Urge Peter Singer to Tell the Truth

Fair Start is Working to End the Corrupt Public Interest Charade That Created Trump With a Yes-or-No Campaign on How We Measure Impact.

Micro, Downstream Interventions Are Being Undone by Macro, Upstream Growth and Birth-Based Political Inequity, Illegally Discounting Future Lives and Creating Liability for the Deaths of Millions.

Fair Start Movement and TruthAlliance.global offer the most just and effective social justice reforms possible today—but only if we ask the right question to understand why. When someone makes a value assessment or impact claim, we must ask: relative to what? What is the baseline?

If someone claims a beneficial public impact, they should be able to account for how they factor in the variable of children entering the world, relative to what children’s rights and equity require. If they cannot, their value assessments and impact reporting may do more harm than good.

Fair Start was established by advocates who recognized a fraudulent Ponzi standard embedded in prior public-interest work.

 

Animal law provides a key starting point. It is both aspirational and a stark example of winner-take-all philanthropy. In the 1970s, Peter Singer advanced an illegal and fraudulent standard at the Animal Legal Defense Fund that narrowly defined animal liberation. Over five decades, that standard facilitated wealth concentration that now underwrites his Effective Altruism movement.

Singer continues today with a charade version of animal liberation, working with groups like Direct Action Everywhere while obscuring the political-equity and impact fraud that produced the current polycrisis. Claimed impacts collapse when assessed against an objective, preemptive standard.

This standard stems from a twentieth-century power grab by wealthy families who privatized family planning to safeguard entitlements and maintain power within a coercive political system that never empowered its subjects.

These families, along with political leaders, were legally bound to adhere to a child-rights and equity standard asserting that no child is worth more than another, as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The fundamental measure of value is infant health, wellness, and self-determination—ensuring equal political influence for each individual.

Instead, they relied on a prevailing “separate but equal” standard to disenfranchise others, excluding birth equity from valuation and reporting systems.

This twentieth-century power grab treated the act of having children as a matter of parental bodily autonomy rather than political equity. In doing so, it blocked the empowerment of each child—the measurable political equity that is a necessary condition of freedom—and ensured unsustainable, inequitable growth. The result has been extreme concentration of wealth, mass disenfranchisement, and irreparable environmental harm.

Growth is not neutral.

Growth produces political inequity and ultimately illegitimacy. World leaders pushed public interest and social justice into the object position of the sentence, enabling triple extraction—through birth positionality, growth-based profits, and charade-level philanthropy—from a system built on birth inequity.

This has forced us into a position where we benefit at deadly cost to others through increasingly diluted and commercialized versions of our values, making those values inaccessible to future generations. There is no way to prevent this harm other than preventing children from being brought into the world without sufficient resources and political equity. The system ensures children arrive without what they need, and in numbers and power relations that degrade the very conditions required for their survival and freedom.

Today, women “liberated” by this reproductive-rights regime—and their children—are dying in growth-driven heat waves, with no meaningful political influence to protect themselves. Meanwhile, wealthy funders who benefit from inequitable growth masked these harms for decades through downstream, performative interventions and weak standards for terms like “green,” “humane,” and “equitable,” enriching their own children at deadly cost to others.

This is about equity as empowerment—one’s influential share in one’s democracy. It is the political analogue of equity in a firm. What we have instead is a diluted, growth-and-inequity-commercialized version of freedom: a vote in a shopping mall rather than a town hall. The principle of one person, one equal and influential vote is the basis of national legitimacy. Today, legitimacy would require enough empowerment for future generations to block the climate and political harms we now face—and to reverse their root causes.

The most fundamental obligation is to position future generations, and ourselves with them, in this way. The only means is a constitutional discourse that accounts for these obligations and brings every child into the world above a measurable threshold of empowerment—within conditions and relations that make that empowerment real. Our words situate us in constitutional discourse. There is no such thing as a “private” equity entitlement outside it.

A broad professional class sustains the white-wealth bubble: lawyers who refuse to derive authority from empowerment because they benefit from not doing so; academics who ignore birth positionality and thereby forfeit neutrality; reporters and editors incentivized to produce ad-friendly sensationalism that omits birth-equity facts; campaigners and fundraisers who profit from downstream work rather than structural solutions. Together, they manufacture a fantasy of legitimacy and progress built on micro-level interventions that are easily undone by upstream growth and disenfranchisement.

They profit by blocking the threshold that would protect infants and animals, while pretending their downstream additions are meaningful. In doing so, they convert freedom into wealth through child abuse, disenfranchisement, ecocide, and deadly inequity. They take objective values meant for all and hoard them for themselves.

Fair Start activists watched these groups take extreme measures to hide liability, including reframing the issue as “population” in order to evade equity-based overrides.

The remedy is to confront those using this fraud—beginning with the Tell the Truth campaign—and to pursue state attorneys general complaints to prohibit the hidden, illegal, and highly harmful practices treated as permissible despite violating objective human-rights and democratic limits on power. Legal instruments alone do not constitute obligations. Bringing children into the world in a way that genuinely empowers them does.

There is also a preemptive cause of action for fraud, because governments can redefine what it means to omit information necessary for legitimate political obligation.

The Fair Start Tell the Truth (TTT) campaign is one way to do this.

Long-time animal-liberation advocate Zane McNeill recently highlighted the urgency of resisting current administration efforts to coerce higher birth rates—moves that would undo the benefits of nearly all contemporary social-justice efforts:

Funders Must Support Advocates Fighting Back Against Pronatalism

While opposing pronatalism is essential, it does not by itself address the power imbalance that enables such coercion. Fair Start reforms—including the Tell the Truth campaign, which prioritizes measurable #birthequity as a basis for national legitimacy—are the most just and effective path forward. This includes actions such as suing Coke/Fairlife to enjoin equity fraud.

To understand why, we must ask one question of anyone making public-interest impact claims: How are you accounting for children entering the world? What level of democratic empowerment do you require? Are children and animals being discounted and exploited at birth?

The campaign demands a simple admission: we all relied on a system with an embedded baseline error—one that dilutes votes, commercializes democratic relations, and overshoots political, social, and ecological thresholds, rather than enforcing a resourcing threshold beneath which no child should be born. Freedom and self-determination—and national legitimacy—are physically impossible without a shared language that creates measurable empowerment through equitable power relations.

The illegal standard relies on manufactured numbers, often via an XYZ analysis: out-of-context impact claims (X) are assessed against the variable of children entering the world (Y) in ways that degrade birthright conditions, producing outcomes (Z) that contradict the claims. This standard rewards micro-level “progress” that benefits the claimant while concealing macro-level losses driven by growth. Interventions conducted under such a system often did more to subjugate people of color than to advance their stated missions.

Our work uses the Tell the Truth campaign to preemptively establish legitimate obligations and to examine why some actors refuse to participate.

Leaders such as Suriya Khan, Gabby Mora, and Breeze Harper are telling the truth. Others, including Paul Shapiro, are not.

This all begins by challenging value and impact claims rooted in an illegal UN-developed standard (1948–1968) that caused the deaths of tens of millions through a colonial system of privatized reproductive rights designed to protect entitlements rather than measurably empower women and children.

This was political-equity fraud. It triggered multi-threshold overshoot and self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Our thesis is that admitting use of this system—and changing course through language itself—reorients obligation from governance toward future generations. The TTT campaign is supported by legal, certification, and grassroots efforts within Fair Start and Truth Alliance. Legitimacy is about obligation, and all our work reflects that value.

TTT is a constitutive discourse, not a document. It rests on individual choices about which models to use within institutions, recognizing that we all benefit at others’ expense. The campaign identifies non-constitutive language and impact reporting that ignores harm to infants and animals, demonstrating the need for systemic change.

To tell the truth is to admit participation in a system of unsustainable growth and inequitable birth positionality—one that has harmed our professed values more than it has advanced them.

There is no conception of freedom that does not require measurable political equity—enough influence to protect oneself from the climate crisis. At this stage of overshoot, liability outweighs charity or investment.

The TTT “legitimacy lever,” as our lead Suriya Khan describes it, redirects responsibility for the global death debt created by the “separate but equal” standard toward concrete demands—beginning in Africa and India—and leverages them through failed UN mechanisms into coordinated legal, corporate, and grassroots action in the U.S. and Europe. The goal is not merely to remove Trump by 2028, but to remove the conditions that produced him: a disembedded, isolated conception of freedom.

Omitting information required for zero-baseline legitimacy in public-impact reporting constitutes illegal unfair competition. Using illegitimate entitlements to oppress infants and animals—backed by state violence—is morally equivalent to violence itself.

Peter Singer and the Obligation to Tell the Truth

Animal law provides a key starting point. It is both aspirational and a stark example of winner-take-all philanthropy. In the 1970s, Peter Singer advanced an illegal and fraudulent standard at the Animal Legal Defense Fund that narrowly defined animal liberation. Over five decades, that standard facilitated wealth concentration that now underwrites Effective Altruism.

Singer continues today with a charade version of animal liberation, working with groups like Direct Action Everywhere while obscuring the political-equity and impact fraud that produced the current polycrisis. Claimed impacts collapse when assessed against an objective, preemptive standard.

True animal protection—subject-level reform—requires accounting for the human-animal relations formed at birth. Instead, animal advocacy focused for decades on downstream spectacle after macro-level property relations were already entrenched. Ending exploitation requires ending those relations, but doing so demands confronting racist birth inequity—the same power imbalance imposed on animals at birth.

Fair Start’s core conclusion is simple: facts are relative to values, and value claims either constitute or deconstitute legitimate political systems. Freedom is impossible without a collective, preemptive discourse that ensures every child is born above an empowerment threshold. The Tell the Truth campaign comes closest to such a discourse. Misrepresentation is equity fraud and subject to preemptive injunction because authority derives from constituting—from telling the truth.

Behavior is driven by fear of ostracism and coercion. The wealthy rely on diluted representation and state power to preserve growth economies. Leaders act as if votes are equal when they are not. In that context, preemptive self-defense—and defense of others—is justified.

Fair Start represents a permanent form of resistance to fundamental oppression, using language to define obligation, legitimacy, and protection. The first laws are those that account for our creation relative to one another and the environment. No one is above the law.

All Fair Start is, is the research conclusion that all facts are relative to values, and value and impact claims either constitute or deconstitute legitimate political systems relative to a legally required ideal of measurable empowerment. It is physically impossible to be free without a preemptive, obligatory, collective discourse of family planning ensuring all children are born above a threshold of empowerment. The Tell the Truth campaign is the closest thing to that discourse. Deconstituting legitimacy through inaccurate statements is equity fraud and subject to preemptive equity injunctions, because authority derives from constituting—from telling the truth.

What really drives behavior? Fear of ostracism and coercion. The wealthy use state violence and the threat of prosecution to control people, but few know the state operates on diluted representation necessary for growth economies that benefit the top. Leaders act as if votes are equal. We have a right to preemptive self-defense, and defense of others, in that context. 

Fair Start represents a permanent, ubiquitous, and indefatigable form of resistance to fundamental oppression, using language to identify perpetrators and obligations. It clarifies who belongs in the legitimate linguistic community of obligation,entitlements-to-ensure actual or on-balance values, and protection, and who does not. All laws should be fair.The first laws are laws that account for our creation relative to others and our environment. And no one is above the law