2023 - horizontal white fair-start-movement most effective tagline
U
Q

What is it you're looking for?

Those working in public interest often make claims, and choose definitions of things like “humane,” “green,” “child welfare,” “democratic,” “inclusive,” “legitimate” and “sustainable,” that give enough wiggle room for influential officials and funders to make money on inequity and growth driven investments, at cost to the freedom and lives of many. 

They benchmark claims for the wealthy, not the vulnerable, and many are dying as a result. Like me, their statements #leftout that they begin from a system of entitlements that do not actually protect the most vulnerable, and likely undo the good they claim to be doing. These moves hid expensive liability that could move resources and save lives.  

The statements they and I made were seriously inaccurate, skewing objective values that are based on physical thresholds in the world to benefit some at grave harm to others. The result? Wrongly enriched white kids at deadly cost to millions of black children, and the devaluation of climate loss and damage claimsoften achieved  through unethical tactics – that could near trillions of dollars. There is a way to find others doing what I did, and reverse this wrong: Contrast what is said by anyone claiming to do good with facts regarding children entering the world on the day the statements were made, relative to concrete metrics like welfare, equity, capacity for democratic influence, the degradation of the ecological baseline needed to be free, levels of trust, and efficiency. This will show those making the statements undercutting what they claim to value in order to themselves benefit – often at deadly cost to those others.

This back and fourth dialogue will show many starting from a self-serving position that risks millions of human lives and countless animals. 

 

Climate driven drought in the Amboseli, Kenya.

  • Between 2000 and roughly 2021, as a federal attorney, as someone teaching law, as a public interest litigator, and as someone creating content for media like the New York Times and other media, I avoided subjects that impact United Nations assessed climate “loss and damage” liability, and in ways that protect extreme wealth made at deadly cost to others. This illegally benefited some at deadly cost to many, in violation of things like the human right to a healthy environment.

 

  • I used wealth made at deadly cost to black children to promote low impact public interest work that wrongly implied the legitimacy of basic entitlements, further exacerbating risks to millions of other children. Often we focused on food law, because diet does not implicate positionality. This created an illusion of truth and value. I claimed a role in effective immigration and national security work, and victories in legal cases for animals and the environment, the impacts of which I and others knew were being undone by inequitable growth policies  that violated human rights – policies from which we benefitted. Even when advised of the inaccurate nature of their claims, and when key leaders at funding institutions were advised that those institutions were doing the same, many organizations  and their funders have simply persisted.

 

Bar chart income vs wealth. White people are far ahead

 

 

  • Animal rights and law is an area of public interest  that shows the greatest disparity between what was said, and the actual policies chosen. In many universities I taught content, like cases, statutes, and treaties, as authoritative and justly enforceable through violence, knowing such claims were based on a fallacy that served me while deriving others of their entitlements. Whatever those cases, statutes, and treaties seemed to do in terms of ensuring beneficial change, they were being undone by low neonatal and child welfare systems used to grow economies, a policy many animal rights lawyers quietly back because it benefits them. I had one prominent environmental / animal rights professor urge me to avoid ecocentric over anthrocentric family reforms, knowing that this would mean his children benefitting – through investments and otherwise – at deadly cost to others.

 

 

 

  • For the animal rights work I did, the omission hid that we did not help animals on balance but created the illusion of truth and value by letting listeners assume certain entitlements, including ones antithetical to our mission. We also did this by ignoring conflicts of interests, including my own. To ensure legal systems actual protect animals would take massive reforms we never seriously attempted because we could raise funds – in what some have called off-ramp distractivism – without taking on such a thing. We knew donors often wear #blinders. It also let us silo off our work from unifying forms of social justice, at cost to them and immediate benefit to us, and to ignore the way noncompliance and growth undo the value of legal victories.

 

  • As social justice and animal rights lawyers we inevitably decried violence, but never backed the idea of defunding the police or military because that was a form of violence that benefited us – including the way growth-based birth inequity enriches white kids at cost to children of color. We wanted the benefit of a legal system in terms of coercively obligating others to do things in a system where we held prestige and rank, but not to ay the high costs of actually empowering others with influence over that system. When it came others children, we could benefit again, exploiting them for growth even at disastrous cost to animals. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • This account is from a leader on climate reforms in Africa:
    • An anonymous funder from the United Kingdom pledged to support Rejoice Africa Foundation with $300,000USD to do water project as charity, but not as obligations to cover the harm caused by the true costs of wealth. The wealthy funder, seeing our demands for reparation, then declined the pledge to support the water project in Uganda, as I was struggling to look for funders to pay such obligations because they allow us the dignity of living in the spirit of human rights, as equals who should not be harmed without restorative justice.
    • It was around this time that a child in a nearby village – Judith –  died of Malaria – as the disease worsened, driven by the costs of wealth and with those costs – the climate crisis, the greater breeding of mosquitoes, no prevention measures in place.
    • Immediately after a while , another wealthy funder from the USA funded a conference with $50000USD, continuing to ignore obligations. The conference did nothing for children like Judith, and very little even for the animals the funder wanted to protect. What could they show? Many wealthy funders from global north have avoided funding Rejoice Africa Foundation because they want to pay as charity not as obligation hence causing conflict of results in climate reality in avoiding climate liability. Rejoice Africa Foundation would double work a $50k grant as an obligation. But most funders are busy not accepting to fund this initiative. Rejoice Africa Foundation would like to call funders to reconsider funding this initiative and invest $50k in women and children as the primary obligation to stop climate genocide.
    • [Note: Mwesigye Robert suffered from Malaria while fundraising for $3k in February/2024. Malaria in Uganda: 100% of total children go to health facilities every day. 40% are diagnosed with Malaria and 20 % of these children would get fully treated with anti-malarial and 15 % of these would go to buy treatment from private health facilities. 5% die from complicated Malaria due to lack of adequate treatment for Malaria. Yet in global north Countries, children don’t suffer from Malaria unless they are traveling back from Africa. Wealth imbalance is the cause of this and now leading to climate genocide.]

 

 

  • I omitted information because it benefitted me, and those that employed or funded me, or that published my work. My claims and work became a decoy, sensational minutiae, benefitting wealthy funders who might one day be considered to have negative bet value once all costs – social and ecological – of the system by which they made their money  are accounted for. Wealth made at deadly cost to others was literally used to drown out mostly black voices that could have saved lives. In some cases I urged others to avoid discussion of white supremacy, when the evidence is clear that gargantuan race-wealth disparities drive daily power relations all around us. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • For example, one animal law funder who helped build programming at several leading laws schools made claims about benefitting animals. His underlying policy choices instead:

 

 

  • Many studies relative to these metrics show those adhering to current entitlement systems are choosing to undo what they claim, on exponential orders of magnitude. The #demandscam, using growth to undo progress, is being increasingly seen as a fundamental threat to many lives.

 

  • Elizabeth is the Founder and Executive Director of For All Animals (FAA) and for decades has overseen communications for nonprofits: She said:
  • “To truly measure the impact of our efforts to protect animals and the environment, we cannot review metrics in a vacuum. It is far too easy to manipulate impact by hyper-focusing on one positive outcome or extrapolating beyond acceptable mathematical standards. This not only presents a false narrative of success, but typically ignores the negative reactive implications. Fair Start’s approach requires us to examine individual crises as part of a whole, and highlights the global impact the recognition of a basic legal right to equity could bring.

 

  • We can’t fill shopping malls by cutting citizens off from being born and raised into town halls. The money that had been made by cutting many off is owed to first change the system, by elevating birth equity as the basis of all sovereignty. Self-determination, by any conception, means laws that protect the lives of beneficiaries of any political system only derive their legitimacy from the prior act of including and empowering – in a measurable way – future generations, rather than exploiting them and thereby disenfranchising and harming all of us.

 

 

  • We would all rightly ostracize anyone refusing to hire persons of color, and yet we embrace those defending their wealth made at cost to millions of black lives, when it could still save countless others.  Many funders are changing their views on entitlements to avoid these deaths, and their mounting #deathdebt if they do not.

 

  • We can’t control our own birth and developmental; positionality, and the unique and massive benefits and costs that come with it (including initial nationality), but we can offset the harms through by choosing to be obligated  to a truly equitable system that measurable empower all. We do so by admitting what I admit here, correctly entitle wealth made at cost to self-determination, and re-entitle it – as others have done in other contexts –  to cover young women being only at a time, place and with resources that achieve equity. This is a measurable and binary change from what parents want to what children, communities, and parents need. 

 

  • Had I been asked the questions above, regarding children simultaneously entering the world as I made claims, I would have had to reveal failings in my and others’ assumptions. That would prompted the beginnings of beneficial change.

 

 

  • Many had said it was too good to be true that we were getting paid well, while saving animals and the environment, and all through a democratic system moving towards diversity, equity, inclusion and justice. In fact, we were just getting paid well. How is accepting current entitlements, where many are dying because of race-based inherited inequity, in a largely white wealthy driven climate crisis, not white supremacy? We would and should ostracize those who refuse to hire black people, but defend billionaires whose wealth is being made at deadly cost to millions of black children and could be moved to still save lives? One way out of this – a massive collective action dilemma fueled by unconscious bias –  is birth and developmental equity where there is no exploitation because thresholds are set around the most vulnerable.

 

  • The longer we wait, the more innocents will die. All justice starts with human rights and the dignity of expecting, in equity, the power you and your children are owed, rather than being tricked into seeking it as charity, or as a grant from politicians or media. Humans can only constitute the future through the language of obligation and the creation of power relations. It would be physically impossible to be free unless we see ourselves as, and act under an obligation of, being first ruled by persons who will parent and the children they will have, rather than by those at the top, officials, wealthy families, celebrities, etc., who hide the mistake above, and who should only have influence to the extent the creation of others ensures measurable equity and the equal offset of power.

 

 

Share This