The struggle we are fighting has nothing to do with ideologic or geographical limits. These are only confusing concepts that fuel a divide and conquer strategy that has been working remarkably well throughout history.

As I say, the roots of the problem are strictly individual and not geographically or ideologically predetermined.

Of course, the tendency of the prey to join together has shown through history by means of anarchist, communist and socialist ideologies, and its ethical and careminded thoughts have also given birth to environmental struggles and other alike.

Even so, the implicit nature of the predators makes them endorse any theory that does not limit in any way their ability to accumulate resources any way they can and see fit. Neo-liberalism and capitalism are their maxims, and they LOVE DEMOCRACY because it suits them better than any other alternative they could have dreamed of.

Some people shake their minds in despair trying to understand what is happening in the United States, but if you analize its situation thoroughly following the guidelines I provide then everything becomes crystal clear:

Good Old USA is divided into two classes of people:

the neo-con and most of standard con are PREDATORS,
the rest of US citizens are PREY

Predators have no respect for national sentiment whatsoever. They do not care about America’s reputation. Nations are organisatorial structures of PREY, and predators are individualists, though they will abuse any given structure if it suits their needs (American Congress, Senate, UNO, NATO, …).

One or two fair understandable example to illustrate the divide between PREDATOR and PREY in the USA:

After Katrina struck, the aid in the southern states is in the hands of NGO’s, which are PREY structures, while Bush knowingly prefer to ask public funding (PREY resources) to finance war (an PREDATOR activity).

The poor of America (PREY) are having a hard time surviving the hard winter, but as american PREDATORS keep stacking the oil reserves for their own future use, they have to be helped by other PREY (the people of Venezuela) to get the oil they need to survive.

There is no situation on earth that can not be analyzed this way to accurately asses what is realy going on, instead of the permanent despair that arises when anyone uses the traditional and intentionally misused political, social, economical and other theories that do not account within then for this separation of PREY and PREDATOR and their distinct behaviour.

Time to spread the word.

For a moment, forget every single theory you have ever heard about, and empty your brain of any preconceived (and probably culturally indoctrinated) idea on the matter. We are trying to define concepts that accurately describe a situation, in such a way that the theory and terminology validates under every conceivable circumstance. Not understanding this is why you fail in identifying the right concepts to use.

You use geographically bound ones, that are not consistent through history because the known world they span has been constantly changing. Just consider the deep changes in society every time science changed our world view. The changes in celestial mechanics, the discovery of new continents, up until the global earth view we cherish, which is stable because the next identifiable milestone would be mankind colonizing mars or venus, and that will not happen anytime soon. So, while geographical awareness has been evolving through history, only recently we have acquired the global earth-spanning insight with which we want to build our world view. Hence it is not appropiate to use parts of theories built upon uncomplete datasets.

You also use socially built ones, and you easily forget you can not build your global and universal model on parts of theories that were non-existent before a certain date. The most striking example perhaps is that you can not build an universal model based on social class struggles because it could not apply to pre-industrial revolution societies. If I remember history lessons, the wage-slave labourer that constitutes the working class was not a distinct entity before industrial factorizing created them. The introduction of industrialization was a situational breakpoint. Another very important moment was the introduction of money as an intermediate stage in the bartering process. Not because it was handy in standardizing the fact that through its representation of cost you could trade away five kilos of potatoes for two kilos of apples without the need of the two owners to be present at the same moment at the same place to physically exchange the goodies, but because the money itself could be stacked and put away for later use without the inconvenient of organic commodities that simply rot away in a short timeframe. The stackability of money created the basis of modern wealth, and is a very basic piece that lay at the root of the problems we face today.

But forget all this for a moment and lets go back to the very beginning of mankind. From the very start of awakening into awareness people have been the only responsibles for their acts. They have evolved slowly stacking new knowledge on top of older one in any way it was able to fit, but seldom completely abandoning the old knowledge in favour of the new one, even if the latter proved the former wrong. Clans used their power to impose the old knowledge because its use benefitted them and they preferred that instead of some new knowledge that though being better should shift power into other hands. This is the way wrong situations and ideas have been accumulating and distorting the view on reality to favour the mighty one for centuries.

From the very beginning, up until now, and perfectly compatible with any particular moment in time and or space, mankind has known two kinds of people: the ethically aware ones that would not do harm to another even if their lives depended on it, and those who choose to ignore any kind of ethic whenever not doing so sacrifices any kind of advantage.

Yes, we arrive at the correct and consistent definitions you were looking for in your article but could not find by lack of a true deep insight:

1) the ethical ones, labeled the PREY
2) the unethical ones, labeled the PREDATOR

Some far reaching implications of the chosen terminology:

a) the PREY is named prey only because PREDATORS exist. Lacking predators, no need to call them prey would be.

b) PREDATORS existing, the only logical fate of PREY is extermination.

c) the best defense of PREY is to come together and organize joint defenses.

d) PREDATORS do not fight eachother unless there is not enough PREY to keep each of them satisfied.

e) PREDATORS know PREY will cease to exist one day, and they compete with each other in preparing themselves for the day they will have no other alternative than fight eachother.

f) two or more PREDATORS only collaborate with eachother if the joint effort guarantees all of them in the alliance will perform better than each of them separately, and stay together only while this remains true or deflecting to another alliance does not make any of them get better results than with the present one.

These six rules are enough to consistently fit any of the situations you might wish to consider, be it social, political or economical, past, present and future. Be they local or global.

There is no imaginable situation regarding mankind that can not be explained by combining some of these rules concerning Prey and Predators as sound CAUSES. Complex outcomes can be explained as the results of accumulated effects of applyable rules over a given time span.

Rules apply individually, even if PREY and PREDATORS can cooperate with others of the same category to achieve higher efficiency, and even ocasionally different numbers of PREY and PREDATORS can collaborate with each other if there locally is some mutual benefit to be obtained over a short time period.

The above mentioned mechanisms should be understood thoroughly before any suitable worldwide strategy could be thought of to achieve lasting survival of the PREY, as this can only be possible by erradicating the presence of PREDATORS, be it through active extermination, lack of generational renovation, or conversion to the prey psychology.

Comments are more than welcome!

Antonio.