a just society from the ground up, focusing on infants and animals instead of serving those in power. Achieving this requires acknowledging the specific harm caused and shifting resources to empower would-be mothers. This ensures no child is born into circumstances that deny them measurable self-determination. This requires reprioritizing wealth to incentivize and entitle would-be mothers so that no child born beneath a measurable threshold of self-determination.

Act:

Urge Anette Nordvall and others in leadership to admit this fact: Our collective failure to require measurable fair starts in life for all children has done more harm to our missions than we have done good. Then urge her and others in leadership to both publicly back and fund this preemptive, specific and universal standard for change and legitimacy.

Backing policy reforms that ensure extreme wealth is reallocated – as the first and overriding human right or grundnorm – so all children get a fair start in life, both ecologically and socially, via parenting delay, readiness, and equity reparations / family planning incentives measured inverse to privilege and positionality.

This does exponentially more good – for children, animals, our environment, and democracy – than any other intervention because it starts at the beginning and is comprehensive of value by centering on measurable self-determination.

You can also contact the Swedish greenwashing oversight agency here.

Background

There is now an action before the United Nations that redefines what it means to constitute a just nation where subjects are empowered enough in the creation of actual relations, through birth, development and emancipation, to move from being treated as subjects to being included as constituents, and obligated to follow laws only because they have the measurable capacity to control the legal system. The action seeks to escalate climate and other reparations – specifically designed as family planning entitlements – by trillions of dollars, through the concept of equity fraud, in order to save millions of lives. Many are using illegal tactics to block the high valuation.

These reforms could save millions of lives by addressing the root causes of inequality, but powerful interests are working to block these efforts. Without action, wealthy interests will continue to fund programs that appear helpful on the surface but ultimately deepen inequality by prioritizing their own children’s success at the expense of others. By adopting universal equity standards, we can ensure that no child is left behind, and that future generations inherit a world built on fairness and opportunity.

Fact: The climate and related crises we face today were largely driven by the absence of any child equity and empowerment standards in near-universal reproductive rights regimes dating back to 1948.

Wealthy nations and families have exploited these systems to concentrate power and wealth, often at the expense of Black families and marginalized communities. They promote superficial solutions—such as charity or public programs—that distract from the deeper issues of systemic inequality. This approach benefits their children while leaving countless children of color in poverty and vulnerable to climate and social crises.

The wealthy families and governments driving these regimes were avoiding measurable democratic equity, and what it does to the process of entitling wealth, as the overriding value behind political legitimacy. They were evading its ability to override existing entitlements. But by avoiding equity, they seeded racist inequity, unsustainable growth that would trigger the climate crisis, and the development of fundamentally illegitimate political systems that never measurably empowered their subjects enough to gain representative capacity and authority. This created a fake, top-down version of social justice based on hollow legal institutions and laws that never derived from any legitimating authority, but rather hid the actual creation of power relations in birth, development, and emancipation.

It allowed wealthy white families to amass wealth, at illegal and deadly cost to generations of black families. There were two standards for justice: The real – measured at a zero baseline using concrete markers for assessing self versus other determination, and the decoy – which centered on an illusion of bodily autonomy, one conflated with the capacity to harm others. If after 1948 national legitimacy and authority were contingent on inverting the flow of authority from government to the governed, this move represents the height of colonization because it assumed claims to authority wealth that should instead have gone through a process of familial legitimation.

Wealthy families in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis are now funding a fantasy world to evade the liability they and their children carry from inequitable growth. They use decoy versions of public interest work – by organizations, academics, media, etc. – the impacts of which are being exponentially undone, each day, by family policies that enrich mostly white families at deadly cost to countless children of color. This involves literally using wealth made at cost to their stated missions to drown out the voices of the vulnerable, who could actually accomplish the mission through more fundamental reforms.

There is no legitimacy authority or entitlements without the measurable political equity, or entitling children enough so they offset each other’s influence relative to a neutral position – testable through things like the feasibility of a constitutional convention. Instead, the model urged by these families assured zero functional protections for infants and animals, and used a sleight of hand that conceived of freedom in terms of an arbitrary form of autonomy from the state, rather than as political equity to choose who has influence over you, ecologically and socially. How did we assure justice without improving the conditions in which children are born and develop, given the intergenerational justice requirements of minimum thresholds for all children? How did we become free without honoring the rights of others, especially the future majority?

These families and their concentrations of wealth and power have not created value. Instead they first used poor family planning to create their own audiences and artificial demand by ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, violating children’s rights and treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was actually being diluted to uselessness. This cannibalized freedom, taking from us what we are owed in democracy and trying to sell it back in commerce. The difference between self-determination relative to zero baseline markers, and exploitation, is what they owe in reparations.

Activists now with the Fair Start Movement, in prior employment, had to omit facts that would have shown public interest information and interventions being vastly undone by growth and inequity. This was a charade of environmental sustainability and social justice that is still today being vastly undone every day as children enter the world without the resources they need. These families routinely funded decoy nonprofits that silo social justice into various downstream issues in order to hide upstream entitlement and reparations fraud, using a false premise to benefit from a system that undoes the good they seem to do. This does more to benefit the rich, white children of the funders backing their programs, and at deadly cost to countless children of color, than it does to accomplish the missions.

As foundational to that, Fair Start is urging states attorneys generals and agencies like, Finansinspektionen (FI) is the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, to track the multifaceted impacts of infants entering the world on their capacity for self-determination – the highest standard for climate damage evaluation and the only standard for national legitimacy, using the eight concrete metrics now being urged as a zero-baseline form of harm-assessment and standardization at the United Nations. This work goes beyond targeting greenwashing towards finding the concealment of liability for the death of millions in the escalating climate crisis. Every entity in the United States should be forced to comply with civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring, housing, education, etc.

But not extending protections to infants who would suffer the consequences of historic injustice was a horrific mistake, one that we can fix with universally preemptive standards for fair starts in life. Antiracism requires removing a system of birth entitlements where children of color get a tenth or less of the wealth as white kids, are largely excluded from the political system, and bear the deadly cost of an ecocide they did not create.

November 19, 2024
An Open Letter to the BLSA: Reparations Fraud – It’s at Your Law School, Firm, and Nonprofit
Summary

There is now an action before the United Nations that redefines what it means to be a just nation in which individuals are empowered in the creation of actual relations – through birth, development, and emancipation.

The action focuses on the fallacy of birthright white supremacy, and shows a pathway to move nations from treating their residents as subjects and a source of means, instead moving toward treating them as constituents, obligated to follow laws only because nations have the measurable capacity to control the legal system.

The action simply asks anyone relying on any legal authority to derive back to the most preemptive source of legitimacy, an exercise that inevitably ends with the need to prioritize entitlements that would measurably empower all children through improved birth and development conditions,ensuring them a fair start in life and share equity in true democracy.

The action in front of the UN seeks to escalate climate and other reparations – specifically designed as family planning entitlements – by trillions of dollars, through the concept of equity/reparations fraud, in order to save millions of lives. Many are using illegal tactics to block the high valuation of reparations.

As foundational to the effort and overcoming barriers, Fair Start is urging state attorneys general to track the multifaceted impacts of infants entering the world on their capacity for self-determination – the highest standard for climate damage evaluation and the only standard for national legitimacy. Fair Start uses the eight concrete metrics now being put toward a zero-baseline form of harm-assessment and standardization at the United Nations. This work goes beyond targeting greenwashing toward finding the concealment of liability for the deaths of millions in the escalating climate crisis.

Every entity in the United States, for example, should comply with civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring, housing, education, sexual identity, etc.

Sovereign nations and entities failed to protect infants from the consequences of historic injustice. This was a horrific mistake, one that we can fix with universally preemptive standards for fair starts in life for every child born on the planet. Antiracism requires removing a system of birth entitlements where children of color get a tenth or less of the wealth as white kids, are largely excluded from the political system, and bear the deadly cost of an ecocide they did not create.

Imagine a home with many floors. A flood is approaching. Will those on the higher floors remember to unlock the basement so that other can climb to safety?

As discussed below, because of the connection between communication and legal obligation, we can call out fraudulent sustainability claims and racist, ecocidal outcomes that belie those claims, especially in the animal and environmental protection sectors, to begin the larger move toward constitutive reparations that ensure measurable levels of political equity.

The letters to the attorneys general will identify dozens of cases of fraud. We also have forthcoming filings urging damage and remedy standardization before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Court of Justice, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

For example, in many cases, law schools and faculty in the United States routinely made claims of beneficial social impact they knew were being reversed daily by deadly inequity, typified by the conflict-driving growth and inequity in the Middle East killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Scholars have noted how national constitutions sweep in those, especially the vulnerable, who never consent to them. The way the U.S. constitution has done that to future generations, and harmed them, gives us a unique opportunity to physically constitute consensual relations through fairness, and become capable of becoming an inclusive and just nation from the bottom up. The U.S. now has a preemptive, or constitutive, obligation to the most vulnerable.

This is not about white men constituting at gunpoint to create a hollow legal system of words rather than empowerment. This is a real opportunity to actually legitimate relations going forward, using measurable benchmarks to ensure children come to exist in the fairly narrow range that makes consent – self-determination – their primary value.

The key? Moving wealth that illegally externalized its costs to now save its victims.

Where else would just relations come from?

Introduction

What is the most just and effective thing you can do to protect your future as the climate, inequity / autocracy, and other crises worsen?

Backing policy reforms that ensure extreme wealth is reallocated – as the first and overriding human right or grundnorm – is the fastest and most just approach. In such a system, all children would get a fair start in life, ecologically and socially, via parenting delay, parental readiness, and equity reparations / family planning incentives.

These would be measured inverse to privilege and positionality. This does exponentially more good – for children, animals, our environment, and democracy – than any other intervention because it starts at the beginning of life and is comprehensive by centering on measurable self-determination.

This need have nothing to do with altruism. We need every child born to be self-determining because by definition, if they are not, we are not. We think of justice today in various silos – environmental, children’s, identity, animal, etc. – because to deal with them at once in the intergenerational form, which does unify them all, would have required in the middle of the Twentieth Century the leveling-up of lives for black children and a move toward a concrete range of ecosocial relations.

Instead of doing that, the wealthy, almost all-white families designing the reproductive rights regimes at the time chose the contradiction in terms of “procreative autonomy.” They gutted family law and any policy of birth equity, leaving children of color with a tiny fraction of the wealth of whites at birth. Many of these families then siloed social justice into “downstream” issue areas to avoid upstream, honest equity.

This was a power grab to evade black equity by hiding the antecedent / preambular or overriding right to it. A move that over generations downgraded political freedom to commercial freedom and enabled the catastrophic growth now killing millions. Nobel laureates have seen this as a growth-based pyramid scheme, but they have missed the massive birth equity differences which will mean the children of white wealthy families (like the secretary general of the United Nations) living at deadly cost to countless children of color.

That move – to segregate motherhood into castes and pretend one can have autonomy outside of a being positioned with an influential equity stake in one’s political system – allowed enough growth to also degrade the Earth’s atmosphere. This already kills families and children least responsible for or benefitting from the regime.

It was child inequity that was primarily used to subvert the civil rights movement and evade race and other reparations. This was and is reparations fraud, and the hiding of a political share-equity deficit that is killing children of color. This fraud – like the omissive use of environmental impact language that assumes black lives are worth less – clouds the language and concepts needed for universal reparative justice.

In other words, this created a false form of constitutionalism that ensured obligations to follow the law with no real equity for constituents to influence the content of the law. In fact, because they were seen more as economic inputs than political constituents, with family law completely disconnected from measurable political empowerment of children.

To constitute, as in national constitutions, means to be obligated. Our debt to children is a chance to actually constitute a just society, from the base not the heights. But it takes admission of the specific harm and linguistically inverting our obligation from those in power toward infants and animals.

In other words, there is an “ought” premise for all communications. Because political equity was never included in family planning, reproductive-focused human rights and child welfare regimes/law, world leaders never actually had to apply the values and positivist inclusivity/representability inherent in legitimacy. That caused horrific harm to legitimacy – and not only welfare – which gives rise to steep and measurable reparations.

It was the philanthropy of wealthy families not accountable to election or market forces, rather than small business or government, that for decades envisioned and articulated insufficient standards – devoid of child equity – for social justice. The crises we face today were exacerbated by those unjust standards.

By isolating women in the family-planning process and ignoring child equity, wealthy families for decades have ensured inherited poverty, or commercially exploitative rather than legitimate and inclusive relations. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?”

That condition derived fundamentally from the use of illegal family entitlements that undermined all civil rights and created a generational apartheid that Fair Start and others will dismantle with women’s networks engaged in reparations recovery and preemptive self-defense.

Future children must be positioned as free and equal persons to be able to constitute nations. This hypothesis is testable through things like the feasibility of functional constitutional conventions. How could would-be parents do that in isolation from one another? Equity trades among people of reproductive age require collective family planning rather than isolating women, through things like women’s democratic circles, which may be the best example of the idea of collective self-determination.

Of course, this process must be funded. And it can be, using the extreme wealth we see in the world today that for decades delayed costs onto future generations by illegally violating children’s rights to certain eco-social standards via family planning entitlements.

We can move wealth from those who took it directly to the victims by funding family-planning reparations that create a line beneath which no child should be born. This is basic – or intergenerational – justice, widely accepted as encyclopedic.

The wealthy families and other concentrations of power that owe the costs they never paid to avoid the crisis did not create value in this world. Using a fundamental system of evaluation/cost/benefit that kills millions is generally considered a failure.

Instead, as detailed in this filing before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, they used sleight-of-hand and hidden assumptions to develop a fraudulent entitlement standard (identity or third-party fraud) for national legitimacy and sovereignty.

This standard never derived from the only authoritative source: The measurable sovereignty (where each offsets the influence of others equally, relative to a neutral position) of those subjected to the nation in question.

This enshrined inequitable family planning and birth / developmental positionality, allowed mostly white, generational wealth to ensure its own criteria for evaluating truth and value through dismal standards for child development and education. It allowed wealth to create its own audiences, and demand, for example, to assure among a populace unable to read or understand its own constitution the assumption that governments have any authority to ban teaching things like critical race theory.

Creation oppression – ensured through birth, development and un-emancipatory relations – is uniquely blinding, like a fish not being able to see water. It may not feel like the constant oppression of Brave New World or 1984, but for those dying in sporadic, climate-driven disasters, or acts of mass violence driven by individual disempowerment, would certainly feel their position while dying.

This scheme was illegal, violating children’s rights and pitting people against one another. It was the treating of people as economic inputs rather than citizens while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies, where the average vote was actually being diluted to uselessness.

If you look closely at the progress and beneficial impacts claimed by the public interest organizations this wealth funded, over the past few decades, you will find benefit and progress only if one assumes there is no need to account for children’s needs. Also, one must presume to use and abuse the needs of the nonhumans / nonhuman habitats these incoming children would rely on. Look closely and you will see micro victories being slowly undone at a macro level, and the setting together of a world that would soon be beset by heatwaves and massive political inequity.

Many working for fair starts in life as the basis of legitimacy used wealth to create the illusion of progress by simply making others look in the wrong direction, away from measurable inclusion and empowerment at birth.

This is common with those like “altruists,” who assumed they owned the wealth with which they could be altruistic, wealth which is owed to make freedom – or mutual self-determination – a workable concept. Wealthy families are literally using wealth made at deadly cost to the values they claimed to protect to drown out the voices of the most vulnerable.

There exists a binary choice for all to make – an up-or-down vote: To use the same fundamentally “exclude at birth from power” standard, in terms of creating unsustainable, unjust and top-down power relations based on the subjective whims of adults, or to use a measurable equity standard based on the needs of children to preempt all else. Those advocating or silently choosing the former are engaged in reparations fraud.

The difference in damages between evaluations using equity/eco/self-determination standards, versus anthro/welfare/other-determination standards that are based on a fallaciously narrow definition of bodily autonomy involves millions of lives and trillions of dollars. The money was stolen through the fraudulent externalization of costs as detailed in our recent filing before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Fair Start standardizes and measures the death debt at various intervals between 1948 and 2024, and we allocate responsibility in ways cognizant of things like the unsustainable growth and massive disparity of wealth-driving horrors in places like Gaza.

As noted, we are urging states attorneys general to track the multifaceted impacts of infants entering the world on their capacity for self-determination, using eight concrete metrics urged as the zero-baseline form of harm-assessment standardization at the United Nations. Because of the connection between communication and legal obligation, we can use fraudulent sustainability claims, especially in the animal and environmental protection sectors, to begin the larger move toward constitutive reparations that ensure measurable levels of political equity.
- Fundamental impact disclosures that account for infants entering the world relative to concrete freedom standards can resolve the directional problem of top-down governance not being inclusive and position us as self-determining and legitimate. Wealth made at cost to the line is now owed to fund it, with a priority on funding the actual standardization in existing infrastructures like public health and reproductive rights communities. No child should be born and emancipated beneath this line, because it would be more exploitative, more illegitimating, using measures of political equity.
- Given the climate harm to future generations, and our obligations to repair the harm, it would be impossible to constitute obligatory relations at the most basic level without some sort of truth and reconciliation process.
- Without fair starts in life, there is no capacity to form organizations capable of representative governance via the measurable self-determination of its constituents. Family planning reparations enable this process, and given that wealth was already taken and the benefits already consumed, it is owed as share equity for each child.
There is no legitimacy, inclusion, or empowerment based an obligation to follow the law. As early as 2003, activists involved today with Fair Start were urged by their nonprofit employers to promote reforms they knew were being undone by growth and inequity that enriched only a few.

This is the crucial point. We were in no way accomplishing our missions. Instead we used wealth, growth/inequity, and low-threshold child welfare standards to drown out voices and control the criteria others could use to evaluate truth and values.

The letters to the attorneys general will identify dozens of cases of fraud, after forthcoming filings urging damage and remedy standardization before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

White wealth is hiding liability and blocking equity

Wealthy families in the Global North are funding a fantasy to continue a farce and evade climate reparations they owe for the harm caused. This is a charade of environmental sustainability and social justice that is being vastly undone every day as children enter the world without the resources they need.

These families fund decoy nonprofits that silo social justice into downstream issues, hide upstream entitlement and reparations fraud, and use a false premise to benefit from a system that undoes the good they seem to do. This benefits the rich, white children of the funders backing their programs, rather than the nominal recipients of color..

These families, foundations, and many nonprofits they backed had no real constituents, and they were not accountable to either markets or an electorate. It was scam philanthropy, by co-opting the ideals, rather than the more reactive sectors of business or government that drove the crisis. The rich children and their foundations hold the wealth.

They use the charade of performative social justice – micro campaigns focused on immediate and narrow issues, without accounting for the creation of actual power disparities in birth, development, and emancipation, as “distractivism” to avoid dealing with reality.

Fundraisers in the past attempted to work with Fair Start on condition of not asking funders about the accuracy of their impact claims or how their omissions of inequity deconstituted legitimacy. This would have meant reframing fair starts in life for all kids as charity rather than reparations. It would have also reduced the level of any reparations, something none have authority to do.

This shuffling of standards by sell-out environmental organizations in exchange for short-term funding is what caused the climate crisis. The fraud we committed is obvious if one contrasts the claims of impact with key facts, like growing child inequity, on the days the claims are made.

The solution?

Many at Fair Start admit that we rode freely on generational and racial positions to benefit personally in a way that contradicted our own values. This admission and the inversion of obligation from government and entitlements enables the discursive constituting of political systems and true obligation. It’s the language of basic duty that makes us a “we.”

This linguistic model, like gender or indigenous land occupation models, is a necessary first condition of any legal system – what we might call preambular preemption. But these admissions use time and space to correct the baseline error of abstraction/arbitrariness, relative to the most demanding ideals, like animal rights. To the extent that most human communication is just an attempt to get into or position oneself within a group, the admission and inversion can truly liberate.

The admission enables those who think the system cannot be changed to realize they simply may not want it to. They might struggle with the way justice has been pitted against our expected birthrights.

Priviledged public interest attorneys usually use the same fundamentally fraudulent standard of birth inequity to undo any good they claim to be doing, following the playbook of economic subversion of the civil rights movement.

Factoring in the growth and political inequity that degraded the carrying capacity of the world’s ecologies, many philanthropists have done more harm than good, masking that an unfair start in life was undoing, each day, their claimed progress. In fact, when one factors in children being born without rights, many organizations spent more on union busting, travel and events than on protecting children in poverty and of color.

Targets for reparations funding include philanthropic foundations that used fake standards for environmentalism and child welfare Reparations from these targets can and should be first earmarked for standardization.

Further food for thought

Accurate reparations and universal standardization, in a demand now before the United Nations, fixes the problem of birth inequity and the unsustainable growth it drives, vastly undoing the good many claimed to have done.

Lawyers are key to the fraud, and to the fix. They face the moral hazard of benefitting from having expertise and special knowledge of a crucial system, that has no obligation to the law or international standards of human and animal rights.

Most have caved to that hazard, growing wealthy through the window dressing of legal systems in favor of what was really a system of exploitative economic growth and the dilution of legal personhood.

In Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It), Elizabeth Anderson explores how commercial relations control our lives. But she misses how, at base, those relations came about. The fundamental reason? The absence of equitable and influential shares in democracy as the fundamental of family planning and child welfare. This move cannibalized freedom, taking from us what we are owed in democracy and trying to sell it back in commerce. The difference between self-determination relative to zero baseline markers, and exploitation, is what those who most benefitted owe in reparations.

Their claims of doing good are being undone every day because there are no functional reparative protections for infants entering the world, and the animals and ecologies they will impact. This is not about population. It’s about having an effective share in the equity of democracy, the fact that any authority to claim wealth, property or authority in governance merely derives from constituting self-determining relations.

But law students and lawyers are also key to the fix. They can derive legal obligations, all the way back, to conditioning the legitimacy of systems and entitlements on the inclusion and empowerment of their constituents.

Conclusion

The legitimacy of legal systems is not just theory. There is a threshold, and a binary choice, shown by a climate crisis killing millions. We will soon urge the BLSA to lead with Fair Start on assessing heat and other impacts on infants – impacts that expose the fraud behind the claims – fraud that gives rise to just demands for legitimating reparations.
November 9, 2024