Everything wrong with Stage green in a nutshell.

[integral]

Quote

 

John Robbins, the heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune, made a significant decision regarding his inheritance. Instead of taking over the family business, he chose to walk away from the wealth associated with it. Here's what he did with his fortune:

Rejection of Inheritance: Robbins rejected his inheritance from the Baskin-Robbins empire in the late 1960s, moving with his wife to a simple lifestyle in a log cabin on an island off the coast of British Columbia. This decision was influenced by his beliefs about health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare.

Advocacy and Writing: After turning away from the ice cream business, Robbins became an advocate for plant-based diets, environmental sustainability, and ethical living. He authored several bestselling books, including "Diet for a New America" and "The Food Revolution," which educated people on the impacts of their food choices on health, the environment, and animal welfare. These books brought him financial success independently of his family's wealth.

Loss in Madoff Scam: Later in life, Robbins invested a significant portion of his personal wealth in what turned out to be Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, losing nearly all of it. This event occurred in 2008, leading Robbins to rebuild his financial life from scratch at the age of 61.

New Life and Advocacy: Despite these financial losses, Robbins continued his work, focusing on helping others build healthier lives with less. He co-founded the Food Revolution Network with his son Ocean Robbins, focusing on promoting healthy, sustainable, and ethical food choices. His later books, like "The New Good Life," reflect his philosophy of finding fulfillment in simplicity and sustainability.

Thus, John Robbins used his life's work not to manage or expand his inherited fortune but to advocate for a lifestyle and societal changes that align with his personal values, significantly impacting public health awareness and environmental consciousness.

 

When I first heard this story, I couldn't contain my frustration with green. To be clear, he rejected his full inheritance, which means he received $0 from a billion-dollar business.

Let me explain the right strategy: you inherit the business, and then you can do many things to transform it in ways that help the entire world. Reallocate the billion dollars into something good for humanity. It sounds obvious, but apparently, to Stage Green idealists, they would rather do something "noble" like rejecting money. I feel like this is the biggest difference between Stage Green and Stage Yellow—the lack of big-picture thinking. They can't see past their own idealism.

The second biggest mistake is clear: he had no financial or business intelligence, evidenced by how he lost all his money to a scam artist.

The reason this frustrates me so much is that conscientious people have no interest in finances, which allows the fools to rule the world.

To win this battle we need the conscientious people to be good at business. There's no other way to play this game it is the biggest trap. 

You need money to be a good person.

Edited December 12 by integral

[Leo Gura]

Strange that you see that as "wrong".

You're not going to succeed in business unless business is your thing. Not everyone is suited to run a giant ice cream empire.

Edited December 12 by Leo Gura

[RightHand]

1 hour ago, integral said:

The second biggest mistake is clear: he had no financial or business intelligence, evidenced by how he lost all his money to a scam artist.

Is that a fair statement? Many savvy investors were fooled by Madoff. 

[integral]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Strange that you see that as "wrong".

You're not going to succeed in business unless business is your thing. Not everyone is suited to run a giant ice cream empire.

I could go live on the streets; is that going to solve any worldly problem?

He could have at the very least sold it for a billion and then done something with the money. He could have destroyed the brand and repackaged it as some kind of vegan consciousness program, or he could have run the whole thing into the ground.

By not having control of the company, he unnecessarily gave up power and societal influence, which are necessary for change. He could have run the company on the side and then paid for 24/7 marketing to promote high consciousness living. There is zero strategy at Green, which is why the whole world is ruled by Orange.

Why not change the name and open a chain of vegan restaurants? Do anything?

You're telling me there was no other option and noble activism was the highest possible move in this position?

I view this as naive selflessness. It appears on the surface like a selfless act, but survival is a dirty thing, and you need to be smart to play the game effectively for the good of the whole.

An activist will renounce the use of fire if it appears selfless, while his enemies cook food and pillage all the villages with the energy afforded to them by that fire.

Edited December 12 by integral

[integral]

27 minutes ago, RightHand said:

Is that a fair statement? Many savvy investors were fooled by Madoff. 

Financially intelligent and conscious people do not give their money to someone else to manage. In the same way you wouldn't give your health to someone else to manage.  It is foolish. Unless, of course, you're wise enough to know you're bad at managing money, then okay, I can see how you need help.

Edited December 12 by integral

[Leo Gura]

@integral You are thinking in terms of maximizing some kind of survival value but the highest mind's don't think like that.

This is like saying, Why didn't Jesus start an ice cream empire instead of pissing off the establishment. Surely he could have used the profits to benefit mankind.

[Kksd74628]

@Leo Gura

Depends on your purpose

[integral]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@integral You are thinking in terms of maximizing some kind of survival value but the highest mind's don't think like that.

This is like saying, Why didn't Jesus start an ice cream empire instead of pissing off the establishment. Surely he could have used the profits to benefit mankind.

You could win chess in many ways but you have to use all the pieces available or else you're opponent has a ridiculous advantage.
Deciding you don't want to use your queen is not going to help your odds.

Someone is going to build an ice cream business, you could either be the owner of that business or someone else less conscious than you can own that business.

I could understand if you're going to build a cigarette company it takes decades of despicable actions to beat the competition, where most conscientious people can't do. In that scenario I could understand there are lines you cannot cross.

But if you are handed the keys to the world for free, do not refuse...

It was his job to take responsibility of the ice cream company his family created. Instead of taking responsibility he ran away, giving the keys to the world to a bunch of devils.

If someone gave me the keys to an oil company I'm going to create a foundation that takes the most conscious people on the planet, educates them on politics and then funnels them up the political ladder. We need to reallocate wealth in an intelligent way.

Edited December 12 by integral

[Miguel1]

I’m more with @integral here. At the very least, he could have sold the empire and do a lot of good with the money.

But at the same time, if someone is at heart a writer / artist, and not a businessman / strategist / leader, it might be hard to think and act that way.

But who knows, it could have also been just naive selflessness.

But I definitely agree that there is a big difference between being handed a billion vs having to build it from scratch doing something unconscious.

Edited December 12 by Miguel1

[RightHand]

57 minutes ago, integral said:

If someone gave me the keys to an oil company I'm going to create a foundation that takes the most conscious people on the planet, educates them on politics and then funnels them up the political ladder. We need to reallocate wealth in an intelligent way.

There is this argument that if you had the skills and knowledge to run a billion dollar company than you would already be doing it.

Are you sure you would react that selflessly when handed that much power and money ? 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12 by RightHand

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, integral said:

You could win chess in many ways but you have to use all the pieces available or else you're opponent has a ridiculous advantage.
Deciding you don't want to use your queen is not going to help your odds.

Leo: the most intelligent minds do not play chess

Integral: ok but if you refuse to use your queen, you're at a disadvantage no matter how well you play!

Leo: did I stutter?

[integral]

40 minutes ago, RightHand said:

There is this argument that if you had the skills and knowledge to run a billion dollar company than you would already be doing it.

Are you sure you would react that selflessly when handed that much power and money ? 

I of course don't have the skills to run a company like that and it would be a huge learning challenge, but a necessary challenge and a responsibility I need to take. Who else is going to take responsibility?

I cannot be tempted by greed because there's nothing in this world that appeals to me. Nice cars nice house nice women nice whatever, that's like kids going to Toys R Us and buying Hot Wheels. 

This reminds me of the genie three wishes: every depiction of this is people sitting in front of a genie making three selfish wishes incapable of seeing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is number one: you wish to end all suffering for everything in the universe while maintaining some kind of intelligent balance so people are not just killing themselves. Second wish: everyone has access to infinite truth in every direction, at the speed they're comfortable at consuming it (not forced). Third Wish Free the Genie.

When you end all suffering, you no longer need any wishes. Foolishly, people wish for money; you want money to gain comfort, and you want comfort to stop suffering. So the right answer is to wish not to suffer. But people can't see the chain. If you do not suffer, then you do not care about security, freedom, opportunities, status, generosity, or enjoyment and experiences. Everything is solved. You don't care about identity; identity is a crisis to acquire more comfort to reduce suffering.

Luxury is an addiction for people who are hypersensitive to discomfort. I think a lot of people are born with much stronger reaction to discomfort and it's not particularly within their control but as they develop they will naturally crave all this low Consciousness stuff, because they're so uncomfortable all the time with base reality. When I eat a carrot it doesn't even occur to me that I ate something pleasant or unpleasant, while I've witness people near vomit eating a vegetable. What came first the body or the mindset?

Edited December 12 by integral

[RightHand]

@integral Sweet. I guess I was projecting my own lack of integrity onto you. Saying no to alcohol at afterwork parties is hard enough for me, let alone resisting corruption while running a major business and facing investors.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, integral said:

It was his job to take responsibility of the ice cream company his family created.

I don't know where you get this idea. That's just like your opinion man.

He is not his family and he has no obligation to run the family business, especially if said business contradicts his values.

Quote

Instead of taking responsibility he ran away, giving the keys to the world to a bunch of devils.

As if selling that company would have avoided giving it to devils.

Imagine if you inherited a tobacco company and your goal would be what? To sell it? How does that help the world?

Edited December 12 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Leo: the most intelligent minds do not play chess

Funnily, I have been playing chess all week

Edited December 12 by Leo Gura

[Girzo]

@Leo Gura terribly addictive drug.

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Funnily, I have been playing chess all week

Duck chess, of course?

[Schizophonia]

Why do you care about private decisions of the manager of an ice cream vending company ?

 

[Leo Gura]

47 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Duck chess, of course?

Croc chess

[integral]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know where you get this idea. That's just like your opinion man.

He is not his family and he has no obligation to run the family business, especially if said business contradicts his values.

That’s not how I’m using the word responsibility. I’m not saying it in terms of obligation. His values are to better the world and if you’re given free resources, you have to step up to the plate and play the chess game.

Higher values without any strategy is just a bunch of missed opportunities.

if your opponent makes a move Try to apply your higher values to that move. “I don’t like that move because it doesn’t align with truth”. So instead of thinking, you completely ignored that part of the board. This is essentially what green does. 

There’s no value that prevents a human from being the president of United States, or preventing them from owning an ice cream business, or owning a kids iPhone slave factory.

The only difference is if they can see how they can apply there values to that system.

Without strategy green cannot see how their values can be applied to any system.

Without vision they cannot see how to work with corruption and lower values as part of a larger system. The entire world is at every stage of development. You have to use every resource the world has available to reshape the world to your higher values. In the same way, you have to use every piece on the chessboard in one coordinated effort. 

It was his responsibility to use power effectively that aligned with his values. Not throw away resources because you have no vision. 

It’s all a lack of vision and strategic thinking.

if you’re given a kids slave factory, you don’t disban it. Because that doesn’t solve the systemic problem. Another factory will just take its place. Instead, you redesign and rework with the system available to make progress towards higher values.

State green is unwilling to participate in the real world.

if you give me a slave farm, I teach the slaves how to build houses and to better themselves while they do all the work necessary for the business, and then I expand that business as large as possible while taking in as many slaves as possible, while accumulating as much power as possible to influence larger systems. In the long run, I create a Haven for slaves while prospering a business to gain more power over culture and government and in the long-term solve the agenda to free slaves.

this is the only strategy that makes any sense. Stage green will free all the slaves immediately while those slaves get captured by someone else or die because they can’t survive on their own. Then stage green will be prosecuted and killed by society for being anti slavery.

It’s the stupidest strategy possible it will lose every chess game immediately.

That’s like giving away all your pawns when the game starts because you don’t believe in slavery. Instead, you have to help your pawns prosper in a hostile war environment for the coordinated efforts to win the war against slavery. 

Edited Thursday at 07:12 PM by integral