War Is A Racket (Updated Re-Post)

                      

WAR.  It seems to be as old as time itself.  And so many people seem to think it is inevitable.  However, it turns out that is not really true.  War is neither timeless nor inevitable.   It has a beginning, and it has an end.  The beginning was about 7000 years ago (with the advent of patriarchy), while the end will be coming very soon (with the inevitable decline and fall of patriarchy, and rise of Women and Matriarchy in the not-too-distant future).  And the end can't come soon enough!

Patriarchy inherently rewards aggression and violence, no doubt about that.  And it messes with our heads so as to condition us to accept such violence as normal.  And of course there is men's tendency to think that war and scarcity are inevitable, which become self-fulfilling prophecies.  Women, on the other hand, would tend to reject such backwards thinking if they were in charge.  The late, great Buckminster Fuller said as much.

But there is also another reason why war is likely to occur under patriarchy, and that reason is discussed in depth by Major General Smedley Butler in his 1935 book, War Is A Racket.  Put simply, war is indeed a racket that is designed to further enrich the already ultra-rich oligarchs.  In other words, its genesis is none other than evil and powerful men who are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill for filthy lucre, and those sycophantic lackeys and ignorant masses who are brainwashed and duped to go along with it.   And of course, we know that patriarchy itself inevitably leads to oligarchy in the first place due to its "might makes right" and "winner take all" paradigm (that is nowadays most often cleverly disguised by the persistent and utterly hollow myth of "meritocracy").

Indeed, patriarchy itself be thought of as a gender war writ large, and the only way to end it once and for all--and all other wars that come from it--is for men to surrender to Women.  It's a war men have lost before the war even began, despite winning nearly every battle--men just don't realize it yet.

That said, General Butler's book is more about how the perennial racket of war actually works in practice, and how to smash it for good (as opposed to the why the oligarchy exists in the first place).  But it goes a very long way towards explaining it, and he would be spinning in his grave if he were to see today's massive, imperialistic war machine.

From the Wikipedia article:

In War Is a Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists, whose operations were subsidized by public funding, were able to generate substantial profits, making money from mass human suffering.

The work is divided into five chapters:

1. War is a racket
2. Who makes the profits?
3. Who pays the bills?
4. How to smash this racket!
5. To hell with war!

It contains this summary:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Then he goes on to discuss who exactly profits from it and how.  It turns out it is not just weapons manufacturers, but also the big banks and other businesses that directly or indirectly deal with it as well.  In fact, the banksters are probably the biggest beneficiaries of war, since they lend money to finance it and then claw back so much in interest.  And manufacturers of non-weapons goods also have a market to sell their wares to in the military.  And of course, let's not forget all the resources plundered from the other countries as "spoils of war".

(And now we can add "defense contractors", aka mercenary corporations, such as DynCorp, Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, Raytheon, et al. to the list of war profiteers as well.)

War is, of course, a negative-sum game overall.  It does not really create wealth on balance, it actually destroys more than it creates.  But it certainly brings in a ludicrous amount of ill-gotten wealth in the form of profit, plunder, and usury for the oligarchy.  As for the idea that it "stimulates the economy" in the short run, that is technically true, but as neo-Keynesian economist Dr. Paul Krugman has famously noted years ago, a faked alien invasion would be every bit as stimulating, but without all of the serious side effects such as countless deaths, injuries, PTSD, family breakdown, resource depletion, pollution, ecological damage, and property damage.

And guess who foots the bill for it all?  You guessed it--the taxpayers.  The oligarchs pull the wool over our eyes, while laughing all the way to the bank.  But truly the biggest part of the bill is paid for in blood by the soldiers themselves.  And even for those who survive the horrors of war, it still takes its toll on them regardless, both physically and psychologically.  And these soldiers generally hail not from the ranks of the wealthy, but rather from the poor and broader working class.  Not much has changed in that regard today, it seems.

(Note that since the gold standard was abolished in 1971, our Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not actually need taxes to fund anything, since they can just "print" (create) the money now if they wanted.  But since wars inherently chew through ludicrous amounts of non-monetary resources, all wars are thus inflationary regardless, so We the People still pay for it in the form of higher prices.)

And that's to say nothing of the human toll of civilians in the other countries as well, who bear the brunt of it.

Then, General Butler discusses how to smash this evil racket once and for all.  To summarize, the three steps are as follows:  1) Take the profit out of war, 2) Put it up to a vote (limited to those who would be eligible for the draft) as to whether or not a war should be declared, and 3) Limit our military forces to home defense purposes.  Otherwise, nothing will stop the racket.

Again, as noted on Wikipedia:

In the booklet's penultimate chapter, Butler recommended three steps to disrupt the war racket:

1. Making war unprofitable. Butler suggests that the means for war should be "conscripted" before those who would fight the war:

It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. […] Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month [NOTE: that's $511/month in 2019 dollars], the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

2. Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it. He also suggests a limited referendum to determine if the war is to be fought. Eligible to vote would be those who risk death on the front lines.
3. Limitation of militaries to self-defense. For the United States, Butler recommends that the Navy be limited, by law, to operating within 200 miles of the coastline, and the Army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression. 

Indeed, the time to end all of this insanity and evil is yesterday.  So what do we do in the meantime while patriarchy still exists?  Thus, inspired by Butler, I propose that a new law be passed that we call the War Pigs Act, named after both the ineffectual and toothless War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the 1970 Black Sabbath song "War Pigs".  The first part of the new law would put some teeth in the War Powers Act by closing the loopholes and holding the President liable for any consequences of a war that is not authorized by Congress and is not during a state of emergency caused by an attack on the USA.  And absent a formal declaration of war by Congress, absolutely NO war may last beyond 90 days (60 days followed by a 30 day withdrawal), save for a temporary authorization of force that expires 90 days after the authorization passes or 180 days after the war began (if it began before the new law went into effect), whichever occurs first.  After that, there must be a formal declaration of war, or the war must end.  Period.

The second part of the law would implement some of General Butler's recommendations from his book, taking into account that we currently have an all-volunteer military.  Take the profit out of war, first of all.  Use the tax code to do so.  And for any war lasting beyond six months (which by definition would now require a formal declaration of war), require an annual limited plebiscite of all citizens that would be eligible for military service.  Make it a non-secret ballot such that those who vote "yes" would be drafted if we run out of volunteers, followed by those who abstain from the vote if necessary.  Those who vote "no" would be exempt from any such draft.  A kind of "consensual conscription", if you will.  We would all have skin in the game.  Women would be included as well, but before they draft the very first Woman, we should draft men in their 40s and 50s first.  That's the demographic group who starts the wars but rarely fights them.  It's only fair, right fellas?  Watch as war becomes a thing of the past, at least for the stupid ones and decade(s) long quagmires like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

(It would also be a good idea to do like the Iroquois once did:  give Women elders the power to VETO any decision to go to war.  That alone would prevent essentially all wars that are not waged in strict and absolute defense of the homeland.)

For the record, I am personally 100% against the draft on principle.  Unless absolutely necessary, I view it as a form of slavery and involuntary servitude, and if there were ever such a thing as a truly just war (as per St. Augustine's Just War Theory criteria), which is about as rare as a unicorn, conscription would be unnecessary, since volunteers would be plentiful.  And today's technology further makes it largely obsolete to raise such large numbers of boots on the ground.  But since nuance, gray areas, and exceptions that prove every rule do in fact exist in the real world (see WWII and the American Civil War, for example), I will note that if we ever must have a draft, only those who voted yes (or chose not to vote) for such a war should be drafted.

General Butler was a true American hero and patriot.  After his distinguished career in the United States Marine Corps including during WWI (during and after which he eventually found out just how much of a racket it really was), he later quashed an attempted Wall Street fascist coup against FDR's government in 1933-1934.  Yes, there really was a plot by the Rockefellers, Mellon Bank, Standard Oil, General Motors, Goodyear, US Steel, and many others (including pro-Nazi forces!) to overthrow the federal government and install their own fascist dictatorship do their bidding, complete with concentration camps for, in their own words, "Jews and other undesirables".  And the money for the plot bankrolled by the big banks/corporations was funneled through Prescott Bush's companies (yes, THAT Bush, who also did business with the Nazis as well).  They all thought they could use Butler for the plot and he pretended to play along at first, only to foil their plot by telling Congress about it just before it went ahead.  He literally saved America from falling to full-blown fascism, in other words.  He was indeed history's original whistleblower, and then in 1935, he wrote his magnum opus, which unfortunately fell on deaf ears the world over.

As General Butler famously said, 

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

"Either war is obsolete, or man is."

-- Buckminster Fuller

"War, what is it good for?  Absolutely NOTHING!"

-- Edwin Starr

"Come the war, come the avarice, come the war, come hell...Come attrition, come the reek of bones, come attrition, come hell...This is why, why we fight, why we lie awake...And this is why, this is why we fight..."

-- The Decemberists

"Now the labor leader's screaming when they close the missile plant, United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore. Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, but I ain't marching anymore."

-- Phil Ochs

"I declare the war is over, it's over, it's over..."

-- Phil Ochs

"But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you would only try, is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes.  And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before.  If we win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore"

-- Phil Ochs 

NO WAR WITH IRAN!

Those Epstein files must be REALLY BAD for Trump to literally start a war with Iran to distract from them!  Regardless of the reason why, this is a stupid, reckless and immoral war of choice, and we at the TSAP hereby condemn it in the strongest terms.

Hierarchy Is NOT A Dirty Word!

HIERARCHY.  There is that word again, a word that means practically all things to all people.  It gets loaded with all sorts of baggage depending on who you ask.  But it is neither inherently good NOR bad.

The Oxford dictionary definition of hierarchy is, "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."  The etymology is from late Middle English: via Old French and medieval Latin from Greek hierarkhia, from hierarkhēs ‘sacred ruler’ (see hierarch). The earliest sense was ‘system of orders of angels and heavenly beings’; the other senses date from the 17th century.  Since then, the word has been used to refer to all sorts of ranking systems, from clergy to military to business to politics to society and beyond.

There is apparently a dogma in some circles that Women don't really LIKE hierarchies at all.  And while that dogma may have a kernel of truth (in that Women tend to have less of the classic libido dominandi, i.e. the "desire to dominate," than men do), it's mostly bunk.  Rather, it's more the NATURE of the hierarchy and what it is used for.

Far from jettisoning it wholesale, Riane Eisler had noted long ago that there are two main kinds of hierarchies:  hierarchies of domination (as seen in the dominator or authoritarian model), and hierarchies of actualization (as seen in the partnership or authoritative model).

Here is what Google has to say about it:

Hierarchies of domination and actualization differ in how power is used: domination systems rely on fear, force, and strict, top-down control to maintain inequity. In contrast, hierarchies of actualization (common in partnership systems) use power to empower others, fostering mutual respect, accountability, and growth. 

Hierarchies of Domination (Authoritarian)

• Structure: Strict, rigid, and top-down, often found in both family and state, normalizing inequity.
• Mechanism: Maintained through fear, force, and violence.
• Focus: Power "over" others to control, bully, and treat lower rungs as means to an end.
• Outcome: High levels of sanctioned violence and suppression of human potential. 

Hierarchies of Actualization (Partnership)

• Structure: Democratic and egalitarian, utilizing leaders/mentors to guide, not crush.
• Mechanism: Power is used to "empower" and "power with" others.
• Focus: Facilitating growth, creativity, and the fulfillment of potential.
• Outcome: Mutual respect, accountability, and valuing of care/nonviolence. 

Comparison

• Goal: Domination seeks control; actualization seeks development.
• Context: Domination is often "authoritarian," whereas actualization is "authoritative".
• Impact: Domination hampers growth, while actualization promotes "mission-driven creativity". 

While the "domination" approach is often ingrained, the shift to "actualization" represents a move toward partnership-oriented systems, where the goal is to foster human capacity rather than stifle it. 

And there you have it.  It would seem that Women would generally tend to prefer hierarchies of actualization rather than domination overall (while men tend to prefer hierarchies of domination, often to the point of a "king of the hill" game writ large, or perhaps a "pyramid scheme").  Note also that such a distinction should really be thought of as a spectrum rather than a binary, with many hierarchies falling somewhere in between in practice.  Also note how the apparent absence of formal hierarchy can create a power vacuum, and we all know how Nature feels about vacuums!  A sneaky, subtle, and informal hierarchy often develops in its place to fill the vacuum.  Natch. And clearly, at least in the MINDS of men, Women absolutely MUST occupy the "alpha" position, even if only as a placeholder to keep men from occupying that position, regardless of what the actual hierarchy is like in practice.

In other words, the truth is of course far more nuanced and complex than "hierarchies of domination are great and the natural order of things!" or "all hierarchies are bad and inherently unethical!".  And of course, such nuances don't fit easily onto a bumper sticker, T-shirt, or meme.  But that doesn't make it any less true.

If one were to distill it into a meme, bumper sticker, or T-shirt slogan, the best one would probably be, "Hierarchy is NOT a dirty word! Even bonobos have hierarchies, just more evolved ones".  (True by the way.)

Why We Need Matriarchy

 Why We Need Matriarchy

(Originally posted on the Rasa Von Werder blog)

William Bond goes to it:   Feb 1, 2026

Hi Rasa

 

I have developed my own THE BLUEPRINT FOR THE ORDER. I don’t think I’ve said much that I haven’t said before I’ve just put forward all my reasons why we need women to rule our world. Because the only way matriarchy can gain power is to convince very large numbers of people matriarchy is a great idea and start a powerful political movement. 

 

Rasa says: Not so fast. “Convince very large numbers of people matriarchy is a great idea & start a powerful political movement.” You & I have been trying to do that for 25 years in writing & myself, before that in actions {female dominance actions that challenge Patriarchy like nude beauty contests, female body building, Stripping for God & dominatrix work} & yet it hasn’t worked. Unless we get through with a best-selling book like ‘Feminine Mystique’ or have a 5 member family that agrees to work together, {Emmeline Pankhurst}, gains other followers & assaults Patriarchy with national publicity – we will not get the idea across. My books, like yours, herald Matriarchy, but the New York Times will not review my most controversial book – “The Man Whisperer” & s far I’ve not been able to get the media interested in my books – but that could readily be because I don’t have time to WORK on the MEDIA…..My health condition, no window to travel in the last years, {when I was a stripper I traveled & there contacted the media in each venue} & too busy writing & publishing to go on TV shows or even work on Podcasts is the reason.

Therefore, unless someone else does it we are unable to conince a large public toward Matriarchy – most don’t even know what it is - they are ignorant, it’s not even reached the table.

And to do as you say & then a political movement to follow would require a phenomenon such as that accomplished by Pankhurst & Betty Friedan.   Rasa

 

William continues:

 

1. Matriarchy v patriarchy is not the same as women v men.

 

We know that there are many women who see men, “through rose tinted glasses” and firmly believe men should rule the world. While at the same time there are many men who worship women and want to be ruled and dominated by them. So we cannot assume women will automatically favour matriarchy and men will favour patriarchy, it’s more complicated than that. But the truth is, the majority of people couldn’t care less if they are ruled by either men or women or a mixture of both. All they care about is if their political leaders will make their lives better. So all we need to do is to convince people they will be better off, if they are ruled by matriarchal governments. And we must make it clear matriarchy, means a government of only women.

 

          Rasa says:  OK, interesting thought. People don’t care who rules, male or female, as long as they make their lives better.  But it’s more complicated than that you say & I agree. There are many questions here. How is it that it’s not the same as women vs men? In general, the gender war is men & women. But there are partisans both ways, women pro men, men pro women. You & Pete are pro women. So that can be discussed. When we were on Face book some females jumped up attacking you, William, & claiming to be Matriarchs & superior to men – but they were not. I told them you were more of a Matriarch than they were.

Another issue is women in general do not have a high opinion of the female – themselves included. They actually believe men to be more competent & effective as leaders. I have seen this so many times on the microcosm, it is sickening. But the truth is, men have been trained to see themselves as the leader – the dominant, so they act the role. You can’t put much confidence in a woman who‘s afraid – that’s the problem. They’ve been squashed down, beaten, demoralized so long they lack the confidence of men & so in effect, sometimes they CAN’T lead. It takes a confident, assertive person to lead. And so many times because women aren’t assertive or aggressive, no confidence is placed in them - they are not given a chance. There’s a lot of WORK that has to be done to BOOST women up before they can be the Goddesses they once were. They’ve been bred ‘down,’ men have been ‘bred up’ as far as being top dog. This is a BIG discussion. People assume men were as they are for say hundreds of thousands of years, ditto women. But they have both EVOLVED ; CHANGED & some of the traits of both genders have to CHANGE AGAIN before we can succeed with Matriarchy. To wit, males have to become less aggressive, females moreso.There is another BIG factor – the extinction of males. Dr. Bryan Sykes ssays 100k years, give or take 25k. But meanwhile, we have to life with them as they diminish. The shrinkage of men will help usher in Matriarchy of course. That is the ultimate solution not conjured my humans, but supernaturally or naturally produced by Mother Nature. Dr. Bryan Sykes said “human males were an experiment that did not work & so Nature is removing them” {words not exact} Wow – did he say a mouthful - mistake indeed! And he quoted some cases to prove how insane men are, & also re their nature, how they do al they do to acquire women His book “Adam’s Curse – A Future without Men” has a lot ot say.

From the Internet:

 

“In his 2003 book, Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men, Oxford professor and geneticist Dr. Bryan Sykes argued that human males are a genetic "experiment" that is failing due to the rapid decay of the Y chromosome, leading to an eventual, natural extinction. 

Based on his research, here are the key points of his argument:

·                                 The Failed Experiment: Sykes described the male of the species as a "genetic parasite" and a "long-running,, GM (genetically modified) experiment" that is not working out well. He cited the "raging beast" of the Y chromosome as being linked to aggression, violence, and destruction.

·                                 Decaying Y Chromosome: Sykes argued that unlike other chromosomes, the male Y chromosome is incapable of repairing itself through genetic recombination (crossing over). He called the Y chromosome a "graveyard of rotting genes" that is "pitilessly shrinking".

·                                 The 125,000-Year Timeline: Based on current rates of mutation and declining sperm counts, Sykes predicted that the Y chromosome will become completely extinct in about 125,000 years, rendering men extinct.

·                                 "Nature" Removing Them: Sykes suggested a "harsh Darwinian struggle" where female mitochondrial DNA may be actively working against male reproduction, such as by killing male fetuses. He noted that as the Y chromosome fades, reproduction could shift to a "unisex" model, similar to how some animals reproduce without males.”  {end Rasa says}

 

 

William Bond continues:

 

2. Why Patriarchy rule has been a disaster for everyone on the planet. 

 

Men and women are different because women give birth to children and men don’t. And it’s because of this that women are controlled by the feminine instinct and men are controlled by the masculine instinct. The feminine instinct makes women want to give birth to children and then care and nourish her children until they are able to look after themselves. On the other hand, the masculine instinct is all about aggression and competition. We see this clearly in nature where every year animals like stags, bulls, rams and lions fight each other for dominance and access to females. 

 

This problem is that male humans have similar instincts. Men will compete and fight each other. This is not a big problem if men fight each other in a boxing ring or compete in sporting games but it became a big problem when very competitive men gain political power. So testosterone driven leaders are willing to fight other testosterone driven leaders on the battle field causing deaths and suffering of thousand or even millions of people. (like we have seen in WW1 and WW2). 

 

Also very competitive minded people do not care about fairness. As the result we see a huge gap between rich and poor in nearly all patriarchal countries. Competitive men have a, “the winner takes it all” mentality. To them, life is a competitive game where the winners take everything and the losers get nothing. The problem is that in the patriarchal system, the most aggressive and competitive minded people far more likely to end up in leadership positions. But these types of people are far more likely to want to go to war, and not care about poverty in their own countries as they regard poor people as “losers”. This is why there is a huge gap between rich and poor and why there is poverty and homelessness even in wealthy countries. 

 

          Rasa says:  In other words, males have no love – It’s been bread out of them. Women wanted tough, aggressive men to protect them & do hard work like a combination of pit bull, Cane Corso & Shire horse. So they evolved as these were the type of men they bred with. But in acquiring traits where they could KILL readily, hurt easily with no remorse, these characters eventually stopped caring about women. They wanted to control women, like Satan wanted to be equal to God. And there you have the birth of Patriarchy.

What is love? Caring about others. They could not be both at the same time – nurturing & killing. Why am I the only one to see this? Breed someone to be a certain way, they might not be other ways that are opposite.

 

          About dogs from the Internet:

The Turkish Kangal and the Caucasian Shepherd (Ovcharka) are widely considered the toughest, most aggressive, and capable dogs to kill a wolf and stand their ground against a bear. These livestock guardian breeds are specifically bred for fearlessness, possessing massive size (up to 170 lbs) and immense bite force, often protecting flocks from wolves and bears without retreating. 

·                                 Turkish Kangal: Known for having the strongest bite in the world, they are exceptionally effective at neutralizing wolf threats and are feared by predators.

·                                 Caucasian Shepherd (Ovcharka): Renowned for their extreme aggression and thick, protective coat, they are capable of taking on wolves and large predators.

·                                 Central Asian Shepherd (Alabai): A highly protective, strong, and brave breed that excels at fighting off wolves.

·                                 Karakachan Dog: An ancient, courageous breed often used in the mountains to protect livestock from wolves. 

These dogs are specialized guardians, often standing their ground against large predators rather than fleeing.

 

          Rasa continues: Some dogs are NOT suited for family life – they are better in the fields. From the Internet:

 

·                                 Anatolian Shepherd: Known for extreme independence and alertness, they often require vast, open spaces and a "flock" to protect.

·                                 Great Pyrenees: Specifically bred to live with sheep or other livestock, they are intensely protective and may be too aloof or territorial to thrive as a standard indoor pet.

·                                 Other Working Breeds: While not strictly "only" for work, breeds like the Border Collie (for herding) or Maremma Sheepdog often require immense stimulation and space to avoid becoming stressed in a sedentary home environment. 

These dogs are bred to be independent thinkers, often acting on instinct to defend, rather than following commands like a typical companion dog.  {end Internet} 

          Rasa continues:  My theory which is mine & mine alone, is that women chose certain men for partners which eventually led to A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of them becoming toxic.  In general they are most – not all– less ‘caring’ than women, less nurturing. There are exceptions to everything. Look at Jesus. One of the complaints I’ve heard women voicing is ‘they are like machines.’ Stalin yearned to create an army of male robots who were like that – hopefully it never happens although as William points out they are so obedient they obey unto death when the commanders tell them to do so.  Rasa

 

William Bond goes on:

3. Why matriarchy is better than patriarchy.

 

As previously stated men and women are different because women give birth and men don’t. Woman have what is called the maternal instinct. This instinct drive women to want to have children and when her child is born to want to nurture and care for it until it’s able to look after itself. But this instinct drives women to go further than this. They we also care for the children of other women, they will also care for the sick and elderly and this is why the caring professions are dominated by women. Women also care deeply for animals as well. 

 

So in theory the world would be a better place if its ruled by caring women driven by their maternal instincts. But unfortunately life is far more complicated than that. As previously pointed out, the problem with patriarchy is that the more aggressive and competitive minded people end up in positions of power. But when women got involved in politics in the 20th century then we also find that the most aggressive and competitive minded women also get into positions of power. Well known examples of this are women like Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Angela Merkel. Unfortunately, although these were very competent leaders none of them demonstrated they were caring women and ruled exactly the same as what a male leader would do. 

 

The reason for this is any women becoming part of a patriarchal political system has to demonstrate she is, “one of the boys”, if she has any political ambition. So she has to squash any maternal instincts she has and prove she is as ruthless and devious as any male politician. This then is why we need matriarchal political parties where women are encouraged to demonstrate their caring and maternal instincts. So women can get into positions of power within the party by not being ruthless, devious and aggressive, but by simply demonstrating they are intelligent, caring and loving people. 

 

Patriarchy likes to claim that, “love is a weakness”, and this is true within the very ruthless, Machiavellian games of patriarchal politics. But love becomes a very potent weapon when used by a matriarchal political party. The point is that the people want to be ruled by rulers who care about the people they rule. They do not want to be ruled by men who start wars with other countries and only serve the needs of wealthy men who bribe them to do their bidding. So a matriarchal party can win great support from the public by positioning themselves as a party of loving, caring and incorruptible women. 

 

          Rasa says:  I think we agree that Matriarchy is a slow process to develop. We don’t have it yet. And so some of the women who move up will be shysters, liars, hypocrites & generally exactly like the evil men. Women are murderers to but not as many as men. And so, after a long time, when women have gained a strong foothold, these evil types will not get ahead so easily. We do know that women in general are psychic & have ESP. And they have dreams & visions, like I have. So at that time when more than half the goverments are women, the women that come forward are less likely to fool the pubic & become liars & criminals. Of course, in this Patriarchal world as it is now, when a woman becomes Commander in Chief, she’ll have to deploy troops for war – she cannot be a pacifist if the country is in danger.  Rasa