Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Guarantee Yesterday (Updated)

I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all.  (Note that the "U" itself also stands for "Unconditional", which is VERY important.)  At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely.  And in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and their grisly social and economic aftermath, it is more crucial now than ever before, and will be for quite some time as well.  

To wit:

1. First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women".  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.  As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.  And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown.  And they are still continuing (and will continue) to suffer from the aftermath long after the lockdowns are behind us.  Lockdown is patriarchy on crack, basically.
2. Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women.  When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  And this will only increase in the near future.  This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later.  Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions:  1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money.  Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.  Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
3. A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy.  No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God.  It's simply a basic human right, period.  And it would be far less costly in the long run.
4. As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology.  And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you.  And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.  The fact that human beings, unlike literally every other species on Earth, somehow must PAY to merely LIVE on the planet on which they were born is now totally contrived and socially constructed, and is in fact an egregious Crime Against Nature.
5. Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem.  And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
6. We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
7. With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
8. Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.  Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way. 
9. Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve.  This is over and above the effects of poverty alone.  And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty.  (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
10. We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to.  Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like.  A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
11. And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts".  What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard.   And that needs to change. Yesterday.  The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place.  A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be.  (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)

Perhaps Bucky's other prediction, that Women would take over the world, is a prerequisite for his vision to be fulfilled?   Honestly, it can't happen soon enough!

In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top.  So why aren't we doing this yesterday?  Because that would make far too much sense.  To quote Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate."  And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life.  Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless.  Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.  And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.  

(See also the TSAP's Q&A page, "Why UBI".)

Of course, for UBI to work properly, it would have to be totally unconditional with NO strings attached, period.  The Davos gang's (per)version of same, in contrast, will have plenty of strings attached, and will likely utilize Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) instead of cash, and tied to CCP-style "social credit scoring", and a critical mass of people will fall for it absent any alternative, so we need to beat them to it with a genuine cash UBI with no strings attached BEFORE they do it.  They will NOT own us, and they will NOT be happy!

So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!

The Great Trade

Part 1:

WOMAN:  Men only want one thing.  I mean, they are completely governed by their "Finger Eleven", if you catch my drift.

MAN:  "If I traded it all, if I gave it all away, for one thing...." (to quote lyrics by the band, literally named Finger Eleven).

WOMAN:  Keys to the kingdom, so we can finally reclaim our rightful place as the new leaders of the free world?

MAN:  Your terms are acceptable.

Part 2:

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  Not so fast, little lady.  For what shall it profit a woman, to gain the world and lose her soul?

WOMAN:  Excuse you, but us Women can multitask just fine, thank you very much.  You must be projecting.

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  A man cannot serve two masters.

WOMAN:  True, a MAN cannot serve two masters.  But a master can have many servants.  Now go make me a sandwich!

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  (Speechless)

The Four Biggest Casualties Of (Gender) War

Every war has casualites, and the 7000 year long gender war (which we call "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer) is certainly no exception.  There are many such casualties, and the four biggest ones are as follows:

1. The first casualty is TRUTH.  And that is not just a clichéd statement, but is practically axiomatic.  If people really knew the truth, the continuity of the war will be called into question.  So the truth is deliberately hidden and replaced with lies, half-truths, and omissions whenever possible.  Eventually it leads to a "post-truth" society and world, in which the truth becomes essentially irrelevant in what passes for discourse.
2. The second casualty is INNOCENCE.  Not as a euphemism for ignorance (for which there is still plenty), but in the most general sense, which includes the capacity for trust.  And that is a result of the first casualty, truth. Not to mention all of the actual and horrific atrocities of the war itself as well.  This results in jadedness, bitterness, and cynicism, which in the case of the gender war seriously poisons the relationship between Women and men, and also vitiates what remains of the sisterhood between Women as well.
3. The third casualty is LOVE.  And not just in the romantic sense, but in the most general sense to include all forms of love, all the way down to and including friendship.  In fact, friendship is probably the biggest casualty of all.  When both primary genders regard the other as being inherently dangerous/evil and needing to be controlled, that kinda precludes all but the most superficial and/or authoritarian relationships between the two.
4. And the fourth and final casualty is HUMANITY, in both senses of the word.

Thus, the gender war, like all wars, ultimately hurts everyone and thus needs to end yesterday.  And the only way to end it (without the entire planet being killed) is for us fellas to, paraphrasing the late Emperor Hirohito, "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to Women.  The sooner we finally cap the game, the better.  So what are we waiting for?

Viva La....Counterrevolution? Why "Reactionary Feminism" Is An Anachronistic Oxymoron That Will NOT Help Women

Some on the interwebs are recently claiming that a "sexual counterrevolution" is afoot, one that is ostensibly led by Women on both sides of the Atlantic (USA and UK) who are fed up with the sexual revolution as it were.  From Mary Harrington (who apparently coined the term, as well as the term "reactionary feminism" with which she herself identifies) to Louise Perry to Christine Emba to Katherine Dee to Evie Magazine to a few others, including some men as well, there does appear to be a trend back towards sex-negativity, or at least against the perceived excesses of sexual liberation.

The sexual revolution, like the industrial revolution, was a mixed bag overall.  Contrary to what some believe, it was neither an unalloyed good nor an unmitigated evil.  But overall, it was on balance a good thing I think.  Yes, even for Women too.  If anything, it is still unfinished to this day.  It is not a simple case of "men won and Women lost", just like the industrial revolution was not merely a simple case of "bourgeoisie (capitalist class) won and proletariat (working class) lost".  Sexual liberation does NOT need to be a zero-sum game at all.  Only the male-defined sexuality of patriarchy is truly a zero-sum game, which has existed long before the sexual revolution.  Female-defined sexuality is not.

As for the idea that there should be some sort of counterrevolution, as author Louise Perry advocates in The Case Against The Sexual Revolution, well, some good rebuttals from many different angles can be found here, here, and here.  Even Christine Emba's new book, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation (the thesis of which is neither  new nor particularly provocative) can be criticized here, here, and here as well.  These rebuttals for both, all written by Women, are far, far better than anything I could ever write.  And while these two authors occasionally make some decent points here and there, they are both quite heavy on problems and light on solutions.  Emba's solutions are far too vague and anodyne, while Perry's are far too retro (if not extremely non-starters as well), to even be considered solutions.  

But truly the only real solution is the one that these authors don't seem to consider:  MATRIARCHY.  It's like they are afraid to even utter the word, or something.  Not surprising, of course, given how utterly infantilizing and agency-denying some of their arguments are to Women in general.

It is true what they say that mere consent should be the floor, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics.  No argument from me there.  Even most sex-positive feminists would agree as well.  What Emba in particular calls "radical empathy" is also crucial, as well as respect, honesty, and basic human decency/dignity, of course.  But beyond that, their arguments really start to coast into confusion if not utter incoherence overall.  And the relatively short shrift they give to non-heterosexual folks (both Women and men), who they barely even acknowledge at all, also does the reader a serious disservice as well.

But back to Mary Harrington.  Her brand of "reactionary feminism" takes it a step further and apparently wants to roll back not only the sexual revolution, but also the industrial revolution as well, and possibly even the Enlightenment too.  The 1950s is apparently not traditional enough for her, as she quite literally seems to prefer....the 1450s.  (Riddle me this:  If that time period was so great, then why all the peasant revolts, in which revolutionary Women, eventually persecuted as "witches", played an outsized role?)  She is really quite the anti-modernist, it seems, and the title of her upcoming book, Feminism Against Progress, kinda says it all.  She comes dangerously close to sounding just like the Neoreactionary movement at times.  Oh, and she also denies that patriarchy ever even existed either.  Thus, her vague "solutions" would essentially preclude the only real solution of Matriarchy as well.  And yet she calls herself a feminist, go figure!

(To be fair, Harrington is not the first person to ever criticize the notion of "progress" either.  Christopher Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn, also wrote a sort-of sequel, Civilized to Death:  The Price of Progress, in which he also criticizes the unquestioned notion of progress, albeit from a different and clearly sex-positive angle, and with VERY different solutions compared to the reactionaries.  I triple-dog dare Harrington to debate him, lol.  But much like Lynn Saxon, author of an unconvincing rebuttal titled Sex at Dusk, she would probably just resort to cad-shaming and other ad hominem attacks.)

Oh, and finally, one of her most ridiculous articles ever is literally titled, "Middle Aged Women Don't Want Sex", and presumably that applies to Crones as well.  Somehow that sounds a bit like projection perhaps?  And besides, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has clearly and famously debunked this utterly specious notion to be not only inaccurate, but almost a full 180 degrees wrong as well.

Thus, so-called reactionary feminism occupies that awkward space between where extreme sex-negative radical feminism and extreme sex-negative anti-feminism meet per Horseshoe Theory.  Much like how the far left and far right become dangerously close to each other as well.  It is essentially the worst of both extreme worlds, and its pied pipers should really be avoided like the plague and not discussed further.  Except insofar as sunlight is the best disinfectant, of course.

UPDATE:  Oh, and about those revolutionary Women of the 15th century, eventually persecuted as "witches", did you know that many of them believed in and practiced communal living and even (gasp) free love?  You know, the same things that are absolutely anathema to those self-proclaimed "reactionary feminists" discussed above?  According to the actual feminist Sylvia Federici, they apparently did.  So far from being the granddaughters of the "witches" they couldn't burn, today's reactionaries are more like the granddaughters, or at least ideological descendants, of the sellout Women who collaborated with the witch-hunters and threw their sisters under the bus.  That is true not just for these reactionaries, but also for all slut-shamers, SWERFs, forced-birthers, victim-blamers, and rape apologists as well--all of which being just a very short walk away from one another.

In fact, I decided to name this new-but-not-really-new virulent strain of reactionary pseudo-feminism "Serena Joy Syndrome", after the rather infamous character from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.  It fits perfectly. 

UPDATE 2:  New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg has a good response (if anodyne) to the sexual counterrevolutionaries.  Even if it is still not well-received by some of the counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries themselves, of course.

Roe v. Wade Has Fallen

Well, after nearly half a century, it actually happened:  the landmark Roe v. Wade decision has officially fallen.  Today the US Supreme Court struck it down completely.  Forced-birther Republicans are thus now emboldened to further ban or restrict abortion at the state level, as several states have already done recently.  That is, Women's hard-won reproductive rights are now in grave danger, and this goes WAY beyond abortion.  Undoubtedly, birth control and things like that will be next on the chopping block, and so on, and thus we are just a few steps away from Margaret Atwood's worst nightmare. In fact, Clarence Thomas himself implied as much, actually saying the quiet part out loud.

Add to this the fact that the recent lockdown-induced "recession" (more like depression) has actually hit Women harder than men and set back Women's progress by decades by dumping even more unpaid work on them at home, and the future looks even worse still.

Democrats in Congress are still looking to pass a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law, superseding the abortion bans in any state that attempts such bans.  But alas, success in that regard is far from guaranteed.

Horrible and ghastly as this overall prospect is, there is perhaps a silver lining, namely that it may spur Women to go on a Lysistrata-style sex strike.  This may be the final straw, and such a strike may be enough for Women to actually take over for good.  That is, what would otherwise take decades at best would be accelerated in a matter of weeks or months, Goddess willing.  Perhaps that is why She is allowing all of this parade of horribles to happen at all?

Of course, a sex strike is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy.  For the ultimate kill switch on how really smash the patriarchy for good in the long term please see a previous article here.  And interestingly, the late 19th century feminist Victoria Woodhull would have in fact supported both.

To be clear, I don't think any real feminists actually LIKE the practice of abortion.  It is in fact an unfortunate side effect of the patriarchy, as it is the patriarchy itself that effectively makes nearly all abortions necessary in the first place despite that very same patriarchy's pharisaical and hypocritical attempts to ban and restrict the practice.  In a future Matriarchal society, there would be very, very few abortions occurring even with no restrictions at all, as pregnancies would no longer be forced on Women and poverty would be effectively eradicated, thus eliminating the two biggest incentives for abortion.  But it is crystal clear that banning or unduly restricting abortion does far more harm than good on balance, as that only reduces the number of safe and legal abortions (for the non-rich).  Unsafe and illegal abortions would continue regardless.  So the very tiny left feminist wing of the anti-abortion movement (who is actually cheering for the new Texas law) really misses the point entirely.  And the sooner we fully abolish the "livestock model" of reproduction where Women are treated like brood mares (and men as work horses), the better we will all be.

In other words, Matriarchy is the real culture of life.  Patriarchy, on the other hand, is the cult(ure) of death.

Only Women Can Break The Cycle Of History

History, or more accurately, HIStory, has always seemed to occur in cycles.  Ascendancy and decline.  Collapse and rebirth.  Spring and fall.  Over and over again.  And with smaller cycles occurring as part of larger ones as well.  The modern meme about it goes like this:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

And so on.  And if current events are any indication, we seem to be in the "weak men create hard times" stage, alas.  But the authors of this meme did not pull this out of the ether, rather, this idea of the cyclical nature of history is thousands of years old.  The ancient Greeks called it "Anacyclosis".

Per Wikipedia:

Anacyclosis states that three basic forms of "benign" government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) are inherently weak and unstable, tending to degenerate rapidly into the three basic forms of "malignant" government (tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy). [Ochlocracy = mob rule]

Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order: 1. monarchy, 2. kingship, 3. tyranny, 4. aristocracy, 5. oligarchy, 6. democracy, and 7. ochlocracy.  [And finally chaos, and then the cycle repeats with a new king emerging from the chaos...]

And then there is the "Tytler Cycle" (or "Fatal Sequence") as well.  The following quote, actually of somewhat unknown authorship, has nonetheless been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler sometime in either the late 18th or early 19th century, though occasionally it has been attributed to Alexis de Toqueville as well:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

These two paragraphs actually did not occur together until the 1970s, but the latter one is the one that stuck the most.  It can thus be summarized graphically as follows:

The first paragraph of course can be debunked by the theories of Monetary Sovereignty and Modern Monetary Theory, in that a government that issues and controls it's own sovereign currency cannot really go bankrupt unless they deliberately choose to, and thus loose fiscal policy per se need not result in a dictatorship.  In Venezuela, for example, dictatorship (and corruption) actually came first, well before their extremely loose fiscal policy.  Furthermore, Switzerland is the very closest thing to a truly direct democracy in the modern world, and interestingly the voters in 2016 actually rejected a Universal Basic Income (UBI) referendum.  And even Canada, arguably somewhat more democratic in practice than the USA (prior to 2020), had actually shrank the size of its government dramatically from 1990 to 2019 via fiscal austerity (which came at a heavy price), and barely any stimulus even during the Great Recession.  But the second paragraph is the one that is the real essence of the quote, regardless of what sort of governing system is in place.  And it seems to be true throughout history time and again.

And more recently, William Strauss and Neil Howe's generational theory also appears to dovetail with all of this.  And the ever-insightful Julius Ruechel observes how that cycle seems to occur every four generations, or roughly 80 years or so (making us due for a major crisis by 2020, being about 80 years since the Great Depression and its infamous segway into WWII).  This is, of course, a smaller cycle within larger ones like the ones mentioned above, but again it follows basically the same pattern.  A pattern that seems to be, for all intents and purposes, sooner or later, inevitable and written in stone.  So what is the underlying reason?

Thus once again, we return to the first meme, with the proper emphasis added this time:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

And so on.  Now do you see why?  Because MEN are in charge, that's why.  Strong men and weak men are ultimately two sides of the same coin.  And thus only Women can finally break the cycle for good, by reclaiming their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, Goddess willing.  And as they say, the rest will be HERstory.

Let the planetary healing begin!

Happy Mother's Day!

First, I would like to wish a Happy Mother's Day to all of the wonderful Mothers out there.  You are, after all, literally the reason why the human race even exists at all, despite the fact that the work you do is grossly undervalued in so many way by our twisted capitalistic and patriarchal society.  In other words, your beautiful feminine energy is essentially what keeps the rest of us alive.  

Thank you.

I would also like to note and lament how, for all the shallow platitudes America likes to throw around about "Mothers and apple pie", we are still a nation that perpetually continues to screw over Mothers and pregnant Women in so many ways.  Recently, Guru Rasa von Werder shared a poignant and in-depth article from Vox with us that illustrates the various ways in which that is true.  This article should be food for thought indeed.  Our patriarchal and capitalistic society clearly has a "cult of motherhood", in which the "ideal" of motherhood is so highly vaunted, worshipped even, but in practice actual Mothers themselves get about as much genuine respect as Rodney Dangerfield.  Both during and after pregnancy, so many Mothers are routinely discriminated against, overworked, underpaid, and even outright criminalized in many cases.  And meanwhile, there is to this day a powerful faction of mostly male politicians that is doing everything in their power to deny Women their right to choose whether or not to get (or stay) pregnant in the first place.  Indeed, the rank hypocrisy of our misogynistic and pharisaical system is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Meanwhile, old Buckminster Fuller (who, not coincidentally, believed that Women should rule the world) must be spinning in his grave right now.  With today's technology and innovation, there is literally no legitimate reason why we as a society need "everybody and their mother" (literally!) to "work for a living" unless they really wanted to.  There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to live like a millionaire, but the greedy oligarchs who control such resources apparently don't want to share.  Combined with the outdated scarcity mentality that men tend to favor (as opposed to the abundance mentality that Women tend to favor), those same oligarchs have also done everything in their power to sabotage any alternatives (i.e. free and renewable energy) to their own evil system that they force upon the rest of us.  So why make them even richer?

Additionally, just as we should "dispense with the absolutely specious notion that everybody needs to earn a living" (in Bucky's words), so too should we jettison the equally specious and outdated idea that everybody must procreate as though it were a civic duty.  Not only does today's technology make much useful human labor redundant, but the world is grossly overpopulated and will only get more so in the coming decades, and despite the abundance of the world's resources we are chewing through them like there is no tomorrow while destroying the planet.   And the main cause of that overpopulation is--wait for it--MEN.  Because they are the ones who, both historically and today, force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women to have kids that they otherwise would not want or are not yet ready for.  Men like to "get 'em while they're young" and then use them as serial breeding slaves, essentially, and all the euphemisms in the world do not change that fact.   It is really no coincidence that the two most effective (and ethical) ways to reduce overpopulation and excessively high birthrates are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, while everything else is a mere sideshow.  Because when Women actually have a free and genuine choice on when or whether or not to reproduce, they usually make the right choices overall.  After all, they are the ones who have the most "skin in the game".  So let the planetary healing begin!

(And ICYMI, all of this now applies a fortiori in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Mothers have faced a triple burden thanks to all the lockdowns, school closures, job losses and stuff like that.)

MAMASTE

Can Female Power Save The Planet? Answered by William Bond

Can Female Power Save the Planet - answered by William Bond

(Comments by Rasa Von Werder and Ajax the Great)

Anyone who studies history will notice a familiar pattern, countries will try to solve disputes between them through warfare and sometimes even genocide.  Another common theme is that in all countries there is a large gap between rich and poor. Where most of the wealth of any country is in the hands of a small ruling elite while the majority of people are poor and powerless. 

This is so commonplace that people have accepted it as normal but many famous people have spoken out against wars, like Mahatma Gandhi, Oscar Wilde, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Jr., Aldous Huxley, Leo Tolstoy, William Penn, Dalai Lama and Albert Einstein. 

But we don’t need to be as intelligent as Einstein to work out that warfare is a terrible idea. Modern warfare is even worse than in the past because more civilians die in modern wars than soldiers die on the battlefield. This is because in recent wars towns and cities are bombed from aircraft, killing women, children and old people. There is also the threat of nuclear weapons and the possible annihilation of civilisation. Yet in spite of this we still continue to have as many wars as we did centuries ago. 

There is also the problem of a vast gap between rich and poor where a small ruling elite has all the wealth and power and the common people are poor and powerless. Yet even when the people have had a revolution and the ruling elite were killed, like we see in the French and Russian revolutions. The new revolutionary governments have proven not to be any better than those they replaced, as the gap between rich and poor has continued as before. 

So why are problems like warfare and social justice insolvable?  The common explanation is found in Darwin’s theory of evolution which is summed up in the phrase, “the survival of the fittest”.  This comes from the observation of rutting males who fight each other to breed with females and so only the biggest, strongest and most aggressive males are able to do this. So the theory of evolution is only seen from the masculine point of view.

Darwin’s evolutionary theory was later turned into something called Social Darwinism which neatly explained why we always have wars and genocide and why there is such a wide gap between rich and poor. It seems that we have wars because like rutting males it is ‘natural’ for male rulers to fight each other for more wealth, power and territory. The same is true for class inequality, according to this theory, wealthy people are simply ‘fitter’ than poor people as they are cleverer and more capable and this is why they have more wealth and power.

{Rasa says:  There’s another obscenity afoot.  On Trinity Broadcasting, the Protestant venue, many of its preachers claim that ‘God wants us to have prosperity’ & to add insult to injury they say that those who gain the move money are favored by God, those who haven’t got it were not so.  This is grossly wrong – this is supposed to be a Christian Network – Jesus came to earth to teach poverty, sacrifice & love for others, not greed, wealth, money changing schemes & the like.  He did not hobnob with the rich, he ate with the poor & fraternized by those who were outcasts in society. }

{Ajax says:  These modern-day Pharisees have it completely backwards, basically.}

To quote Wikipedia on Social Darwinism.-

“Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others, emphasizing struggle between national or racial groups, support authoritarianism, conservativism, right-wing politics, eugenics, racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism and/or fascism.”

Social Darwinism got itself a bad name through it’s promotion of eugenics. Where its proponents called for disabled children to be aborted, killed or sterilised so they wouldn’t pass on their defective genes to the next generation. This concept was adopted by Nazi Germany who used these ideas not only justify war, but also the Holocaust to eliminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and anyone else the Nazi’s didn’t like. After the defeat of the Nazis in Second World War, very few people wanted to be associated with these ideas. 

{Ajax says:  It turns out that even Darwin himself did NOT believe in "Social Darwinism" as it were.  And he actually opposed eugenics, the selective breeding of human beings which is literally the opposite of natural selection, even though his cousin Francis Galton supported it. To quote Darwin, "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin".  Very true indeed.}

But Darwinism still continue to change into more extreme ideas like the Killer Ape Hypothesis, which claimed that man evolve from ape to human by becoming a hunter and killer. Again this is used to justify war, violence and social inequality. 

Another idea like this is the, Selfish Gene Theory, which claims that genes, selfishly only care for their own survival and it is these selfish genes that will survive and reproduce. So according to this theory it is selfish genes that dictate the direction of evolution. So this is why we have warfare and social injustice because we are all selfish and only care about ourselves.  Although Richard Dawkins who invented the, Selfish Gene Theory, has never talked about eugenics he created a controversy when he publicly claimed that it was “immoral” for mothers to bring Down’s Syndrome children into the world.

{Ajax says:  Soft eugenics, basically.}

All these theories are invented by men and because of this, they leave out the female point of view. Anyone who studies female animals find that they are not driven by aggression or selfishness. Most females have a powerful desire to give birth and then care for their young until they are big enough to look after themselves. The ability of mothers to be able to do this, means she is the most important entity in the evolution of any species. This is because the role of males in reproduction is generally very brief and can be over in a minute. But life is created within the bodies of females and for human females this can take nine months. 

Females have to be very fit and healthy to be able to allow an infant to grow inside their bodies. Then she has to give birth, protect and suckle the infant(s) and and look after them until they grow to be adults. Some male animals like birds do play a role is feeding and caring for their young. But many male animals go off and leave the female to fend for herself. Some species like bears and tigers the male will even attack and eat the cubs, if the female is unable to fight them off. Some mother bears and tigers end up being killed by the males when doing this. 

Mothers are totally selfless in caring for her young and put their needs before her own. We find in human females, women will not only care for their own young but care for the young of other mothers. They will also care for the sick and elderly.  Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene”, realised that caring mother was undermining this theory that we are all selfish and so changed the name of caring mothers to that of ‘bearers’. As he knew the caring aspect of women will undermine his theory.

{Rasa says:  I despised Richard Dawkins, & here is proof he deserved it.  Such a book is truly evil & for him to call women ‘bearers’ instead of Mothers goes back to the ancient Greek play ‘Oedipus’ where the author said the woman is not the mother of the child, but only an oven the child is baked in, in so many words.  It was only the man’s part that counted.  And of course, science has proven this to be absurd, as men cannot even reproduce, scientists say the are ‘parasites’ on the body of a woman & can only give her their DNA to reproduce.}

{Ajax says:  Indeed.  The only good thing about Richard Dawkins is the fact that that he coined the popular word "meme".  Yes, that was him.  That's it.  Big whoop!}

There have been many cases where animal females in the wild will care for the young of other mothers and even the young of other species. This is true of cuckoos who take advantage of maternal instincts of other female birds to trick them into unwittingly raising cuckoos chicks.  This is also documented in many cases of feral children. These are children who have been abandoned and left in the wild and have been brought up by female animals who have found them. In most cases it is wolves or dogs but there are cases of feral children being brought up by monkeys, bears, sheep, cattle and in one case, even ostriches.

{Rasa says:  I would like to see where I can witness this.  Is any of it on You tube?} 

As Evolutionists tell us, men have a powerful competitive and aggressive instincts and this is why we have wars, genocide and social injustice. Women on the other hand have a powerful maternal and nurturing instinct. So therefore if we want to eliminate wars and social injustice then the solution is obvious, we have to allow women to rule the world. 

The argument against this is that there have been many cases where female leaders of countries have gone to war. This is true, but in most cases she is the lone female leader in a all male patriarchal government and is forced to defend her country against an aggressive patriarchal government. There has never been a case of an all female matriarchal government fighting another matriarchal government.- Though it has to be admitted knowledge of matriarchal governments have been suppressed in patriarchal history books, so we don’t have any knowledge of this. 

As feminists discovered in the 20th century when they tried to get their male children to play with dolls and their female children to play with toy, cars, planes and guns it didn’t work. Women don’t have the same interest in war, guns and violence as men do. So matriarchal governments are far more likely to talk over any dispute with other matriarchal governments. 

The same is also true about the gap between rich and poor. As mentioned before, women care a lot about children and therefore a matriarchal government wouldn’t want the children of the country they rule to live in poverty and ignorance. So they will do their best to lift all children out of poverty and in so doing will also help the children’s parents, as well as making sure all children have the best education. So any matriarchal government will care far more about the people they rule, than any patriarchal governments. 

Women ruling the world can save us form nuclear warfare. Even though it is obvious that making nuclear weapons and using them to threaten other countries is a really bad idea - Patriarchal countries continue to do this and are unable to find a peaceful solution. This is because of men’s aggressive and competitive instincts. But if women did rule the world then they would see the stupidity of nuclear weapons and work together to disarm. 

Another argument against women ruling world is that if we assume women are less aggressive and competitive than men, then it is less likely that women will ever get into a position where they can rule the world. This is true when men take control of countries either through a violent revolution or by conquest. A matriarchal government is possible in democratic countries so a matriarchal political party can be voted into power.

The advantage of a matriarchal political party, as opposed to feminism, is that it can tell voters why women would be better rulers than men - Putting forward all the arguments explained in this article. And if a matriarchal government does get into power, to stay in power it has to do the things it claims it is and demonstrate that they are caring rulers. So matriarchy is the means of getting caring people into positions of power. 

Ajax says:  Amen to that!  The only real solution is for Women, the better half of humanity, to reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, God willing.

Why Men Are The Submissive Sex

By William Bond

(Comments by Rasa Von Werder and Ajax the Great)

     We have been told for thousands of years, that men are the natural dominant sex and Women are naturally submissive.  And this is confirmed by the fact that men dominate every government in the world.  Even today, we still have only a minority of female politicians and a very small minority of female leaders of countries.  The same is also true in business, law and religion, Women, are in the minority anywhere, wherever there is power, wealth and status.

            {Rasa says:  Yes but they don’t tell you WHY:  Women were subdued through violence, intimidation & unjust laws.  The Romans subdued the Greeks, which were a superior culture, through war, the Greeks became their servants.  Doesn’t mean the Greeks were NATURALLY SUBMISSIVE to them}  

 {Ajax says:  Excellent analogy}

If we look back in recorded history the situation is even worse.  Very few Women have ever achieved power.  We can think of a few Women like Cleopatra, Elizabeth 1 and Catherine the Great but the vast majority of rulers have been men.  And if we go back before recorded history we are told that men were even more dominant.  The caveman, we are told, was an aggressive brute who dominated cavewoman through extreme violence.  So the picture we are given, is that man, always has and always will, dominate Women. 

            {Rasa says:  We are told, but they weren’t.} 

It is true that Feminism claims that men and Women are equal and the same, but this claim doesn’t square with the facts.  There has never been a time in recorded history where men and Women have been equal, and Feminism can only point to a few stone-age tribes where this might have happened.  So with all this overwhelming evident that seems to prove that man is the dominant sex, how is it possible to claim that man is the natural submissive sex?  The reason is, is that man’s natural submissiveness is the reason why alpha men rule our world.

            {Rasa says:  If armies rebelled against their Generals, where would the armies be?  They have to obey or else get jailed.  They have even obeyed in history, against logic & better judgment, entering into death.  But if they don’t obey they are court marshaled, in time of war, they are considered traitors & shot.  So what choice do they have?  And women, when they disobey the rules of Patriarchs, are ostracized, marginalized & forced to be unwelcome members of society.  When men rules, others have no CHOICE, if they disobey, they suffer consequences.}

Throughout most of history there have always been powerful warlords, kings and emperors whom gained power through violence and warfare.  The origins of all countries and empires have been through warlords who have conquered other people and ruled over them.  Much is written about successful generals like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Napoleon, but not a lot is written about the ordinary soldier who fought for these successful generals.  

Whenever the military talks about attributes of being a successful soldier, what is put at the top of the list, is always discipline.  A successful general has to know that whenever he gives an order, he has to have instant and unquestioning obedience.  Successful generals have to be able to use their men like pawns on a chessboard, and will willing sacrifice the lives of thousands of them, to gain a tactical or strategic advantage.  
An example of this was in the Zulu wars between the Zulus and the British in the 19th century.  Chief Shaka, to demonstrate to a visiting dignitary, how his men were so obedient, ordered a troop to march over a cliff to their deaths.  Then the Zulus won the first battle with the British, in the Battle of Isandlwana.  It was only the discipline of the Zulu warriors that made this possible.  Although they were only armed with spears, they continued to attack British troops armed with modern rifles, until they finally overwhelmed them.  The Zulus finally lost the war when they simply ran out of men.

            {Rasa says:  Wars of aggression *not defense*, by their nature are dishonorable & immoral.  They go to take what another has – their territory, riches & resources, including in many cases, their women.  These types of wars are NOT OF GOD.  And wars, being a basis of Patriarchy, show that at its foundation, Patriarchy is unethical, immoral & sinful.  It is DEMONIC.} 

 {Ajax says:  And that includes the many modern wars of aggression that are often disguised as "humanitarian" wars or "policing the world" as well.  Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and so on come to mind.  Imperialism is still imperialism, regardless of the flimsy pretext.}

In the 20th century, with the invention of the machine gun, war has become even more deadly.  In the First World War it is claimed that the ordinary soldiers were, “lions lead by donkeys”.  This was because all the generals in the conflict didn’t know how to fight a war with modern weapons like machine guns, modern artillery and poison gas and so millions of lives were sacrificed needlessly, for very little gain.  Yet, in spite of this, the ordinary solder still obeyed orders to come out of the trenches and face near certain death, in the face of enemy machine gun fire.  In the Second World War the Japanese took things even further by ordering their airmen to crash their planes into enemy ships in Kamikaze attacks.  In more recent times many guerrilla groups like the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka and many Islamic terrorist groups use suicide bombers.

            {Rasa says:  the Kamikazees were told if they returned, their lives wouldn’t mean anything.  They would be a disgrace to their country & families – they would be ostracized or maybe even shot as traitors.  It’s not like the VOLUNTEERED to do as they did.

And of course the suicide bombers are told when they die Allah will give them 72 virgins in Heaven.  One bomber put a metal plate around his penis so it would be intact when he got there.  These people are driven insane.} 

This means that if you can train a man to risk his life or even commit suicide when ordered to do so, suggests that men are very submissive.  Yes, it is true that Women suicide bombers have also been used, but Women suicide bombers haven’t been so successful.  In the Palestinian conflict there are a large numbers of Women in Israel jails whom were sent out to be suicide bombers, but couldn’t go through with it.  Unlike men, Women have the sense, to see the stupidity of what they are being pressurized into doing.

It is men’s complete obedience to authority that has paradoxically makes him the dominant sex.  The Feminists once had a slogan that, “the sisterhood is powerful”, unfortunately this hasn’t been the case.  Women have totally failed to create a powerful sisterhood.  It can be also said that men haven’t produced a powerful brotherhood either, but they have done the next best thing.  Men’s total obedience to authority allows alpha men to gain great power, by being able to mobilize large numbers of men, to do as they are told.

            {Rasa says:  But there is a brotherhood, even the demons in Hell have one – so I am told by Saints.  They are all evil, but they agree on strategy to destroy the human race.  Men are also bribed to believe that when they push women around they will gain great benefits - & of course they do – temporarily.  “The kingdoms of the world & their glory” are gained through demonic means but “What profit a man if he gain the whole world but loses his soul for what will he exchange for his soul?”}

 {Ajax says:  Very true indeed}

A despotic dictator has great power over the people because he has an army of young men, whom if ordered to beat up, murder, rape or even torture any member of the public, will obey without question.  This means that the average man is not either very dominant or bossy but very submissive, because it is men’s very submissive behaviour in obeying those in authority, that keeps the whole patriarchal society going.

            {Rasa says:  Stalin was fantasizing about creating men who would not think or feel, just obey.  Human men have in many cases, already become that.  They could not do the atrocities that they do – especially in war – if they had any feelings or logic.} 

The problem is that if you ask any man, “are you submissive?” he will deny it completely.  This is because men all over the world have been trained to think of themselves as dominant.  Or at least dominant as far as Women are concerned.  And the men who would most likely to strongly deny their submissive behaviour, would be soldiers.  After all soldiers do have a very strong machismo image, and to suggest they are submissive, would be like suggesting that they are wimps.  And if you pointed out that soldiers would always obey orders without question, he would claim it is discipline, and not submissiveness.

            {Rasa says:  Lol. We go through that as Mistresses of female ‘domination’.  They give us a script how to make them obey, how to hurt & torture them, how to force them to do things they don’t want to do.  They get off on the fantasy, but I am here to tell you, when reality sets in they cringe, cry, beg us to stop, they even shed tears if we do anything that hurts.  Their ‘machismo’ is not how much they can take – its’ how little they care about others, & sadly, this happens with the ones who are weaker, smaller & vulnerable - those they can beat up on.  There are cases so horrible I can hardly repeat them.  One young male obtained dogs to his motel room, & tortured them for days.  He bought a little Chihuahua which he told the owner was for his ailing Mom.  To prevent him running away he cut off his legs, then tortured him some more.  Luckily he was caught & given a harsh sentence.  But most men who torture the vulnerable including babies & children are never caught or punished.}

{Ajax says:  DEMONIC}

Yet whether a person is disciplined or submissive, the result is exactly the same, both types of people, do as they are told.  The only difference is perception.  So although macho soldiers are not a sort of people we normally associate with submissive behaviour, the reality is, is that their extreme obedience to authority, where they will risk their lives or even commit suicide, when ordered to do so, does make them very, very submissive.

            {Rasa says:  It does begin with ECONOMIC SLAVERY where most men who have money would not voluntarily sign up to have their rights taken away, & if he disobeys, the brig or get shot.  Men who have no jobs, nowhere to go to get support, are the ones who sign up.  And who creates poverty?  Patriarchs.  It’s all part of their system. 

The same goes for women.  Most women would not marry the men they do unless they desired support.  Had women not been impoverished by unjust laws, many would live their lives free of undesirable men.  They would either live single & happy, go out with whom they want, or marry a different type of guy – even a poor guy – who appeals to them.  But they marry old, ugly, mean, exploitative guys because of their money.}

The same is also true in the civilian world.  Feminists have already observed how the whole patriarchal society is a hierarchical system.  Most men like to claim that they only obey their boss at work, because he pays the wages.  Yet, even though men may moan and complain about their bosses, or the politicians, or anyone else in authority over him, men on the whole, do as they are told.  And this instinctive obedience by men is the foundation of patriarchy, if men didn’t instinctively obey those he considered to be in authority over him, then the whole patriarchal system would collapse. 

This then is the basis of political power.  Because men do instinctively obey those in authority, then political power comes from being perceived by the population, as the alpha male.  If we look at the patriarchal society as a whole, then men look up to and even sometimes hero worship those in he perceives as being above him in the pecking order, and will ruthlessly exploit those he perceives as being below him.  In all patriarchal countries nearly all the wealth and power of a country are in the hands of a few alpha men and the rest are poor and powerless. 

{Ajax says:  Patriarchy is the world's oldest and largest pyramid scheme, Ponzi scheme, and protection racket}

This is true for even a modern Western country like the USA, the top 1 % of the population owned 34% of the country’s wealth. Also, the top 20% of the population owned 85% of the wealth of the country.  Leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% of people.  In poorer third world countries these figures would be even worse, where there is an enormous gap between rich and poor.  Yet in spite of the fact this causes great resentment in men all over the world, revolutions do not happen very often and as we have seen throughout history, revolution doesn’t solve the problem either.  The new rulers end up behaving as badly, or even worse, than the leaders they have replaced.

            {Rasa says:  Revolutions don’t work because so far, all of them were run by men or even where, I am told, fishwives started the French Revolution but as soon as it took hold, wasn’t it Robespierre who ruled?

            “The three main leaders of the French Revolution for the rebels were Georges-Jacques Danton, Jean-Paul Marat, and Maximilien Robespierre. The first, Georges-Jacques Danton was very involved in different powerful groups in France.”

            My point is, every institution, Religion, Church, Government, which is run by men – every venue run by men anytime, any place, becomes corrupt.  Why?  Their natural instinct when ruled by other men – instead of being obedient to women – runs AMUCK.  Their instinct is one of selfishness, not the self-lessness maternal instinct.}

 {Ajax says:  Men as a class have the reverse Midas touch.  Everything they touch turns to crap, basically.  Robespierre was one of many examples of  "out of the frying pan, into the fire"}

To make society function smoothly, we are all taught obedience from a very early age.  Children are expected to be obedient to their parents and then later to their teachers at school.  The paradox is that as boys learn to play macho games in sport, the more he is taught to become obedient.  All team sports need the players to do exactly what their coach tells them, to become a winning team.  This is also true of individual sports as well, where most sports coaches act like sergeant majors on a parade ground.

            {Rasa says:  I joined the ‘adult sports’ at our local high school – the basketball, which I love.  The men would not pass me the ball, they would not make me the ‘team captain.’  One time I did push to get voted captain, & we won the game.  But they resented me, a woman leading, so they ousted me, & with a male at the helm we lost.  But they would not admit I was the better leader.}

So boys from an early age are given two contrary messages.  The first message is that men have to be very strong and macho and be willing to ‘stand up for themselves’.  Yet at the same time they are taught to obey those in authority without question.  No wonder teenage boys when they grow old enough to think for themselves, become very confused.  As clearly both messages are in contradiction to each other, and so it encourages schizophrenic type of behaviour. 

 {Ajax says:  You can say that again!}

So obedience and passivity is part of the human condition, but how boys and girls react to this is very different.  Scientific studies done on children show a distinct difference in how boys and girls react when given a project to do.  For boys they first have to elect a leader, who tells the rest of them what to do, but if they cannot do this, then nothing gets done, as they continue to argue among themselves.  This is not true for girls, who are far better communicators and can discuss among themselves what needs to be done, with far less conflict and so can work together without a leader.

            {Rasa says:  My brother & I, he being 3 years older, played a dozen sports together & I won more than he did.  But when he got to be 14 & developed testosterone, he beat me up badly out of resentment.  This is the ‘natural’ instinctive reaction of a male – they can’t stand being humiliated, they lash out.  Not as strong of an instinct for women.  Most women’s murders happen when they reject a man, tell him they’re leaving.  Rejection is humiliation.}

{Ajax says:  Masculinity is very fragile indeed.}

We can see this throughout the patriarchal society where leadership is all-important.  In business, under good leadership a company can thrive, but under bad leadership a company will quickly go broke.  

The same is true for political leaders a bad leader can destroy a country as we see in the case of Robert Mugabe the leader of Zimbabwe, he is a terrible leader, but the people are still helpless in the face of this power and seem to be unable to replace him.  It is very true in war.  For instance Napoleon won every battle he ever fought in, until the battle of Waterloo, where he lost to another general that also had an unbeaten record.  The French army has never been so successful before Napoleon or after him.  It was his leadership that made all the difference.  In these situations the common soldier feels totally powerless, because he is totally reliant on the leadership of the army whether they will be successful. 

Another instance of the common man’s feeling of helplessness is the 1929 Wall St crash that caused a worldwide Depression, the common people had no say in the decisions that caused the crash, but it was they who suffered the consequences.  During the cold war the USSR and USA had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each just waiting for someone to ‘press the button’, that would wipe out humanity.  The general public were very frightened of this situation, but were helpless to stop it going on.  The cold war only ended with the economic collapse of the USSR, who couldn’t keep up with the USA in producing more advanced weapons.  It didn’t end with both sides seeing the stupidity of what they were doing.

            {Rasa says:  The Cold War was ended by the prayers of the people, in obedience to Our Lady of Fatima, who said ‘Pray the Rosary for the Conversion of Russia or nations will be annihilated.’  It was me who gave the speech in front of the White house on June 16, 1978.  I explain my case of the events following this on my site:

  http://www.kellieevertsistripforgod.com/fatima.php }

{Ajax says:  We sure could use an encore of that now, given current events!}

What is very clear, is that to be able to work together collectively, men need to have a leader.  Unfortunately if the leader happens to be an idiot, then the whole group is in trouble.  In the past there have been cases of kings who have become insane like Ivan the Terrible of Russia, yet in spite of his insanity he was still allowed to rule.  It seems men will still faithfully obey their leader even though they know he is mad.

Therefore political power comes from being in control over the majority of passive men.  About five thousand years ago alpha men learn to control men through violence, a small group of violent men were able to dominate a far larger group of less violent men.  Today they would be seen as a gang of organized criminals, or bandits.  These bandits then recruited more men from the general population to be part of their gang and so the leader became a warlord who used his power to conquer other areas around him.  In time these warlords became kings, pharaohs or emperors, where they ruled whole countries or empires and to ensure that the people respect them, they set themselves up as gods.

            {Rasa says:  Patriarchy is the lunatics running the asylum.} 

{Ajax says:  That's patriarchy in a nutshell, pun intended.}

Back in the Neolithic times archaeologists have discovered a lot of evidence to suggest that Women ruled these early civilizations, but the trouble is that many people find this hard to believe. After all, throughout history we have been used to brutal alpha males who have ruled countries by force and violence.  The problem is that what archaeologists have discovered is that warfare was unknown back in the first Neolithic civilizations.  When they excavated ancient cities like Catal Höyük in Turkey and Caral in Peru, or the Neolithic civilizations of Malta, Crete, Eastern Europe, Japan, China and the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan, they couldn’t find any weapons of war. Not only that, they couldn’t find any skeletons showing any signs of violence, nor could they find any carved images of war and violence and any fortification protecting the towns and cities.  Whereas the evidence of war and violence was overwhelming in later Bronze and Iron age excavations.  With thousands of weapons of war being discovered, skeletons in graves showing signs of damage by swords, axes, spears and clubs, with very strong fortifications around all towns and cities, and carvings on walls of wars, acts of violence and torture. 

So how was it that all over the world civilisations could live in peace and harmony for thousands of years, but then suddenly these peaceful civilizations were swept away and replaced by extremely violent empires?  The theory put forward by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, was that warlike patriarchal tribes from the North conquered these peaceful Matriarchal civilisations.  Now, this makes sense of how some of these Neolithic civilisations were destroyed but it doesn’t explain where these patriarchal tribes came from, and why they suddenly turn to war and violence.  

            {Rasa says:  My interview with a lady who did work similar to Marija Gimbutas in recent times.  I saw her on PBS, contacted her & we spoke by phone for 2.5 hours – I typed it all out.  She goes into the Amazons & beginning of Patriarchy – Dr. Jeannine Davis Kimball:  http://www.womanthouartgod.com/daviskimball.php }

To explain this, some people have pointed out that the Sahara desert was once a wetter and greener place 6,000 years ago, and then is slowly began to dry up.  So it was suggested that the people living there faced years of starvation and it was this starvation that turn these people into warlike monsters that went out and conquered the world. 

I personally think this is a terrible idea.  First of all, the Sahara didn’t become desert overnight.  Yes, things would be tough if the rains didn’t come for a few years and many people would starve to death.  But this is not unusual, and situations like this have happened all over the world, throughout history.  In this situation with the fertile lands turning to desert, the people will start to move out of the area.  After all it has taken thousands of years for the Sahara region to become desert it is today.  The process is still going on today, as the Sahara desert is still moving south.  So it means that the people living there had time to adapt or move. 

Also, I am not sure that starvation does turn people into monsters.  Yes, starvation does stress out the whole community but in modern times charity workers that go into famine areas find the biggest problem, are people becoming lethargic.  Many of them lose all hope and sit down to die, just waiting and hoping things with change for the better.  Yes, some people will fight for life but not necessary will fight other people.  Human beings do have brains and they are more likely to use them to find alternative sources of food.  After all, humans are ingenious enough to even find food or water in a desert, as we can see with the present inhabitants of the Sahara Desert and with the Australian Aboriginal.  It is true patriarchal societies tribes in times of famine do fight each other and steal each other’s food, but I don’t think Matriarchal tribes would do this and would be more likely to help each other out of a difficult situation.  

Why Matriarchy was overthrown is open to speculation but in my opinion this may have come about because of Women’s complacency.  Because men are so passive, Women may have taken their obedience for granted and perhaps tried to give men equality.  As the result they were no longer telling men what to do.  This created a power vacuum, where men looked around for someone, anyone, to tell them what to do, and alpha men then took over the dominance of men and filled this power vacuum.

            {Rasa says:  In my opinion, males became the way they are over evolution of thousands of years.  When women chose men that were more ‘masculine’ over many years, they became more ‘zombie-like’ – without compassion or caring, like machines.  And these machines, then, no longer caring or having any soft feelings, turned on their masters – the women, & formed their own brotherhood of foul play.  This I believe is portrayed in the ‘Lucifer to Satan’ myth, where he turned against God & said ‘I will not obey!  And a THIRD of the ‘angels’ went with him.  This indicates a third of the human men followed the EVIL SPIRIT.  At least two thirds of them did not.} 

The concept of a power vacuum comes from patriarchal politics, where if there isn’t a strong leader ruling a country, then this creates a power vacuum and someone like a warlord ends up taking over.  This has happened in recent time in Somalia, with the collapse of its government in 1991, no other political group has been powerful enough to take power.  This has resulted is that the country is being controlled by competing warlords. 

A power vacuum only comes about because men are so submissive they need someone to tell them what to do.  So if no one is doing this, then it is open to anyone to adopt the alpha role and take power.  Because men are so submissive and were so obedient to Women, many Women got the idea that men were not a threat to them.  And because Women in general are fair-minded, some of them began to feel it was unfair that men were second-class citizens, and decided to give men equality. 

There is some archaeological evidence for this.  Towards the end of the Neolithic age were previously archaeologists had found only images of Goddesses, then suddenly there appeared Goddesses with sons.  They at first were infant sons but then it seems the sons grew up and become the Goddess’s brother or lover.  So these images suggested strongly that men and Women are equal. This might sound very sensible and reasonable, but men didn’t know what to do with their newfound freedom and were still looking around for someone to tell them what to do, and this created a power vacuum.

            {Rasa says:  Which came first, the cart or the horse, the chicken or the egg?  I think over thousands of years males became less & less empathetic until they thought they were ‘as great’ as women & said, ‘I will not serve’ as in the Lucifer to Satan myth, & there, sent to their own Hell of Patriarchy, where Satan & his men/demons have been trying to drag the rest of humanity ever since.}

If Women were not telling men what to do, then men looked within their own sex for a leader, so these alpha men filled the power vacuum left by Women.  Yet even then Women may not have done anything about this, they didn’t see the danger signs and let things progress.  They at first may have found it convenient that instead of telling a lot of men individually what to do, they just tell the alpha male what to do and he would organize everything for them.  And so it wasn’t a problem while these alpha males were still subordinate to Women.  It only became a problem when the alpha males decided they wanted to rule Women in the same way they were ruling other men. 

What many Women don’t understand about men is that equality is an alien concept to the masculine mind. If we look at male animals like stags, bulls or lions the males fight each other for dominance and the strongest male gets to mate with all the females.  There is no concept of equality, you are either a winner or loser, and the winner takes it all and the loser gets nothing. We can see the same in competitive sports which men really like, there has to be a winner or loser.  The same is true in war, with each side fighting to win, and it is also true of the patriarchal society, which is organized as a hierarchical structure.  Even when men set out with the purpose of creating an equal society like with communism and socialism they completely failed. 

            {Rasa:  I like this theory.  Equality works with children, like you don’t give more to one child than another of food or work or freedom, you try to make it equal according to their needs.  Like a little tyke can carry a small bucket of water to the barn while a teen carries a big bucket, but each carries a bucket according to their strength & each gets the same amount of food to what their stomach can hold.  But between men & women I agree, the woman is the Mother & therefore, she rules.  A woman’s brain is so vastly different than a man’s, she is born to rule, he isn’t.  He can’t even think straight.}

So if men were not allowed to be subordinate to Women, because Women were claiming that man and Women were equal, then because the masculine mind didn’t understand equality, the only other option men had, was to dominate Women.  And they learnt they could do this through violence. After all, men being bigger and stronger than Women, always had the advantage in violent situations.  The problem alpha men had, was that normal men didn’t want to do this, so they had started a propaganda campaign to convince men that Women were inferior to them.  So by becoming convinced, through clever propaganda that Women were after all inferior to themselves, men no longer had any qualms about using violence against Women.  Starting a worldwide revolution where men have been dominating Women through violence ever since.

            {Dr. Daniel Amen did 70k scans on the brains of men & women & he said, on the Dr. Oz show that men think with their primitive {back} brain & can only think with one side of their brain at a time.  Their frontal lobes are asleep while the back part – the primitive – part of the brain is active.  And they have few connections with the corpus collasum network.  So we are talking primitive vs. civilized brain – the women’s brains were awake both front & back with many connections.  So now this BEAST dominates women & children?}

{Ajax says:  It's no wonder us fellas are generally not very good at multitasking.  It's kinda hard when we only use at most half of our brains at a time, lol.  Ditto for our tendency for linear thinking as well, as opposed to nonlinear or spiral thinking.  As the late Monica Sjoo once said, we take all the natural spirals and forcibly bend them into straight lines.)

Once one Matriarchal community become patriarchal, then these new patriarchal men started conquering neighbouring Matriarchal tribes and civilizations.  The world didn’t become patriarchal overnight it is estimated that the first patriarchal tribe came into being about 6,000 years ago, but the last major country to become patriarchal was Japan, at about 300 BC.  Some areas of Matriarchy have clung on into fairly recent historic times.  Like the Basque people of Northern Spain and Southern France, the Czech people in modern day Czech Republic, the Berbers of the Sahara desert, the Gypsies and the Keralal people of India.  Some of Matriarchal communities have survived into modern times, like the The Minangkabau people in Western Sumatra, the Mosou people of China and the Hopi Indians of North America. 

Therefore men have a choice of being ruled by alpha men or by Women.  I am aware that Feminists who prefer sexual equality reject this concept but they have to accept that men are very different to Women.  Feminism makes no sense to men, because it is about sexual equality, all they want to know is where they stand in the pecking order.  So if they are told that Women are inferior to him he will exploit and abuse Women, and if he is told that Women are superior him he will obey Women and expect her to exploit him.

            {Rasa says:  The feminists were a BEGINNING, only asking for equality under the law, a first step.  They did not yet ask for Matriarchy, as that’s too far ahead.  But after feminism, comes female empowerment, female superiority & Matriarchy.  We wanted it in the first place, but we had to start with equality under the law.  Women did not tell men what they wanted in their hearts, what they knew was right – dominance over them.  If they did, they would have been taken for lunatics.  Even equality was met with violence.  Betty Freidan got a black eye from her husband before her first sit-in at the bar of the Plaza Hotel, NYC.}

This is what happened at the beginning of the patriarchal age.  Men were told they are equal to Women, but this made no sense to men.  So in the minds of men, if Women were no longer superior to them, then they had to be inferior.  Once men accepted this idea, then it made patriarchy possible, but in modern times, if men were told that this was wrong and Women are superior to men after all, then Matriarchy becomes possible once again. 

For this reason, in every patriarchal society, alpha men have seen Women as a threat to their power.  Even today in Islam they have the ‘honour’ system, where Women are beaten up or killed if they are ‘disrespectful’ or disobedient to men.  Social pressure has forced men to kill their wives, sisters and even mothers.  If Women were the natural submissive sex then there would be no reason for men to use extreme violence against Women to keep them submissive.  Women would simply do as they were told without violence and intimidation.  The fact that, Islamic society has to encourage men to beat up and even kill Women to make them obedient, suggests that Women are not naturally submissive.

            {Rasa says:  Humans are most violent to those they FEAR & men FEAR WOMEN THE MOST.  Example, I feed black bears in my friend’s cottage in PA.  They are not violent but powerful, & men fear them.  So once bears come around, they want to stop them, even kill them.  But I found they are wonderfully tame if you treat them with kindness – they just want to EAT.  Yes they can kill us, but they don’t want to.  But men want to KILL THEM because they FEAR THEM.}

It is like in slavery, the only reason why slaves where whipped, beaten and killed were because slaves resented being forced to work for no money.  So if violence is used to force anyone to obey, it means they are being forced to go against their natural behaviour.

            {Rasa says:  Good point.  You don’t have to force someone to do what they want to do.}

{Ajax says:  Indeed.}

What is less known is that they had a similar though not so extreme system in Western countries.  Up until the 20th century a husband was considered to be ‘unmanly’ if he couldn’t dominate his wife.  So men were encouraged to ‘control’ their wives through violence.  Also Women were denied education and not allowed to have any job or career that gave them power, wealth or status.   So the very fact that the patriarchal society has to actively oppress Women to ‘keep them under control’ means that submissiveness is not Women’s natural behaviour.

            {Rasa says:  They controlled us through unjust laws, like in marriage a woman’s property becomes the man’s, the property of a dead man goes to the eldest son, not the wife, women not allowed Higher Education with men, women denied jobs.  Women being denied jobs is a biggie.  Then they forced us to be dependent on men, a totally unnatural situation.} 

{Ajax says:  Patriarchy is a massive protection racket, and the world's oldest one too.}

Patriarchal propaganda likes to claim that man was always the dominant sex, and claims that in prehistoric times men were violent brutes who dominated Women even more then they did in historic times.  Yet, there is no proof of this whatsoever.  Scientists know nothing of the social structure of pre-historic people, but that doesn’t stop them speculating about it and then presenting these speculations to the public as scientific fact.

            {Rasa says:  Wishful thinking got written into history books.  Men are the heroes, then why are 98% of American prisoners men?} 

There is a lot of evidence from the large amount of Goddess statues discovered in prehistoric excavation that humans once held Women in very high esteem.  But this fact is not told to the general public.  What holds Women back from regaining power and dominance over men once more is patriarchal brainwashing that tells men and Women that men are the ‘natural’ dominant sex.  So that even today in the West, men still think they have to dominate their wives or they are not a ‘real’ man.  While many Women suppress their normal dominance over men, because they think it is ‘unnatural’ for Women to be bossy. 

            {Rasa says:  I explain in my books, ‘Old Woman – Young Man, Why They Belong Together’ how men are ridiculed & humiliated to act certain ways to women, like NOT being attracted to older women.  But in reality they are attracted to old women, especially when they are young.  And they want the security of the woman with experience & knowledge over them.}

{Ajax says:  Very true indeed.  Most younger men would love to have an older Woman as a "mentor with benefits", as it were.  But patriarchal society does everything they can to prevent that from happening, as that would be the beginning of the end for the system of patriarchy.}

The fact is, that the average man would be far better off living in a Matriarchy than the present patriarchal system. Simply because patriarchy doesn’t benefit the average man, it only benefits the very small minority of alpha men, who ruthlessly exploit the general population and do stupid things like start wars with other countries.  The average man would be far better off in a Matriarchy where the female rulers would care about the people they rule and wouldn’t be interested in fighting wars to settle disputes between countries. 

{Ajax says:  Patriarchy is a net negative-sum game for everyone but the oligarchs at the top.  Most men, at least 90-95% do NOT actually benefit on balance from patriarchy, and in fact suffer a net LOSS from it all.  It chews them up and spits them out.  Men would be far better off under Matriarchy instead, and contrary to popular opinion, they would still have individual civil rights and liberties.  (And if the Mosuo are any indication, better sex lives as well!)  So one way to get men to support Matriarchy, and thus surrender to Women, is to take a page from H.L. Mencken and NOT to appeal to their better nature, as they may not have one, but rather appeal to their self-interest, which they certainly have.}

So it means that we all, (both men and Women) need to see patriarchal propaganda for what it is, just propaganda.  It is vitally important that we question the way patriarchy brainwashes our children to act against their natural instincts, so men can accept their submissive behaviour without feeling ‘unmanly’, while Women can likewise accept that it is natural for them to dominate men. 

Academic Feminists, like Cynthia Eller, have been taken in completely by patriarchal propaganda, so they believe that if women were to demand Matriarchy or even a Goddess worshipping religion, men will react against them with violence.  Yet, if we look around the world, what we find is the opposite.  The greatest degree of violence against Women is in extreme patriarchal countries where Women have no legal rights whatsoever.  In Western countries where Women, legally at least have equal rights, is where there is far less violence against Women.  Men do not beat up Women who they think are above them in the pecking order, they only beat up Women who they see as below them. 

Men only beat up, rape and murder Women because they have been brainwashed into believing that Women are inferior to them and they have to inflict violence onto Women to retain their place in the pecking order.  It would certainly help to get rid of the ‘role models’ boys and men see on films or in video games of extremely violent ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’.  These films and video games give out, the not so subtle message, that, “you can solve all problems through violence” and that, “a ‘real’ man is a violent man”.

            {Rasa says:  There is a website called ‘killology’ created by a wise man,

LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Director, Killology Research Group

www.killology.com

Killology Research Group

KILLOLOGY, (n): The scholarly study of the destructive act, just as sexology is the scholarly study of the procreative act. In particular, killology focuses on the reactions of healthy people in killing circumstances (such as police and military in combat) and the factors that enable and restrain killing in these situations.} 

This means that both Women and men are victims of patriarchal brainwashing, and the sooner we can get rid of it and stop it being fed to our children, the better off we all will be. 

{Rasa says:  Brainwashing is what?  A sort of HYPNOSIS where people believe a thing because they are told – true or not.  They start this in the womb.  And it isn’t easy – the TRUTH is within us by instinct, by logic & common sense, so they have to inculcate it on us day & night, on & on.  Men have to work hard at holding down both men & women & keep them from their natural instincts.}

Ajax says:  Very well-said, both of you.  The brainwashing required to keep this evil system going is indeed very insidious and has been going on for thousands of years in one form or another.  Some may think that censorship and "cancel culture" is the solution, but of course that does nothing to get to the root of the problem, which is too much censorship of viewpoints that contradict the patriarchal ideologies and dogmas.  The solution is thus to jam the culture with the opposite sort of messages, until patriarchy ultimately withers on the vine--and Women, the better half of humanity, ultimately reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, God willing.