Fair Start Movement

Category: Campaigns & Accountability

Urging You to Back Preemptive Claims for Political Equity, in Birth and Development, as the First Human Right

Fair Start formed because of the common use, in U.S. companies, nonprofits, media, universities, etc. of an illegal assessment and reporting standard, one designed to evade the costs of complying with the Children’s Rights Convention. The standard is used to hide climate damage liability, and is based on the same fundamentally Illegal metrics that caused the climate crisis and millions of deaths with it.

The standard – deriving from efforts to subvert civil rights movements – centers on using top-down, abstract, and arbitrary measures for social justice and public interest outcomes, rather than zeroing out harm in the actual creation – in birth and development – of power relations and political equity.

We can all change that standard, and with easy conversations that begin with questions like:

“We noticed you said this about your work and impact. We worry this relies on use of the same fundamental assessment and reporting standard that caused the climate crisis. How were you accounting for children’s rights as they entered the world when you claimed to have a beneficial impact?”

You don’t get to justice by starting at injustice.

What’s justice?

It starts with existence, with birth, developmental and emancipatory positionality – or what we understand to be the commonly accepted idea of intergenerational justice as minimum thresholds for children entering the world, though those thresholds must necessarily modified to account for the fundamental driver of the climate crisis. That driver, at based, is the failure of world leaders to elevate measurable political equity as the value from which legitimate governance and legal obligation derives.

Legitimacy requires accounting for vulnerable children entering the world in conditions that do not fulfill their rights, and at levels that degraded their environment and disenfranchised them politically, as a factor impacting our claims. Was that factor undoing the work we were doing, and maybe even doing more harm to our missions than we were doing good, especially because the status quo scored children of color as deserving substantially fewer resources and political influence, and exponentially more risk that is now causing them to die in the climate crisis?

Fair Start’s research shows that ignoring this factor meant that many charities on balance did more to enrich the families of wealthy investors/funders than accomplish their missions.

By not accounting for the fair or equitable creation of actual power relations at birth, our social justice and public interest work became performative, abstracted from reality in a way that ensured the current crises. Our peer-reviewed research also shows that all legal obligations derive from language that accurately captures our first obligations to others, and given our harming future children in the climate crisis, the corrective admissions we call for here will move our language towards mutually empowering all using measurable self-determination – not disempowering exploitation for unsustainable economic growth – as the base value.

Dignity requires orienting from truth, from reaerations, not failed forms of charity and after-the-fact justice derived from injustice.

Change can start with interim disclaimers like “our work does not account for inequity,” as well as making disclosures under the Fair Start Tell the Truth campaign contrasting omissive claims that used the status quo standards with measures of actual harm to vulnerable infants and animals.

Background

The core problem originates from the subversion of the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements, decades ago, when world leaders removed political equity from reproductive rights regimes, essentially ensuring “separate but equal” standards in families. Without political equity, reproductive rights regimes became fundamentally unjust and unsustainable, skewing what it means to be self versus other-determining by wrongly treating the act of having children as more personal to the parents than other-determining for the child. The regimes enabled prior generations to abuse an unlimited right to have children at cost to the rights of current and future generations, creating massive inequity and ecocidal growth.

To the extent wealthy, mostly white, families owed reparative justice, this was reparations fraud, the evasion of the heavy investments in racially equitable birth, development, and emancipatory conditions child rights required.

The lack of investment, the lack of necessitating rights compliant early childhood development conditions, directly enabled catastrophic growth and massive inequality, which measurably did more harm than subsequent philanthropic efforts, all tainted by the desire to exploit the growth, did good because it blocked life-saving funds in favor of concentrating and growing generational wealth.

Those concentrations are so extreme today that they can ensure sustained propaganda of an underpopulation “crisis” in the middle of a growth-driven climate crisis killing millions. They use an illegal standard for cost/benefit assessment and reporting that was designed to benefit the children of wealthy investor-philanthropists by arbitrarily scoring their worth higher than other children, in violation of the rights of all children. Continued use of that standard gives rise to justifiable retaliation.

Those insufficient public interest efforts would have inevitably treated children of color as deserving a fraction of the resources and political influence, and exponentially more risk, meaning that today billions of persons are at extreme risk from a climate crisis they had little to no role in causing. The impact claims this philanthropy funded were wildly off base, being undone daily by the growth driving political inequity (while enriching many of the funders).

There is no universe in which those positive impacts actually occurred – they were simply reported out of the context of negative offset, omitting the largest determinant undoing the benefits every day, making social justice a top-down and performative charade.

We know that this did more harm than good because evading children’s interests brought them into conditions that not only violated their rights, but thereby degraded – through things like extreme heat – the capacity of their ecologies to support what all children need. That inequitable growth simultaneously disenfranchised the average voter, seeding vast political inequity and blocking their ability to halt what was unfolding.

There is no way to assess value in the world that would not be measured relative to basic infant health and life prospects, including self-determination, because infant health and development is the objective basis through which humans experience all value, and the fundamental baseline for unifying values like health, equity, democracy, etc. It is the minimum measure, or floor, for political legitimacy. It’s very hard to change a future child’s prospects once they are born, so justice should focus on thresholds beneath which children should not be born.

Much of the philanthropy we see today, which avoids discussion of how inequitable growth easily reversed infant development outcomes, does more to hide this problem than fix it. In fact, funders have blocked some efforts to reform the standards, thereby minimizing climate damage evaluations, including amounts, the weight or priority of claims, universal enforceability, and priority uses of funds.

But continuing that tradition and policy of ignoring political equity in reproductive rights goes beyond racism. By hiding from policy the actual creation – at birth – of power relations, it skews how we see the world, treating the most interpersonal thing – having kids – as personal. This moves values, like nature, equity and democracy, from defining a subject-level “we” towards being minimized objects in our sentences, which has enabled things like discount rates and other top-down inaccuracies that exacerbated the climate crisis. The focus will be on emissions, ignoring how growth undoes reductions while bringing children into the world without the resources to deal with the impacts.

For example, funders claiming to protect biodiversity from growth, or animals under the legal system, have siloed the issues away from birth equity in ways that benefited them, and their families, at cost to the values they claimed to be furthering. They have avoided covering costs at the level of subject-equity, and got the benefit of seeming to be saviors at a charade-object level, through charities that focused downstream on issues of biodiversity and animal welfare.

Against all of this, Fair Start, or equity, is the preemptive standard to assess reparations and reparations fraud because governments cannot create their own definitions of legitimacy in lieu of the objective measure for that value.

There are a few tactics we can use to change the standard:

1) Elevate reparations to the highest level of measurable level of self-determination, and treat them owed and payable to would-be parents to bend down the arc of growth and consumption towards child-rights compliant families that are smaller, equitable and democratic. Every corporation, nonprofits included, may be obligated to read their current civil rights obligations as preemptively directed by that standard. Fair Start is urging the United Nations Human Rights Committee and other human rights bodies to admit fundamental failure and to recognize an overriding and fundable right to a fair start in life for all children as the solution. This standard overrides national authority to define citizenship and other designations of political membership.

Why? Bringing future children into the world is the largest determinant of outcomes in the long run, and because who we should be – fundamentally relating to one another based on rights and not growth commerce – comes before what we do, we can take radical action to move the incentivizing funds. Would we really think it racist to deny employment to someone because of their race, but to ignore climate risks to millions because of race-based differences in generational wealth?

Climate change and inequality are birth-interconnected crises that disproportionately harm the most vulnerable, requiring immediate, systemic action.

This is not a choice on a menu of public interest interventions. This work relates to the inescapable system of costs, benefits, and obligations we are all born into, the largest driver of outcomes, and the choice to exploit that system or legitimate it.

If we care about a particular value, like animal liberation, wouldn’t we be eager to account for a fundamental cost/benefit analysis that accounts for the harm wealth has done, and what it owes going forward?

2) Identify and make examples of high profile barriers (nonconstitutive free riders, or “noncons”), many of whom would have funded social justice decoy philanthropy.

These are some of the people who are most harmed.

These are some of the people who most benefited.

Failure to resolve this injustice takes the debtors outside of deserving public (legal/inclusive representative) protection because their bypassing child-rights compliant positionality and formation of relations, means impossible to account for their being included in a comprehensive system of obligation/rights that actually accounts for the costs and benefits of birth positionality. They are not included in any organization of mutual obligation, and deserve as much as they necessitate for the most vulnerable.

Their wealth was fundamentally made at cost to our freedom, and the freedom of others, and there is no reason we should not take it back in order to fundamentally liberate. Their behavior, each day, is evidence of whether they ensure legitimacy, or collective freedom from power, or assume illegal entitlements to benefit at deadly cost to others while masquerading as free.

This tactic can begin by asking government officials, wealthy individuals and families, and key leaders across all sectors whether they think kids deserve a fair start on life; how they are accounting for entitlements that ensure children only being born into conditions that comply with their rights under the Children’s Convention so that we can all share a legitimate, or rights-based, political system; and to admit their entitlements derive from and are conditioned upon an obligation to measurably empower the constituents in a way that actually justifies governance.

This can include focusing on the adult children of key targets, who under the preemptive standards above would inherit the death debt of their parents.

For decades the majority of assumptions in population ethics, as a field, have been fundamentally premised on welfare improvements that the climate crisis has now reversed. There is no room for continued debate under the status quo entitlements, as the death rate climbs. Illegal power derives from the illusion of representative authority, used to to justify the exclusive right to the use of violence. But free persons will only follow rules that are fair, and the first rule accounts for our creation or positioning into the system of rules, so that we are more self-determining than determined by others.

3) The Fair Start Tell the Truth (TTT) campaign: In the campaign we take omissive impact claims that were relative to an impact and assessment standard that scored children of color as deserving less resources and more risk, and instead include the full impacts to create contrast. Language matters, because it would be physically impossible to be free without communications that capture how we fundamentally become legally obligated to others as they enter the world, and we are thus preemptively obligated to communicate in accord with shared values to be self-determining.

There is no such thing as an inclusive, representative, and hence legitimate legal system without that.

The TTT campaign allows everyone to relate their experiences to the dynamic reality of the most vulnerable, children entering the world and impacting animals – in the actual first creation of unjust power relations – rather than relating those experiences to decoy points (politicians, celebrities, advertising, etc.) created by the powerful. All legal obligation derives from language, and ours should mutually empower – not disempower – at the base.

Language that accurately reflects and forms obligations has to be accessible to the people who are engaged in the discourse – meaning it definitely is not a traditional constitution in the sense of abstract words. To exemplify this Fair Start is targeting key examples of fraud that go well beyond greenwashing, and in some cases involve criminal conduct that will be investigated before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

There is an analogy for the shift that is needed: All work is done on a floor that is falling apart, and some want to keep going while others fall through, clutching at the others around them as they fall. These free riders threaten us all. Why? It is physically impossible to be free, as in self-determining, if we cannot ask how and then assure that persons are created, developed and emaciated in ways that offset equally their capacity to influence political systems, relative to a neutral position or objective standard for evaluation.

Those entering the world are either not empowered, or we all have no choice but to be subjected to their power and influence – including the degradation of the environment around us. We should instead empower the governed, not the government and the wealthy.

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

February 9, 2025
Did You Get Philanthroscammed? The Wealthy Families Behind Your Charities Set Low Bars for Social Justice That Did More Harm Than Good.

The Fair Start Movement begins simply with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through unsustainable and inequitable growth, 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 with the measurable 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.

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 that benefitted their own families, ensuring for others dismal standards for child development and education, thereby violating their own professed values (like animal protection and bio-diversity) by treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens.

For years activists with Fair Start – in their prior employments – were urged by vegan investor-funders to focus on food reforms, the benefits of which – for animals and humans – were being undone by money-making growth.

The results were a catastrophic increase in overall demand and emissions.

The investor-funder’s kids are now thriving. More vulnerable children are now dying from the increased heat, disease, flooding, and fires.

Read more here.

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.

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

February 7, 2025
Yes, You Created Musk and Trump. Take Action.

If you are worried about Trump and Musk as threats to democracy, ask yourself what your company was doing – at the most basic level of measurably empowering and freeing children as they entered the world – to actually protect democracy.

What in your company’s cost/benefit analysis covered the costs of children only being born into conditions consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention, the basis for human rights and democracy? Or did your company, like Trump and Musk, assume those kids were valuable economic inputs in your growth model?

Were you quietly enjoying growth-based investments that exponentially undid climate and animal protection reforms, and enriched those you criticize? Did your company make money on vegan food investments relying on growth, and massive wealth differentials for black and white kids, that did more harm than good?

We don’t get to justice through injustice, and punching down on infants and animals with zero actual birth equity protections.

Hypocritical companies, fake charities and nepotistic foundations that did nothing to ensure fair starts in life for all kids, which means measurable equity or effective shares in one’s democracy, created Trump and Musk at the most basic level.

Fair Start begins simply with the fact that wealth in the world today was made through growth and at cost to children’s rights because nations illegally evaded their obligation to only bring children into conditions compliant with those rights.

That standard – a demand for family planning resources to ensure children’s rights, which is the most basic standard for who our species should be – is how we can move that same wealth to try to fix the problem.

Many entities in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis are using the same fraudulent impact assessment and reporting standards, ignoring how children entering the world undid sustainable development impacts, that drove the crisis in order to hide their liability or the death of millions.

The rule: All climate reparations must be based on measurable collective self-determination. There are no values outside of that system, given climatological impacts on infants. We find and out those using any other standard, and hold them fully accountable. Government and those they entitle to wealth cannot redefine “harm” to avoid liability for the deaths of millions.

Language matters, and we cannot be free or contextually self-determining without communications that reflect or most fundamental obligations to others.

If we want to protect democracy our companies have to build it through the creation of actual power relations by starting at birth and, in the name of intergenerational justice, targeting key bad actors who lied about impacts while making their money at cost to children and animals.

They owe that money because they used fraud and unfair competition, omitting deadly costs in their public impact statements, in order to make it.

We have an obligation to take that wealth back and ensure – through delayed parenting and collective family planning incentives inverse to wealth, that no child is born beneath a line of being empowered.

Here is what your company can do.

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

February 7, 2025
The Second American Revolution? Fake Liberals Ensured Musk and the Climate Crisis. Real Change Goes Beyond Left v. Right.

In the middle of the Twentieth Century world leaders evaded future children’s interests and political equity as a basis for reproductive rights, mostly likely because it would have required heavy investments in racially equitable birth, development, and emancipatory conditions.

Leaders on the left and the right conflated by defining power very narrowly – as the violence of the state, rather than any form of human influence, so one would be free to terminate pregnancies, only to now die in a heat wave because one had no influence over climate policy, and could not afford air conditioning.

Read the story of what occurred here.

The lack of investment directly enabled catastrophic growth and massive inequality, which measurably did more harm than subsequent philanthropic efforts, all tainted by the desire to exploit the growth, did good because the outcomes today involve projections of millions dying in the climate crisis.

Those efforts would have also inevitably treated children of color as deserving a fraction of the resources and exponentially more risk, meaning that today billions of persons are at extreme risk from a climate crisis they had little to no role in causing.

We know that this did more harm than good because evading children’s interests brought them into conditions that not only violated their rights, but thereby degraded – through things like extreme heat – the capacity of their ecologies to support what all children need. That inequitable growth simultaneously disenfranchised the average voter, seeding vast political inequity and blocking their ability to halt what was unfolding.

There is no way to assess value in the world that would not be measured relative to basic infant health and life prospects, including self-determination, because infant health and development is the objective basis through which humans experience all value, and the fundamental baseline for unifying values like health, equity, democracy, etc.

It is the minimum measure, or floor, for political legitimacy.

Much of the philanthropy we see today, which avoids discussion of how inequitable growth easily reversed infant development outcomes, does more to hide this problem than fix it. The omission of information on child entry conditions hides liability – and rights to self-defensive reparations – for deadly climate harm to millions of children of color who are born with a tiny fraction of the wealth of white funders’ kids.

The fix?

As described in detail below, an effective solution if to use measurable standards for true social justice and ecological restoration to ensure accurate climate reparations pegged to the self-determination of each child entering the world. Because the creation of one’s positionality relative to others and ecologies is legally preemptive, it enables drastic action to recover reparations.

Humans need law primarily to protect the vulnerable amongst us, so there is no law, or obligation to do what others say, in a system that starts with punching down on the most vulnerable. And if our oppression comes in our creation through a status quo that does not ensure minimum levels of welfare for kids at entry, it then seems impossible to see and remove without an objective touchstone – like offset, or zero, baselines –that change the status quo.

TAKE ACTION: Back efforts at the United Nations that would replace dysfunctional reproductive rights systems with Fair Start.

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

February 4, 2025
Don’t Get Scammed. Is the Charity You Fund Going Backwards? Telling the Truth = Better Futures.

The climate crisis creates a serious problem for anyone claiming to do good public interest work. What’s public interest about a system that will result in the deaths of millions of innocents as heat waves grow?

Those funding public interest work – the wealthy families at the beginning – were not using a system that ensured their wealth reflected true 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 ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, violating 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, while the average vote was actually being diluted by inequitable growth to uselessness. A system of fundamental entitlements likely to kill millions of innocent persons, one that could instead have achieved better outcomes by actually investing in children, is generally considered a failure.

In essence they used an anthropocentric standard to define things “sustainability,” and “green,” a welfare standard designed to benefit their investments and rich children, not designed to ensure the ecocentric or freedom-based children’s rights of those most vulnerable children in places like Uganda.

Factchecking the Weeden Foundation.

Wealthy funders in the U.S., for decades, used a clever sleight of hand to benefit while forcing costs on others in ways that would ensure the crisis. They objectified the problems they seemed to be fixing, treating things like one’s share equity in democracy as “population,” a thing outside of subject-subject relations of a “we the people.” Note that Fair Start still uses the word in some areas as the only means of having audiences link from what they were taught to our work, though this could wane.

They started by assuming entitlements in ways that benefitted themselves at deadly cost to others. Fair Start activists themselves had made similar assumptions, about the authority that officials like judges claimed, in the former employments these activists held. In fact judges, and all officials, like those private citizens claiming to own wealth, must derive their authority back to actually empower those constituents they claim to represent.

Where else would their authority derive from?

Fair Start activist have had to deal with many seeking to sabotage our work, including fundraisers who made a lot of money making those false assumptions and urging us to do the same in order to get funding. She urged us to seek as charity what is owed as reparations – in violation of the dignity of human rights, and to not criticize the funders from whom she wanted business, even when they were making false claims about their impacts.

Alternatively, we’ve dealt with grassroots activists who insisted on having no obligations to empower even their own future children, even when doing so was necessary to live consistent in their impact claims and activism, and to be accountable for promises made to vulnerable communities.

That thinking, from philanthropists and activists alike – not caring about the future and the most vulnerable – is what fundamentally caused the crisis.

We can’t get to justice, legitimacy and obligation to follow the law, from injustice.

How did that system fail?

World leaders had privatized freedom in the birth-creation of political relations after 1948 by conflating the act of having and not having children under a singular umbrella of autonomy, rather than treating the former as requiring political equity for the child. This led to measuring / assessing and reporting based on standards meant to take oneself out of one’s birth and development context, ensuring children of color were treated as deserving less and placing them at increased risk.

Leaders conflated by defining power as the violence of the state, rather than any form of human influence, so one would be free to terminate pregnancies, only to now die in a heat wave because one had no influence over climate policy, and could not afford air conditioning. This reality derives from the slow conversion, over decades in acts of child creation, of political empowerment to commercial exploitation.

At bottom, leaders used family law to slowly subvert all other civil rights reforms, training us to think of ourselves / the body out of context. If you ask anyone claiming to do good to account for children having entered the world, and entering now, this constant undoing relative to children’s rights can be shown.

We are building the Fair Start Movement to watchdog what has happened and who should be held accountable. Many are hiding birthright white supremacy and massive death debt with a fraudulent assessment and reporting standard that takes the self out of positionality and creation context because to talk about ourselves relative to children entering the world will show our reproductive rights systems assume children of color are worth significantly less and are dying in growing numbers.

Fair Start activists, in their work with nonprofits, assisted in creating a fantasy world of positive impact – through things like the promotion of vegan brands – that never existed if one were to account for children entering the world. This fantasy world allowed the slow conversion of democratic relations into the commercial ones we see today, often through a shell game that used concepts – like an abstracted version of animal liberation undone every day by growth – designed to hide positionality.

How do we watchdog?

We use the Tell The Truth and Act Campaign, in which we urge all to admit our work is being undone every day as children enter the world in conditions that violate their rights, and that violating children’s overriding birthrights to political equity has done more harm to our missions – all of our missions – than we have done good.

Here are some examples:

https://fairstartmovement.org/basic-fact-value-checking-the-organization-mercy-for-animals-take-action/

Urge Justice Expert Martha Nussbaum to Back Fair Start Reforms

Factchecking Wikipedia and the Center for Biological Diversity. Take Action.

Do Animal Protection Organizations Like Humane Society International and the Humane Society of the United States Actually Help Animals? It Depends. Take Action.

We ask all to admit their work was based on a separate but equal system of family entitlements that subverted the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements. And we then require contextualized impact claims, with neutral fact checking. We focus on the combined suffering of infants and animals, and specific disclosures contrasting impact claims with children entering the world without equitizing rights, beneath the line of their entitlements.

We ask: How much was good was undone by inequity, how far were the ecological baselines degraded, and how disenfranchised were the actual voices? That is the measure for what is owed under equity reparations, and if we take our values seriously we will use them to form subject-level relations with others as equally empowered, not just subject-object relations that derive from the failure of reproductive rights ignoring children’s rights.

The former is what makes a political system truly liberating.

If those Fair Start engages truly value the things (like biodiversity, or animal wellbeing) 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 the things they claim to value as we constitute relations going forward.

Certainly, they have already received the benefits.

If they do not they are frauds, willing to benefit at deadly cost to others, and they deserve the same level of protection as they choose to give. Where else would any obligation to them come from?

Legally, those benefitting at deadly cost can be held accountable because nations cannot create their own standards for what constitutes harm in order to hide liability.

Harm is measurable based on objective standards.

For example, many wealthy families have used the subversive standard and their money to try to define the field of animal law and rights in a very narrow way that does more to benefit them and their children than benefit animals. This field is of interest because claims regarding a legal system able to protect the most vulnerable, on a level that values them as individuals, are the most falsifiable, and in many ways.

Under those narrow conceptions legal systems neither had the capacity to benefit animals, nor be representative of their constituents. Under the preemptive standard discussed in the articles below, we have a right to the truth about their on-balance impacts, and what they might owe to truly do what they got credit for claiming to do.

We have a right to know what entities are doing to the physical capacity for all to self-determine.

Former Animal Legal Defense Fund staffers accuse organization of transphobia, union-busting, and more

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. In many cases they will have spent more on lavish travel and events, or other incidentals, than actually furthering their mission.

We can ensure the needed resources to save lives by using the extreme wealth in the world today made at cost to others to fund reparative justice, because that wealth was made by not paying the costs of avoiding climate, autocratic and other harms to future generations. The legitimate and reparative standard – being fair – will save millions of lives, and trillions of dollars. However there are entities now funding charities, media, politicians and academics who silo social justice issues away from birth equity, and use omissive and fraudulent messaging that hides their liability and the entitlement systems ensuring the death of millions as the climate crisis accelerates.

Calling out targets can ensure change, for example, in statements made by leading British family members after this intervention.

We can overcome the fraudulent withholding of reparations, withholding that uses a historically racist and unsustainable model – not benchmarked to actual harm – that illegally bypasses children’s rights as the basis for reproductive rights and intergenerational justice. This is an arbitrary model, a limited view of reproductive autonomy that simply assumes children of color are worth less in terms of the birth and development conditions they deserve. That assumption will now condemn millions of children, mostly of color, to death as the climate crisis intensifies.

Fair Start outs those using the fraudulent standard, which is inherently omissive, by simply asking targets to account for the entry of children into the world relative to things like the Children’s Convention when making impact claims and to adjust their claims accordingly.

The results are often shocking, with many public interest organizations having spent more on lavish travel, events and other performative things than on furthering their mission. Fair Start then assists communities impacted by the fraud to seek clawback reparations. We can focus on the specific harm from the fraud itself as a trimtab lever, and linguistic model of admission and reconciliation, to create larger systemic change and the physical constituting of legitimate relations through accurate language of obligation and the changes in behavior that follow it.

The funds from this process can drive changes in the existing sexual health and reproductive rights field, which has failed, changes that would treat mothers and infants as the priority class among vulnerable entities under existing child welfare / civil rights laws.

Without accurate language obligation is not possible.

An analogy?

All life occurs on a floor defined largely by the conditions in which we are born and raised. That floor is falling apart, and some want to keep going while others fall through. These free riders threaten us all. Why? It is physically impossible for any of us to be relatively self-determining – to be free, if we cannot ask for truth and then assure that persons are created, developed and emancipated in ways that offset equally their capacity to influence political systems, relative to a neutral position or objective standard for evaluation.

Those entering the world are either not empowered, or we all have no choice but to be subjected to their power and influence – including the degradation of the environment around us.

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

February 3, 2025
Urge Leading Animal Liberation Thinker Peter Singer to Tell the Truth

This year Fairstartmovement.org will engage in the Tell the Truth campaign, urging prominent social justice figures to admit failure as the climate crisis accelerates and kills millions.

At the base of all of the failures is their not having accounted for children entering the world, or the actual creation of power relations, when they urged reforms. That factor was undoing, every day, the benefits their reforms would have ensured. Instead, that factor resulted in the enrichment of a small percentage of mostly white families at deadly cost to countless families of color.

I and many others were encouraged to ignore that issue in our activism, for decades, so that the wealthy funders could take advantage of the growth and inequity driving the crisis.

This is not a debate. Tell the Truth means just urging key figures to disclose how the values they championed were undone – over the last three years – as children entered the world without the resources they need, and in ways that degraded their ecologies and disenfranchised them politically.

For example, we can urge Peter Singer to disclose how his animal liberation work, from the numbers of animals suffering and general impacts on welfare to daily violations of rights, was undone in the last three years by growth that benefitted his backers.

Ask him to relate the numbers to zero baselines that account for actual harm including the value of self-determination, like these, and not projections for food investments.

Singer’s work on Effective Altruism reiterated his mistakes in framing animal liberation without accounting for the reality of animals’ lives, which are shaped by the creation of the persons who impact them. His vision of altruism is taking massive wealth made at cost to animals lives, the environment, and children’s rights, and doling it out as band-aid charity to increase welfare. Given the growth-based climate crisis, his framing of the field has done more to enrich a small percentage of mostly wealthy, white kids at deadly cost to countless children of color than increase welfare.

If he cares about animal liberation, wouldn’t he be eager to account for animals lives in the cost/benefit analysis that accounts for the fundamental – birth-based – creation of wealth? He never has, but he can start now.

If we account for the climate crisis the numbers – in both fields he championed – will show him enriching vegan food and other investors, not benefitting animals or vulnerable humans. It’s not about intent. Yes, Exxon and others’ supply-side work drove emissions, but only in response to the same growth-based demand that Singer and others enabled (even if done so simply as a matter of negligence). And Exxon never claimed to be liberating animals.

Animal rights claims are the most falsifiable when we run the numbers. Is hype and a questionable legacy more important than staving off deaths in the crisis?

Contact him here.

A better way? Back reforms at the UN that would entitle future generations to the wealth the failures created.

This goes beyond greenwashing towards fraud, and as deaths mount legal systems are evolving to prohibit drivers of the crisis like moving wealth in deadly ways through omissive messaging.

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

January 31, 2025
Kaiser Family Foundation Lead Drew Altman Can Do Right By Everyone With One Change. Take Action.

The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) has a lot of influence on family and health policy. They make decisions that impact our futures.

We are urging their lead, at the end of this message, to act.

The Fair Start Movement arose from a growing body of undisputed research that traces the climate and political crises we all face to a very specific mistake, made decades ago, in reproductive rights policy making.

That means most charities are going backwards as their work is undone by inequity, every day.

Because we collectively used a false assessment and reporting standard disconnected from accurate measures of ecological and social harm, we never assured children birth and development conditions consistent with their rights. This allowed enough inequitable growth to degrade our ecologies and disenfranchise the average voter, leading to environmental catastrophe and the concentration of power in a few.

Those involved in Fair Start worked previously at nonprofits where leadership were knowingly undoing their claimed impacts, while enriching mostly white kids at deadly cost to countless children of color.

Fact: As we show in this work re-published Stanford University, violating children’s rights, and assuming children of color deserved a fraction of the resources and exponentially more risk did more harm to all of our values – like moderate temperatures, food security, and representative government – than any of our philanthropic efforts did good.

Did KFF value their growth-based investments and endowment more than kids? How did they not do that?

The fix? All must admit that truth, and now back a universally preemptive and restorative standard that treats the old standard as illegal, and reallocates resources into equity-based family reforms that encourage parenting delay, readiness, and child entitlements inverse to their parents wealth.

More specifically, we are bringing legal actions before state attorneys generals in the United States urging key target organizations making claims of beneficial impact to disclose how they were accounting for children entering the world in their claims for the last three years.

We believe that contrasting claims with the facts of declining infant and maternal health will show continued use of the illegal standard, which in many cases will give rise to legal liability for inaccurate claims leading to the deaths of millions. There is no universe in which beneficial impacts, taken out of context from their relative position to birth equity, occurred. Use of such-out-of-context claims hides the fundamental driver for the deaths: Enabling the powerful over the vulnerable.

Act Now

Drew Altman leads the KFF. Contact him on Twitter, or find and engage him in person, to admit fundamental system failure and to back this reform: https://fairstartmovement.org/fair-start-today-moves-to-standardize-climate-damage-evaluations-at-the-un-and-override-any-conflicting-standards/

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

January 28, 2025
FSM: See a History of Greenwashing and Reparations Fraud
The history

What the United Nations calls greenwashing begins as a much more deadly form of entitlement fraud. Wealthy families are literally using wealth made at deadly cost to the values they claimed to be protecting to drown out the voices of the most vulnerable.

You can identify anyone willing to further the fraud by asking whether they back accurate climate reparations or not. Those who do not are engaged in political equity or constitutive fraud, or choosing to start with zero actual protections for infants and animals in a way that contradicts stated values, enabling the powerful to punch down on the vulnerable

These families have historically subverted civil rights by undoing with family inequity upstream the good they claim to be doing downstream – a move that masked the drivers of the climate crisis and who it would victimize. 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.

To avoid black birth equity, the mostly white families that designed the near-universal reproductive rights regime bypassed equity entirely when defining reproductive autonomy, such that one can only use a thin form of autonomy to terminate their pregnancy, only to then die in a white-wealth-driven heatwave months later because they cannot afford air conditioning.

This move, of hiding the diminution of equity, relied on a sleight of hand: Defining freedom from power around the authority of the state to use violence, rather than broader definitions that would have captured all entitlements, like those between child and child-maker. The conceptions relied on almost all white and male theorists who abstracted far away from their own birth positionality, leaving us with abstract theories of liberation that would enable a climate crisis deadly to mostly children of color.
- Ronald Dworkin suggested a unity of value, but only downstream, never accounting for constituting just power relations via birth equity. Dworkin may have taken rights seriously, but not freedom.
- Many theories of law and language similarly have avoided equity as a basis for obligation, and the need for accurately constitutive language.
- H.L.A. Hart suggested what might be the most basic norms for a legal system, none of which empower the subjects as they enter.
- John Rawls envisioned basic rights for a just system, but never a basic rule to offset the influence of each subject against a standard that would have evaded the climate crisis.
- Crucially, Robert Nozick’s use of the fallacies described in this letter misdirected liberal political theory
- Hans Kelsen theorized of a norm from which all others derived, but never included ecosocial, birth-based share equity in one’s democracy as the obvious most basic ought behind his positivist vision of law.
- John Finnis envisions a list of natural rights, which does not include birth equity, and certainly not as foundational.
- Joseph Raz may have articulated the closest thing to equity override with his concept of valuable autonomy, but did not deal with the creation of relations at birth.
- Elizabeth Anderson captures the nature of commercialized governance, but does not trace it to the commercialization of relations in our creation.
- Cass Sunstein challenged common views on baselines, but never asks which generational, racial, national etc. position one should be in while assessing the idea of baselines, a question that seems determinative of millions of lives at risk as temperatures soar.
- Contrast with these the work of Dr. Gabirel Bubu Ncha on early democratic women’s circles. While Joel Feinberg certainly envisioned every child’s right to an open future, and David DeGrazia comes very close to fairness in creation at the end of Creation Ethics, Ncha’s work on collective planning allows would-be parents to better ensure it.
These theories, minus the last two, are based on the misconception of existence without full positionality, and the abstraction of morality away from the creation of relations at birth. This thinking created decoys, like performative civil rights in employment or voting, masking birth inequity that would allow white wealth built on a lie of unsustainable growth. The theorists generally stopped short of requiring governance by free and equal persons because they did not derive an obligation to follow laws back to the measurable empowerment of subjects as constituents. They all seemed to focus on what the rules should be, not the emancipation or capacity to be part of a rule-making process, probably because they assumed capacity that given their positionality.

These families and their concentrations of wealth and power have not created value. Instead, they first used unsustainable family planning to create their own growing audiences and artificial demand by ensuring dismal standards for child development and education, treating people as economic inputs rather than citizens while benefiting from the appearance of inclusive and functional democracies where the average vote was being diluted to uselessness.

A legal impossibility.

Law is different from other disciplines because it norms can be coerced, and firstly on the idea that subjects are included as equals and thus made constituents. Constitutionalism, at bottom, premises obligation to follow the law on actual inclusion and empowerment.

Again, given the climate harm to future generations, and our obligations to repair the harm, it would be physically impossible to constitute accurately obligatory relations – legal / obligatory relations – at the most basic level without some sort of truth and reconciliation process around the admission and inversion of empowering future generations more than those at the heights of our economic and political hierarchies. Without fair starts in life, there is no capacity to form organizations capable of representative governance, via the measurable self-determination of its constituents.

Where else would the empowering relations come from? If defunding the police makes sense, it’s at least because our legal systems have never included constituents with measurable equity in a way that makes them capable of producing actual representatives, and laws – including property entitlements – that accurately represent the will of those subject to them.

How to see the fraud?

The claims these families make and fund are easily falsifiable, as are the claims of the funders backing 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 one seems to do. Focusing downstream, rather than on things like what Dr. Breeze Harper called the primacy of Black Birth Equity, avoids civil rights that actually account for the creation of power disparities in birth, development, and emancipation.

What we think of today as procreative or reproductive autonomy was nothing more than cover for not disturbing mostly white birth privilege and positionality. It was the skin of freedom, not the body. Here are some questions one can ask to identify the fraud:

If the claimant valued 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 claimant doing more harm than good by ignoring entry without equity? Do they start with enabling the powerful over the vulnerable? Did the claimant spend more on undoing their mission than furthering it? 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?

This is a constitutive discourse. Again, this is not about population. It’s about lies and omissions to gain power by exploiting positionality. A concrete goal for a better future might entail functional constitutional conventions, where we can be self-determining rather than determined by others, and in concrete and measurable ways.

Animal rights, law and policy as the most falsifiable examples of reparations fraud on almost a dozen levels, but also the standard for the highest level of clawback payments.

If one factors in children entering the world in inequity, the claims of success and impact made by most animal protection organizations are being undone daily. And they are false, with more vastly animals suffering and dying through the creation of their relations with humans than these organizations save.

Those working in animal law, rights, and policy will have made the most falsifiable claims, claims that thus give a toehold for change.

For example, many of the funders behind animal protections have been pushing what is a social justice movement for the most vulnerable, instead towardtowards investments in growth-based vegan food markets that do more harm to animals – by the numbers – than these funders and their leachy children do good. Many lawyers ostensibly working on behalf of animals made impact claims in this area that were easily being undone, every day, by inequity. Some call this the #demandscam, pretending to with one hand create value you undo with the other, and in a way that benefits the scammer at cost to others. In this case not only did growth do more harm to animals that food reforms did good, but that growth was replacing a chance for democratic relations with commercial ones via low investments in children, while concealing the death debt investors already owed for climate deaths.

FSM members were actually told, by a leading animal law professor who was accustomed to not having to link legal institutions to the measurable empowerment of their constituents, that fair start reforms were natural rather than positive law, and that one could work to save animals through food reforms while not altering the underlying retrodictive rights that would – each day – undo any gains from food reforms.

Given that animal liberation is the highest form of environmentalism (treating ecologies as the homes of entities who have relations, families, and lives of their own rather than a human resource) the cooptation of animal liberation is horrific. The ideal requires equitable human and nonhumans relations. Instead it is funded towardtowards flashy, downstream, low-impact, micro-level campaigns and victories that get easily undone on a macro level.

It is, by the numbers, the greatest example of “winner take all” greenwashing possible. Funders, and the performative advocates who take their money, decoy us all away from seeing animal law, rights and policy as the most demanding standard for who humans should become, ethically, because they would rather use an illegitimate system to improve their positionality and image than do the work of legitimating the system around liberation of humans and nonhumans.

Humans are animals. Seeing us 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 focus on nonhumans not because of their species, but because of their unique vulnerability. Animal law is not merely law that refers to animals. Animal law would have to start with a 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 starts with inclusive birth and child welfare policies that create empathetic relations capable of benefitting animals.

So animal rights, law and policy, if we want to protect nonhumans, is just a system of obligation oriented around the most vulnerable, the most demanding form of law and justice. That system has to have the capacity to actually benefit the beneficiaries, not just pretend to. What does pretending to benefit animals look like? Look at most of the micro victories for animal rights and personhood claimed by organizations over the last few decades, and contrast those with the impacts of growth on animals, and the reality, at a macro level, of embedded nonhuman propertyhood in our archaic reproductive rights regimes. Animal rights in the comprehensive sense is not just ecological – it involves the mots demanding levels of empathy in future generations.

Why then not focus on infants and animals, and – at a macro level of inclusive animal personhood – the creation of fundamental power relations between the two? Those like animal rights theorist Peter Singer, and others, do not do so because that level of comprehensive vision involves equity, race, democracy, and other factors that require true tradeoffs against one’s positionality.

The wealthy families funding animal rights, law and policy, for decades, refused to deal with this issue because they wanted to benefit from a system that quietly harmed animals, while seeming to be their saviors. Animal rights and law, in this sense, starts with the actual creation of power relations as children enter the world, represented by the collective pronouns implied or expressed in all statements, including purportedly “constitutive” statements like “We the People.” It is the most demanding standard, eco or animal centric, rather than anthropocentric, or punching down on the most vulnerable. But for Singer it was more important to raise his position as savior in an illegitimate system rather than focus on a better version of a “we” to legitimate it, and that did much more harm to animals than he did good.

Claims many animal protection organizations make, like Mercy for Animals, are objectively false, in the sense that the impacts they claim cannot be squared with the reality of human birth, development. and inequity on nonhumans. But many funders, in those nations most responsible for the climate crisis, are using institutions and individuals – media, decoy nonprofits, universities, agencies, think tanks, celebrities, etc. – to create a fantasy world of equitable family planning, green environmental sustainability and social justice impact that is being vastly undone every day as children enter the world beneath the minimum of what they are owed. These entities are literally using wealth made at deadly cost to the values they claimed to further, wealth that is defended by the violence of the state, to drown out voices of most victims.

Singer’s version of animal rights and law, the abstraction away from the creation of actual relations, is just charade version of animal liberation they need: Value animals in the abstract with one hand, make money on growth and privilege at cost to them with the other.

Effective animal rights in the best sense is personally expensive, not profitable. It’s easier to ignore all of that and let the macro undo good for animals at the micro level. True animal rights and law focuses on the creation of power relations, and limiting capacity to harm others – the capacity that is the core of the Anthropocene and the antithesis of animal rights. True animal rights mean preemptive standards in things like assessing damages to animals (and children). If captivity harms elephants for example, it’s because it deviates from a biodiverse and less crowded world where elephants are free of most human influence, not deviation from a relatively dismal life at a sanctuary.

Animal law starts with moving away from anthrocentric systems, toward seeing humans as the animals that they are, and situating them in equity, before we should have any sense that they can be free. But, as a close source to Fair Start said: “This is all the organizations will pay you to do. And if you love animals, that’s better than working for nonprofits.” Actually, research in the areas suggests the charade does more harm than good by moving the goalposts of social justice, and that in fact those engaged in it would never do so if they were not otherwise privileged to do so.

Fair Start initiated whistleblowing in this area as the evidence arose that the climate crisis could actually reduce the carrying capacities of ecosystems, rather than just exceed them, and that birth and developmental positionality was the greatest determinant of one’s prospects to to live or suffer/die in the crisis.

Implementing the fix: Being effective means addressing the root cause, not the symptom.

The only way to engage in damage evaluation for reparations, and the fraud hiding them, is to peg them to a functionally inclusive baseline – children entering the world relative to certain counterfactual thresholds – that would not have caused the death of millions of innocent persons.

Accurate reparations – relative to one’s positioning or membership position in the fundamental system of political obligation – fixes the problem of share inequity in one’s democracy vastly undoing the good many claimed to have done. Without them admitting the harm and fulfilling their obligations it would be impossible for any of us to live in a system of collective self-determination.

You can take legal action against those entities engaged in the fraud, with climate and race reparations benchmarked to concrete metrics of democratic equity, and a preemptive claim to what is owed that means the state has no legitimate authority to defend the barriers to who owe payments. Fair Start is now moving towardtowards such a system evaluating the full spectrum of harms, and accurate damages, in matters like children dying of climate exacerbated malaria in western Uganda.

We only owe others as much as they owe entrants into the world, because any claim of inalienable rights assumes fulfillment of a prior duty to others. One can use the discourse mentioned above, the questions, to force others to derive their thinking back to “might makes right” logic, such that they fall outside of any theory of legitimacy or political obligation that would create a duty ensuring their protection by others. Living such a logic makes those who refuse fundamental fairness – those who embrace missing a crucial step in the logic of their oughtness – fall outside of systems of mutual obligation.

Here are some indicia that an entity is engaged in fundamental, or constitutive reparations fraud:
- They will silo justice into downstream issues to avoid dealing with the creation of power relations.
- They will conflate the difficulty of inverting power systems with their desire to retain their privilege.
- They will redefine values over time to evade having contradicted themselves when called for payments.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
January 28, 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