Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/3L8OzfB6r1VbOfeAeinnSw
Podbean: https://revolutionnow.podbean.com/
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-now/id1530637420

Episode Summary:
In episode seven of Revolution Now!, Peter Joseph recaps key topics from the previous episodes, focusing on systemic racism, financial oppression, and ecological instability. He emphasizes three critical issues: global ecological degradation, socioeconomic inequality, and the rise of authoritarianism, warning that these trends are interconnected and will worsen if left unchecked.

Joseph introduces “seven deadly trends” projected to culminate in a global crisis by 2050, including biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, water and food scarcity, technological unemployment, and government debt. He discusses how the capitalist system exacerbates these issues, making large-scale economic and social change essential to addressing them.

He also stresses the need for radical activism, proposing solutions like demarketization and large-scale civil disobedience to counter industrial pollution. Joseph advocates for moving away from market-driven economies, focusing instead on sustainable, non-monetary resource management and technological development. His closing message underscores the urgent need for structural change to avert future crises.

Transcript:
Peter Joseph:
Good afternoon, good evening and good morning everybody. This is Peter Joseph and welcome to the October 20th episode of revolution now, episode number seven. So over the past six to seven weeks, quite a bit has been covered. We began with the topic of systemic racism (the topical issue of systemic racism) clarifying the issue as linked to the history of labor exploitation. Notably, slavery and the intra-class warfare that has occurred ever since. Likewise much has been said about the financial system itself and the structural reality of its oppression. Both domestic and international societies exist in a state of perpetual violent coercion due to the existence of debt. You would hope that this subject would be a little bit more widespread in contempt as far as the activist community.

And of course, the fact that the social system itself, market capitalism is completely ecologically unsustainable by system design, which I’m going to touch upon even more so here in a bit. And in many ways, it is the most alarming of all developments that are on the table right now with the catastrophic loss of biodiversity topsoil, atmosphere degradation, ocean pollution, all life support systems are in decline. Broadly speaking, I think at the end of the day, there are three phenomenon everyone should be concerned with. This is the ecological degradation globally, which continues unabated, the violent spread between the rich and the poor known as socioeconomic inequality, which is the largest driver of public health disorder and third, people need to be concerned about the rise of authoritarianism on this planet as a result of not only the social psychology inherent to our competitive social system, but also the fact, the very foundation of our existence existentially is being questioned due to once again, extreme inequality and ecological decline.

And what does that lead to? It leads to fear. It leads to alienation. It leads to fight or flight thinking. And fear eventually leads to greed. And as the walls close in over the next few decades, I think authoritarianism in an increasingly severe form is going to occur. It will be expected not an anomaly and it’s something that people need to pay attention to right now as they look around. Say what you will about the limitations of democracy in the world today, it has certainly been a mild improvement from divine rite of kings and monarchy of prior eras. So keep in mind that fascism is always right around the corner, not only because of the history of its existence, but also the fact that modern capitalism is a precondition for it.

And as I’m going to go through right now, something I call the seven deadly trends, as things get more unstable out there, the rise of fascism and authoritarianism should be expected. In my book, The New Human Rights Movement, I project out seven trends, which by the year 2050, all appear to coalesce in a highly negative capacity leading to social destabilization in an unprecedented way. Now this is speculation. I’m not a doomsday person. Believe it or not. But the trends speak for themselves when you follow the science. And how anyone can be a gain sayer right now, regardless of the progress we have seen over the past 200 years, due to the efficiency created through technology, mind you, not markets, the trajectory that’s directly in front of us now shows a market deviation from those prior positive trends.

First, there’s the trend of biodiversity loss and resource overshoot. A recent report from the Swiss Re institute’s Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Index finds that open quote, “1/5 of countries globally are now at risk of their ecosystems collapsing due to biodiversity and wildlife loss as it relates to beneficial services.” 20% of the countries are at risk of ecosystem collapse. While according to the World Wildlife Fund report recently, global populations of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles continued to plunge at staggering rates on average by about 68%. From 1970 to 2016, a 70% decline in less than 50 years.

Ladies and gentlemen, the earth has an ecosystem that took eons to create. And we are undoing our own habitat. Disturbing the sensitive ecosystems that basically have to be there for us to survive ourselves. And yet our economy has no comprehension of this and here we are. There are literally no changes being made on any level to combat this problem. Today, species are going extinct 1,000 times faster than the past 65 million years. The sixth great extinction is upon us. And by some estimates, it’s been noted that the populations existing on earth will amount to 27 planets of required productivity by the year 2050. We will need 27 planets in order to exist with the same patterns.

Now, moving on to the second issue, climate change itself. Today, we are at about 410 parts per million of CO2. Since the start of industrial society, there has been a 40% increase in greenhouse gases reaching levels higher than anything recorded in the past 800,000 years. The effects of the cryosphere, which is the frozen water part of the planet have proven to be empirical evidence of this damage along with many other red flags. Generally speaking, the post-apocalyptic reality is that when we get to about 500 parts per million, which we are projected to reach in about 40, 50 more years, a rise of temperature of about three degrees Celsius, we will be faced with extremely dramatic food supply loss, regional coastal flooding.

I feel like it’s almost trite to talk about this stuff because it’s covered in general in the mainstream, but it’s really not given the gravity that’s required. The core issue here is that climate destabilization has deeply affected the planet’s hydrological cycle. And that is at the root of the destabilized weather patterns and the extremes that we see. Now as an aside, it’s worth pointing out here how climate science has been deeply influenced by special interests and lobbyists. In the world of competitive market dynamics, there’s nothing more powerful than pretending science is on your side. Modern industrial civilization has had absolutely no incentive to want to question the driving force of development through this energy system of hydrocarbons, going back 100 years.

And we also know that the oil industry has been more than aware of this problem deep in the bowels of their archives. There’s a book that was published in 2015 called Climate Change Capitalism and Corporations by authors, Wright and Nyberg. And in the book, it explores the corporate resistance of this issue through lobbying and so on, along with talking about the myths of green capitalism as if capitalism could ever be green considering it’s based explicitly upon resource exploitation. A dead tree is more valuable in this system than a living tree. So if you want to understand why there’s so much debate about climate change in America specifically, when the science itself is actually quite basic, you need to look no further than the dark public relations campaigns seeking to misdirect and so doubt, coupled with faux science publications sponsored by corporate lobbyists and commercial institutions.

A 20 year study by Yale sociologist, Justin Farrell found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views of climate change and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists. The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact, they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust.” And it would usually be at this point, I’d talk about the pointlessness of all the protocols and pacts that have emerged, not only around climate change, but also biodiversity loss and point out the complete lack of efficacy of these highly publicized events.

They accomplish nothing because they aren’t mandating any type of real economic change. It’s just all based on promises. For example, let’s go back to the Kyoto Protocol of 2005 with the stated objection being stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate system. So while claim to be binding, the Kyoto Protocol actually could be just opted out of. In 2011, Canada simply quit after its emissions doubled and rather than paying the $14 billion in penalties, the government simply withdrew saying it needed to of course, favor its economy and oil production over environmental concerns. The jobs.

Anyway, moving on. The next negative trajectory, number three in this list is general pollution. In concert with greenhouse gas emissions, air, land and water integrity are all experiencing negative trends. Today, air pollution alone is jockeying for being a leading cause of death on the planet. A 2018 study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that, “Fossil fuel combustion byproducts are the world’s most significant threat to children’s health and future and our major contributors to global inequality and environmental injustice.” Researchers now estimate that during 2015, about 8.8 million people died as a consequence of air pollution.

This represents the shortening of global life expectancy by almost three years on average. Very disturbing. Really a pandemic in and of itself. Another model from 2015 states that “Projections based on a business as usual emission scenario indicate that the contribution of outdoor air pollution to premature mortality could double by 2050.” This implies that 18 to 20 million will die prematurely each year by 2050, which I think is actually conservative. And of course, most of this mortality will be in the poor nations, the global South and so on. Areas of China and India as well.

And since we have yet to see any kind of ground up energy model utilized by developing nations, you can expect this problem to get worse because economic competition between nations forces short-term interests, hence the old industrial methods of using hydrocarbons to speed up industry for the sake of the nation’s domestic economy is just going to compound the problem as they have no other option to remain competitive, which is completely insane by the way. I hope everyone realizes the absurdity of this layering of competition in our society, workers versus workers, companies versus companies, nations versus nations. It’s absolutely disgusting that there is an ethic of competition between two masses of populations based around their economic growth.

Moving on, and then you have land degradation. According to the World Wildlife Organization, 1/2 of the top soil on earth has been lost in the past 150 years. The drive for monoculture and excessive use of fertilizers has allowed for tremendous degradation. Which brings us to trend number four here, emerging food scarcity. Top soil is being eroded 10 times faster than it can be replaced according to the National Academy of Sciences, which also creates other forms of pollution as toxic farm chemicals go into streams and water supplies and so on. And while it may seem strange by comparison, a lot of analysts look at soil destruction as rivaling climate change as an environmental threat.

Since it takes about 1,000 years to generate three centimeters of top soil, it is predicted that by 2050, only 25% of the productivity experienced in 1950 will be possible causing extreme challenges for a population two times larger. As far as solutions and the intermediate sense without broad structural change, you really have to move towards non land-based farming and use vertical farm systems and other targeted approaches that allocate low impact footprints for nutrients and water. These systems have been generated and have been used in various contexts, but they’re not being scaled out as well as they should be. And not enough research is going into them to make them as efficient as possible. I think vertical farming is the future and we need to let the earth heal.

And I did a calculation in my book that I’ve mentioned in other lectures, where if you replace all agricultural land right now with vertical farm system, based on metrics put out by Columbia University in a very particular model they had, which I’m not going to go into specifically, but again, I’ve written about it numerous times, I calculated that the abstract potential would be 34 trillion people that could be fed. Yes, that’s a preposterous number. But it’s there for that preposterousness. It doesn’t account for a whole lot of other things that go in to replacing land and creating produce, but it does give insight into the efficiency potential in the lowest analysis of what’s possible with this amount of space.

And right now, there should be a Manhattan Project sorts across the entire global university network to try and create new agricultural systems along these lines with the least amount of need for fresh water and the least amount of need for supplemental nutrients. And again, there are many approaches to this. I should probably do a podcast just on food solutions. At some point, maybe bring someone on to talk about it. So I think it’s going to be extremely important, extremely important to keep the population fed. And in the near future, land-based resources are going to be dried up. It’s just not going to be enough to deal with the population.

Anyway, the scientific journal, PLOS ONE found in 2013 that regardless of the problems we face, there has to be a near doubling of crop production by 2050 to meet the needs of the population. And I’m sorry to say, no matter what anyone does in terms of engineering the return and revitalization of top soil right now, current methods are simply not going to be enough. Anyway, this leads me now to water scarcity, trend number five. Water pollution from farming and industrial activity has been extensive as evidenced by dead zones and lakes, excess nitrates in our water tables, the growing mercury pollution in the ocean and in fish stock all sourced to coal plants.

And while the rise of the now multi-billion dollar water bottle industry has been good for GDP, the environmental destruction underlying all of this is devastating. Expressing yet another example of the distorted incentive system of the market structure. According to the United Nations, about 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity by 2025 with 2/3 of the world’s population living in water stressed regions. The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050 report stated that freshwater demand will rise by 55% by 2050 corroborating the UN stress water statistic. Using the OECD demand estimate to 55%, we can expect that 3.9 billion people will be living in water stressed regions by 2050.

Professor Janos Bogardi of the Global Water System Project has stated that severe water shortages will affect more than 1/2 of the world’s population by 2050 sparking mass migrations of people likely followed by destabilizing political tensions. The study concluded “In the short span of one to two generations, the majority of 9 billion people on earth will be living under the handicap of severe pressure on fresh water and absolutely essential natural resource for which there is no substitute. This handicap will be self-inflicted and is we believe entirely avoidable. Mismanagement, overused and climate change pose long-term threats to human wellbeing and evaluating and responding to those threats constitutes a major challenge to water researchers and managers alike.”

And then we have trend number six, which takes us out of the ecological crisis. By the way, for everyone out there that’s trying to decide whether they want to vote for this shill or this shill in the upcoming presidential election, please understand that when it comes to anything ecologically related, the best we have in terms of group motivation in the political sphere is the democratic party. I’m sad to say. So if you care about any of these subjects that I’m talking about, then you have your answer in terms of who you plan to vote for president. So trend number six deals with the rise of technological unemployment.

I have been very outspoken about the threat and positive potential of technological unemployment for the past 10 to 12 years. Watching as this once distant idea became a household notion since the rise of Andrew Yang and others. First, let’s talk about the contradiction of technological unemployment with respect to the market’s framework. Human employment is now inverse to productivity in the sectors where automation has been applied. This means human labor is becoming obsolete and inefficient and human employment is actually economically unnecessary when the automation option is available. It doesn’t make sense in the same way that farming a field with 18th century equipment is inappropriate today.

Second, machine automation has greatly helped to facilitate the vast increase in productive efficiency and resulting standard of living increases experienced by much of the globe. It’s been since the industrial revolution. As such, it becomes a matter of social responsibility and prudence to maximize this potential. Rather than enduring the relatively slow process of cost efficiency induced automation, where companies automate only when it’s cheaper than human labor, the intent should be the opposite. It should be full automation overall. It should be based in design favoring technological unemployment. Very contrary to the market system of course, which structurally disfavors automation in the interest of preserving human jobs, hence the cyclical consumption machine I have talked about.

And third, even with the non-deliberate rise of technological unemployment due to the pursuit of cost efficiency alone, the social de-stabilizing effects emerging have to be countered. The growth of information technology, applied robotics and artificial intelligence are projected to move faster than society is able to create new jobs to replace the old ones being automated. Eventually, the machines will win because the cost to produce these machines are increasingly inverse to their productivity. Hence they will continue to become cheaper than human labor in most sectors over time. Statistician tracking this rapid rise find no reason to assume any sector will be off limits from automation in the future.

Professor of Computer Science, Moshe Vardi speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said open “We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task.” Using the United State as a basis, a 2013 analysis released by the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology found that 47% of jobs will be susceptible to computerization in a few short decades. And the truth is we’re already there. We can do this now. We’re simply not incentivized to do it. Aside from the need to adjust the economic system to allow for this new productive reality compensating for the loss of jobs, this trend also poses unique existential challenges.

I mean, the idea of a paid occupation has become so ingrained in our social identity and sense of purpose that loss of opportunity can actually cause emotional harm. And when people are unemployed, they become degraded in their own minds. They feel sad. There’s a correlation to suicide, to unemployment and so on. And of course out there, there are people with a very, very narrow view of human nature and they cynically ask, well, what will people do? What will people do if they have no coerced labor role, which is a very depressing thing to impose. It’s like asking a curious child how they will spend their time if they’re not being forced into some structure of behavior.

A future-based, not on labor for income shouldn’t be confused with a future of no creativity or innovation or progress or incentive. While a pattern of laziness does exist out there often derisively associated to the working class, this can be linked to job dissatisfaction and a loss of purpose, not a blanket lack of interest in exerting any effort,. The universal basic income or guaranteed income programs that we have seen tested throughout the planet over the past 20, 30 years have shown this definitively. And that’s also for another conversation. We know that human incentives are not to be based around coercion and that’s that. And if they’re not coercive, then suddenly nothing gets done. It’s a very sad, cynical perspective.

And corollary to all that is the age of notion that people should only get what they work for. Love that line. You only get what you work for. Everyone has a price. According to that economists guy, what’s his name? Oh, Christ, Peter Schiff. Yeah, he loves to go out there and talk about the libertarian view of value and how well humans just have to have a price and what their worth is, what their worth in the market determines their value and hence their survival and so on. Very sick socially darwinistic worldview. But for the sake of argument, let’s dig a little deeper into this very notion. While a person may need to work a job to get money to purchase say a computer in the present day, the value of that computer does not represent the countless years of scientific advancement and the countless minds it took to manifest it.

In other words, you get what you work for ethic to be real. Each human would need to start from scratch and to work at every level of development in order to produce the item that they have. That is the logical implication of this. It’s a ridiculous proposal, obviously, but so is the notion. Just as people view scarcity with no nuance through the eyes of market economics playing this market game around scarcity, artificially presenting scarcity in fact as an angle, so too is this idea that you are only justified in what you have because you’ve earned the right to have it through something. And the whole thing is completely abstract. I mean, the entire economy is based on this, you have to work to have the right to eat and live and exist.

As philosophers have argued, work and its true state is the creative act of inquiry, invention and development. The drive to solve problems is literally inherent to us. That is what we do as organisms. Like many other organisms that operate in a similar capacity through exploration, learning and imprinting and so on. The drive to solve problems is inherent to us. Our minds are simply wired that way. People have no problem working hard on what they enjoy. And unfortunately, the exploitative drudgery of our historical existence coupled with an economic system that requires this work for income has distorted this inherent drive through arduous, monotonous and ultimately coercively slave oriented labor.

Jobs are not vocations. They are structural prerequisites for survival in an economic system based upon labor for income. And I’ll finish this section by reiterating the fact that all creation is a social process. If you accept the fact that you have things that other minds before you have helped engineer in this chain, serial reaction of intellectual and technological development, then you can’t sit there and justify everyone just gets what they deserve through some type of labor metric. There is nothing wrong with living in a society where the ideas have been able to ferment to a degree where you have a foundation of what other people have done in order to make your life better.

We do that anyway, but we pretend it’s not that. We pretend it’s the individual that’s engineering and pioneering when again, everything is a social consequence. Bill Gates and Steve jobs didn’t invent the computer. It was a long road of various forums of interdisciplinary development that allowed the fruition of that item. And unfortunately, in our egoistic society, in our neurotic individuation, we haphazardly reject the fact that all knowledge is a serial consequence. All products and goods and technology created is a shared communal outcome and should be treated as such. And finally, we make it to trend number seven, government debt. It’s been estimated that by 2060, 60% of all countries in the world will be bankrupt.

Now, I’ve talked about in the prior to podcasts, how debt is indeed a customary fiction and can be erased by a flick of a pen. Yet, the very integrity of the capitalist system, the illusion it presents is still based on the idea that the math of financial interaction will work out in the end. It is to be respected. That is the facade that must be upheld. While behind the scenes, large powers never play by the debt rules. The truth is dominant nations can extend their debts to near infinity moving goalposts as they go along. Something by the way, MMT theorists have been accurate to point out in general. The US having a federal debt of 19 trillion or whatever it is now or 190 trillion or beyond is actually only as relevant as its position in the global power hierarchy.

The US will never default as long as it remains a global empire and all major nations buying US bonds know this deep down. And the same applies for other large nations like Russia, China and beyond. These nations can just make things up by way of their Central Bank. The US of course is special since the reserve currency, the petrodollar is still that, the dollar and hence there is more demand for dollars and hence even more security for the US financial system. And although people argue that the US is in debt to a private banking cartel – its Central Bank- which is absolutely true, the whole thing is just a slight of hand arrangement between the government and a private banking institution that allows the government to borrow endlessly while giving special political treatment to the financial sector, which we’ve seen over and over again.

No one in the US government or at Central Bank cartel really cares about US government debt because money is made out of thin air. They only care about public perception. The illusion still has to be maintained to some degree, even though Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan did publicly state once “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. There is zero probability of default.” Now that might be the case for the US and large nations, but that is absolutely not the case for smaller nations, which are highly susceptible to international debts. Small nations face serious repercussions imposed by way of sanctions, structural adjustments, austerity if they can’t meet debt service requirements. These repercussions reduced the welfare of citizens, decreased standards of living and increase probability of destabilization.

They are forms of oppression in truth, punishment for simply being poor. Once again, it’s market discipline for the poor and socialist protections for the rich. The true free market is really the freedom of those with the most money and hence control. So in the midst of all this, with mass global bankruptcy pending for most nations and a general pressure to reduce spending by default, the odds of seeing the kind of economic reforms required to stop the vast environmental crisis looming are very, very low. Think about it. How are nations going to afford to clean up the environment and forge new sustainability methods when they are becoming increasingly more strapped with debt?

The pressure is also against any kind of large scale social welfare compensation for the population to ease economic stress. Social safety nets, out the window first to go when austerity kicks in. How are we going to change the global energy infrastructure when everyone’s broke? In short, we are entering into a situation that if we are to respect capitalism’s financial dynamics, how the system is supposed to work and its actual presentation in the household economy concept, where you’re supposed to save and pay your debts and respect the cycle of financial dynamics, once again, it’s going to require enormous amounts of money to make sustainable changes and we have no clue where that money is going to come from.

With a world in debt to itself, at many times, it’s GDP, it’s very hard to feel optimistic about such change is actually occurring in the current system. Capitalism and markets simply cannot be respected if we expect to move forward with integrity. I’ll say that again, when it comes to activism to solve future problems, capitalism and markets simply cannot be respected if we expect to move forward with any integrity. So I’m going to stop there for today. Those are the seven deadly trends – biodiversity loss & resource overshoot, climate change, general pollution, water scarcity, food scarcity, technological unemployment and government debt.

Those are the specific notions I did note in my book, The New Human Rights Movement. Together, they all form a very dangerous synergy. And society today is doing pretty much nothing to counter these negative trends in real economic or social change terms and they will likely coalesce in a very dark fashion over the next few decades if everything stays the same. As I’ve said before, there’s only one positive trajectory we have today as a civilization. The only truly economic wealth producing function occurring and that is called ephemeralization. As coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, our ability to do more with less as time goes on due to technological efficiency. This began in the industrial revolution notably, then came the computer revolution.

And once the process of design and production is put through the system of information technology. In other words, once information technology systems are applied to existing processes, we have the capacity for exponential development in any given sector or industry if we follow this trajectory properly. The best analogy is that old Carl Sagan quote, where he says and I’m paraphrasing. “It’s almost as though there is a God and He’s judging us to see if we’re going to use our technological power to advance ourselves or to destroy ourselves.” Livingry versus weaponry. As I frame it in my new film, interReflections.

Returning to this train of thought I’ve spoken of, is there a solution to solving the negative trajectory of biodiversity loss resource overshoot and climate change? Is there a solution to addressing all the related problems from that such as general pollution, food and water scarcity and beyond? Is there a solution around the looming stress of technological unemployment and the absurdity of government debt or debt in general as one of the oldest forms of social coercion and slavery? And the answer is yes, there are plenty of solutions. But they all require changing the structure of the economy once again. And the great problem here is that changing the structure of the economy means changing the power relationships in society. It means a vast redistribution of resources and wealth and power inherently and hence the battle.

And I’m working on a program as I’ve commented before. I know people have been commenting to me and messages and emails that they want to hear more about solutions and new activist focus. But I hope you understand, I have to set things up in order to explain this. The choir is probably tired of hearing this thing, but you can’t understand the reasoning behind the solutions and the radicalness of those solutions without fully digesting and appreciating why those solutions are the only possible way. So before the end of the year, I hope to do a small theater lecture that will be recorded in a professional manner. Mainly because of COVID-19, it’s not going to be a full audience-based thing. I will have some people there in the audience spread out of course.

And I want to talk about a general theory of human behavioral causality and a general theory of contemporary activism given modern sociological detriments and build out a multi-tiered plan to revitalize local community activism in a radical way with a large scale focus, coupled with ideas towards civil disobedience to stop industry level pollution that is centralized to really just a few nations when you look at the footprints. I also want to develop a program for global academic development that ideally will begin to link universities together in the interest of a dedicated non-monetary problem solving. I’m approaching this in a peer review way. And when I get all of this stuff together, I’ll present the studies directly in this lecture. And I’m going to talk more about this on the podcast of course in the future.

In the end, the integrity of the future depends on two things, a solid focus stopping industrial pollution that has to occur by mass public appeal, coupled with a ground up redefinition of what society is and getting people off the grid of markets. The key word that I’m going to be saying a lot in the future is demarketization. Demarketization means a new cultural shift away from all things associated with money and markets, which can be done in the modern day internally without the development of some external society through the ephemeralization process of technological development. We have to remove the power and sickness of market economics from our lives as rapidly as possible and revitalize direct resource management-based production. So that’s it for me today. Program is made possible by Patreon. Please check out my film, InterReflections and the book, The New Human Rights Movement. And I’ll talk to everybody soon. Thanks again.