Offer of a 10% cut to get the escrow made for my solution to ending war forever

I know this deal of mine, about asking for $7 billion to be put into escrow for me pending successful performance of my solution to war forever, is surely totally nuts, but there it is and you can take it or leave it. The stickler is getting attention for it. I have to admit there's not much I can say or write that will have much chance of attracting attention, so I will make the following proposition:

If someone who takes me seriously and has clout will conduct a campaign to get the escrow deposit made, I will, on success of getting it made, plus success of the measure and payment of the $7 billion to me, give that party which conducts the campaign for the escrow a 10% cut, or $700 million, of the take.

This of course puts that party in a position of risk. The operation could fail, and if successful the measure could fail. In either case there would be no $700 million payoff.

I think this goes just a little farther toward realization of the solution.

I place here a request for an escrow of $7 billion for a measure to end all war forever.

I have a new product to be considered by the powers that be. It is a measure that will end war forever. I am asking $7 billion for it. Setting aside the question of credibility, let alone proof, of my measure being able to put an end to war, a serious negotiating state will want to calculate the equivalent capital stock in the present whose interest over time would pay for all anticipated wars engaged in by the negotiating state. Such calculations probably are a fantasy given uncertainties in politics, but an anthropological study, over a long period of time, might not be a fantasy, at least to the point of indicating that such a capital stock would by any estimate be vastly greater than $7 billion for a major power.

That leaves for consideration the question of proof that my measure will end war forever. My credentials are just about zip, me being mentally ill and all. Nevertheless, I am not so stupid as to state my measure openly and then defend it against counterarguments. I have written down succinctly and it is brief. It is not especially technical and I believe a politician could understand it in essence. The problem is escrow. How do I convince a state to make a $7 billion escrow deposit? I am confident my measure is correct in similar terms to the confidence the Manhattan Project scientists that their first atomic bomb test would work. (I recently read a book entitled, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, written by a Pulitzer Prize winner, though I don't recall if he won it for this book. I thought it was excellent. And I do have a bachelor's degree from U.C.S.C. in physics.) My confidence relates to my part of the escrow. I would have to agree to a definite criterion of success for my measure, and most likely such a criterion would have to have a very long term of application. For one thing, I haven't calculated how long it would take to work. It might not be immediate. For another, since the calculation of an estimate of the cost of past wars would best be made over a long time span, a criterion for success of my measure would best also reach a conclusion only after a long future time span.

I would have to agree to a criterion reaching completion almost certainly long after my own death, causing me to bring into my side of the negotiations a consideration of the certainty of my establishing a lasting genetic line without benefit of a realized payment. I would have to not divulge my measure not only unless the escrow deposit were made, but also not unless I was satisfied it had legal and constitutional strength lasting to the same completion time for the criterion of success. This becomes tricky because states have a tendency not to last long in anthropological terms, which is why I added constitutional strength to legal strength. I believe that if the negotiating state expects me to act in good faith on my side of the escrow, coming to terms with certainty of genetic continuation to my own satisfaction and in my own way, it will act in good faith on its, and only a constitutional provision--an amendment--would give me anything approaching certainty that future citizens of the negotiating state will abide by the terms agreed to by the current citizens.

These are heady notions given my mental illness.

One thing is clear though, the exact time at which the criterion of success of my measure would be assessed determines much of the rest of the deal. I would hope it to be soon, but keeping $7 billion in escrow for a long time would be expensive and the negotiating state would for that reason want it to be soon also.

As for providing a reason for a state to make the escrow deposit, my sole recourse at this stage of discussion is the integrity of my blog. It has been described as great by one of my associates. This gives me confidence I am going in the right direction, and to continue in pursuit of greater objectives than supply and demand allow by themselves.

a world where the pinion is lifted

Let us suppose someone or several persons raise the amount of my small happiness, $175,000,000, and put it in an escrow account pending a mutually agreed upon criterion, with a mutually agreed upon time limit, of return of the world economy to regularity and out of crisis. In order for this to have happened, first of all, it must be reasonably established in my blog and other effects that I have enough authority, experience, and science to justify to both sides of the escrow their respective risks in the enterprise of the escrow. While to some the element of science is sufficient in itself to justify such risk, others will need to see a certain type of experience before even examining any claim of science, and still others will need to certify that the proper authority to undertake so responsible an undertaking in fact exists before allowing any protracted presentation of experience. These three elements, then, are posited as all being necessary in due time pursuant to an escrow addressing the pinion.

Having so posited a course given positive appreciation of the pinion, we need to comment on the plausibility of a positive position, from the simple anticipation that it might be argued that claiming to have had a hand in causing the crisis is patently negative and to offer to remove it for a fee is patently extortive. I will argue that the pinion is also a claim that the world economy can be made better by me than it was before the crisis occurred, not just returned to regularity. I will not be able to clarify the decision to cause harm in order to get the world's attention. It is easy to anticipate that a claim that I had the ability to improve the world economy and would anyone like to deposit into an escrow to that end, would not be taken seriously no matter how much authority was behind it, or rather one must say that that kind of authority does not exist at present. Given that no escrow, lacking evidence, is realizable, a demonstration is unavoidable. Given a demonstration, a positive demonstration is not sustainable as it tends to disassociate boundaries of personal volition, whereas a negative demonstration is more sustainable as it has distinct quasi-national qualities that a positive demonstration does not have. These affectations, as they alight here more or perhaps less persuasively, just happen to correspond to the emerging codes which engendered the pinion, and were utterly surprising to me i might add.

This correspondence lends credibility to the enterprise of the pinion for my position. Whether it lends credibility to it for the other position, that of those who deposit into the escrow if this happens, is anyone's guess.

All these deliberations weigh on the choice of small happiness for me by someone and the claimed consequence of return to regularity of the world economy. They establish a base on which to approach the seemingly imaginary enterprise of the choice of large happiness for me by someone to the tune of $7 billion and the claimed consequence of a higher global standard of living, one might say in ignorance of the many dangers of distributive inequalities already pervasive. by for now.