Fascism Begets Fascism

First, they came for the immigrants.....

We have seen this movie before, and it does NOT end well at all!  And remember, every time, the road to fascism is literally always paved with, "you're overreacting".

Trump's increasingly fascist agenda is currently picking up warp speed as we speak.  Mass roundups and deportations of immigrants (and not only "illegals", by the way!), literal concentration camps (this time with crass merchandising too!), no due process, stifling dissent, unitary rule by decree, and so on, is bad enough as it is, and it will NOT stop there.  And his gutting of Medicaid and SNAP, especially the part about the "work requirements", is clearly not only a classist agenda against poor people, but also a eugenicist agenda against disabled people as well.  (From that very first time when we saw him openly mock that disabled reporter, we all should have known exactly what Trump was really all about.)  Fascism and eugenics have always gone hand in hand, as we have infamously seen throughout history, just as much as it is aligned with misogyny and racism.

And now he has brazenly signed a sweeping and very disturbing executive order targeting homeless people, especially those with mental disabilities.  They, along with disabled people in general, are the "canaries in the coal mine" of every fascist oppression and genocide.  This, dear reader, is how it escalates even further.  You were warned.

And the Democrats as a group, with a few exceptions here and there, have been pretty spineless throughout this whole ordeal.  And even before the election, they were pretty lackluster and neoliberal too.  Not only did they fail to implement a genuine, economically progressive agenda, but their divisive identity politics really seemed to get the better of them, and the asinine "catch and release" and "defund the police" approach to crime that some of them had regrettably supported, has served only to bait voters into voting for the self-proclaimed "law and order" (lol) strongman dictator.

For years, at least since his first successful campaign began in 2015, Trump has been proudly waving his red flags like a matador in front of a bull, while the majority of Americans responded with a collective shrug (that is, if they don't support him even more as a result).  Though now, hopefully the tide is finally, if belatedly, turning against him.

(For the EPSTEINTH time, RELEASE THE FILES!)

That said, some activists on social media (Bluesky, of course, but also a bit on X and Substack too) recently seem to have missed the mark about exactly how we got here.  Some have claimed that because we "rushed back to normal" from the pandemic and therefore somehow in doing so "threw disabled people by the wayside" when we ended the COVID "mitigation" measures, that was eugenicist and has thus led to the latest fascist and eugenicist tendencies.  Sigh.  Normally, I would not even dignify such a wild assertion with a response, but it has been said over and over again so many times that now I think I should address it.

First, the specious claim that we somehow "rushed" (lol) back to normal can be debunked right out the gate:  waiting two years is NOT exactly "rushing"!  It was more like taking the very, very scenic route back to normal.  Remember, these so-called "mitigation" measures (lockdowns, mask mandates, antisocial distancing, school and business closures, and so on) were originally supposed to be for "just two weeks".  Riiiiiight.  How quickly we forget!  And it's not like these illiberal and authoritarian measures were really effective, as the best evidence shows that these measures were worse than useless overall.  So two years of rolling mandates of various flavors, was two years too long.  The only way out of a pandemic is through, and "flattening the curve" only drags it out longer than it would otherwise be.

Of course, this is speaking in generalities.  What about disabled people more specifically?  Well, disabled people are NOT a monolith, so we need to get even more specific still:  immunocompromised, medically fragile, or otherwise severely and disproportionately vulnerable to the specific virus in question.  Again, there is zero evidence that these illiberal "mitigation" measures actually protected them one iota, and to the extent that they delayed the inevitable, such vulnerable people were essentially forced to isolate even longer until at least the very worst of the pandemic was over.  And in the long run, doing so only increased their odds of exposure, while decreasing whatever natural immunity they would have had otherwise.

Meanwhile, plenty of people with various disabilities were directly and indirectly harmed by the measures themselves, the same or more so than the general population.  This was true for all ages, of course, but a fortiori for children.

Thus, it would have been far better on balance had we simply adopted the "flu strategy", let natural "herd immunity" develop as a wall of protection around the truly vulnerable people, and kept society and the economy functioning as normally as humanly possibly throughout the entire pandemic, all while making an earnest effort to actually treat the disease.  Forcing everyone to live as if they are medically fragile or immunocompromised doesn't actually help those who really are. And revoking civil rights and liberties ultimately helps no one except the oligarchs.

It should go without saying, but it still needs to be said.  Liberty is NOT a zero-sum game!  My liberty protects you, and your liberty protects me.  And as fellow Americans, we should thus protect each other.  See what I did there?

So, long story short, no one was actually "thrown by the wayside" in the name of "back to normal".  And in any case, the pandemic is long over now:  even though the virus still exists to this day, by 2023 (or earlier) it has mutated down to become far less dangerous, and practically everyone has already had it, often multiple times.  It's basically the new common cold or seasonal flu now.  So get that specious narrative out of your heads.  And furthermore, if anything, these illiberal and undemocratic measures (and worse, the jab mandates) only paved the way for full-blown fascism by shifting the Overton Window in the direction of authoritarianism, while also at the same time angering the "silent majority" into being more likely to vote for the party that (ironically) did these things the least during the pandemic, and were much sooner to go back to normal.  The Branch Covidians really have a LOT to answer for!

(No wonder the MAGA-aligned crypto-fascists were able to pose themselves as the "reasonable" or "based" ones, until they got (re-)elected and the masks came off once again.  And the Dems lost a lot of credibility by stubbornly waiting so long to pivot on Covid, and then doing so abruptly.)

And when some people on the fringes argue that such illiberal "mitigation" should never have ended at all, well, they are literally giving ammunition to the fascists to not only reify and reinforce authoritarianism in general, but also to unwittingly bait them and even the fence-sitters into even more eugenics as well.  You can just hear the fascists whipping up an even bigger eugenicist scapegoating frenzy now:  "Those people over there are costing you, not only your hard-earned money, but your civil rights and liberties as well!", and people not being able to see the irony of it all.

Fascism begets fascism.  Every single time.

(Mic drop)

P.S.  Masks are still useless (or worse) for the most part against airborne viruses.  See the 2023 Cochrane Review, for example.  And as long as we are on the general subject of covering one's faces, albeit in a very different, non-medical context, there is NO good reason why any law enforcement agents (including ICE) should be covering their faces while making arrests.  NONE.  Seriously, if you really are so sure you are doing the right thing, then show your faces!

Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Guarantee For All Now More Than Ever

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.  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.  

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.  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.
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.  

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

Shutting Down The Agora Does NOT Benefit The Hestia

One thing some people seem to believe is that the coronavirus lockdowns were good regardless of the virus because they somehow strengthened the domestic sphere, and thus benefited Women.  That is, shutting down the Agora (marketplace or public sphere) was supposedly good for the Hestia (home and hearth, or private/domestic sphere), and by extension good for Women on balance.   But not only is there no hard evidence of any such benefit (and in fact plenty of harm), it also reeks to high heaven of gender essentialism as well.  And such gender essentialism is a pedestal that looks more and more like a prison every day.

Shutting down the Agora (or at least the parts considered "non-essential" by the powers that be) and unduly restricting civil rights and liberties does far more harm than good.  It is a crude and blunt instrument that does not just affect this thing over here, but also that thing over there, and that other thing way over there, and so on.  Mass unemployment, depression (both psychological and economic), poverty, poor mental health, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, loneliness, and things like that are not at all good for anyone, Women catch the brunt of it, and adversely effects both the public and private spheres.

Seriously, don't shut down again!

Women Could Actually Take Over The World Right Now

What if I were to tell you that Women could take over the world right now?  Not in 2050, 2030, or even 2021, but 2020 within a matter of weeks?

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So yes, Women could actually take over the world now if they implemented such a strike.  Men are extremely vulnerable right now due to the coronavirus pandemic and the related social and sexual dry spell resulting from social distancing, which seems to be hitting men harder than Women (though both are clearly suffering). And the economic recession depression collapse resulting from both the pandemic itself as well as the lockdowns and shutdowns done to suppress it will, like all economic busts, hit men harder than Women and they may never fully recover.  Men will be begging Women for a bailout as well--but of course, whoever has the gold makes the rules, and whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

In fact, if Women were to withdraw ALL healing energy (not just sex) from men at once during this fairly narrow window of opportunity, men would really be in a collapsed state and totally conquered.   Though this option does come with its share of collateral damage, to be sure.

That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  And with the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing right now, it will only make it all the more easier.

VIVE LA FEMME!