Friendly Reminder: War Is STILL A Racket

 

(Updated for 2024, in light of current events.  See also this article as well.)

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

(Especially now with the world being at 90 seconds to midnight (!) on the Doomsday Clock. That is, the risk of nuclear war is the highest it has been in quite a while now.  If, God forbid, a "hot" war between the USA and Russia and/or China were to occur, the odds of it going nuclear are practically certain.)

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

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

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

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

From the Wikipedia article:

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

The work is divided into five chapters:

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

It contains this summary:

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

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

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

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

In other words, it steals, kills, and destroys.  Kinda like....SATAN. 

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

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

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

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

Again, as noted on Wikipedia:

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

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

It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. […] Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month [NOTE: that's $667/month in 2024 dollars], the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

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

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

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

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

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

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

War was a racket then, and still is today.  And it always will be as long as it exists.

As General Butler famously said, 

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

"Either war is obsolete, or man is."

-- Buckminster Fuller

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

-- Edwin Starr

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

-- The Decemberists

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

-- Phil Ochs

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

-- Phil Ochs

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

-- Phil Ochs 

"We share the same biology, regardless of ideology. But what might save us, me and you, Is if the Russians love their children too"

-- Sting and Sergei Prokofiev 

New Name For Blog: "Vive La Difference!"

Recently, I thought that the original blog name "The Chalice and the Flame" was getting a bit too stale and obscure to keep it any longer.  Then I thought of the famous French phrase, "Vive la difference!", as a better alternative.  Literally meaning "long live the difference" (that is, between Women and men), I feel it is a bit more to the point for this blog.  

To avoid causing any technical difficulties, the legacy URL, http://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com, will continue to be used for the time being.

Vive la femme!  Vive la difference!

NOTE:  This blog is NOT affiliated with either Riane Eisler (author of "The Chalice and the Blade") or the Unitarian Universalist Church (whose symbol is a flaming chalice).

Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is (Updated Re-Post)

(Original version of this article from 2020 can be found here)

Author Yuri Zavorotny wrote a great article four years ago for Medium, in which he articulates something that we all intuitively know (but often don't want to say out loud) about the patriarchy and how to end it.  After first establishing that patriarchy is inherently evil (and thus cannot be redeemed), he then goes on about what holds it all together.  This thing that holds the entire construct all together is its sine qua non and thus is it's own Achilles' heel, and that thing is control of female sexuality, and the primary tool used to control that is slut-shaming.  That is, the shaming of Women for expressing their sexuality in the way they choose.  And thus the "kill switch" is to put an end to this utterly toxic and outmoded practice of slut-shaming.

Wait, what?  There is still slut-shaming in 2024?  Absolutely.  It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there.  The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition.  And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.

(Most ironically, even today to some extent, some Women often still enforce it on each other as well--talk about being one's own worst enemy!  At best, that's NOT a sisterhood, that's a cartel, driven by an internalized misogynistic slave mentality.)

That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.

As Yuri Zavorotny himself says:

So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.

And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:

NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.

Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality).  As I have repeatedly noted before, the suppression of Women's sexuality was not entirely about maintaining control over the male bloodline (though that was originally a major part of it), but more generally about power and control over Women directly, as well as over other men indirectly via artificial scarcity.  Ditto for patriarchy's equally peculiar prohibitions against self-pleasuring and homosexuality as well.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function.  That is how the oligarchs control the serfs.  And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance.  The analogy should be apparent now.

Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later.  And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy.  That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

Furthermore, as I have noted in another article, any attempt at a reactionary "sexual counterrevolution" is of course doomed to backfire and ultimately fail to benefit Women on balance.  Ditto for any conservative, reactionary, neoliberal, anti-modernist, primitivist, or pseudo-feminist attempts to dismantle the social welfare state as well, by the way.

One thing needs to be crystal clear.  As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight at least twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well.  The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory in any way, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period.  And that is true for both Women and men, by the way.  Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things.  Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for.  The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well, which is also infantilizing to Women.

(Note that there is in fact NO proven precedent in all of recorded history where Women had sexual freedom but men did not, or at least not for long enough to ever be recorded, probably because doing so is mathematically impossible without creating a massive "black market" for sex per the iron laws of supply and demand.)

Put simply:  Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.  To quote the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder:

My associate Ajax the Great & I agree, sexual freedom is the KILL SWITCH FOR PATRIARCHY.  When Women do whatever they want sexually, & no longer fear men, men will have nothing to fight for.  Consider a ram with his harem. The harem runs off & mates with the other guys in the woods.  No more head banging, lol.  We will end war by being sexually free."

Liberty (sexual or otherwise) is NOT a zero-sum game.  In fact, liberty is like love:  the more you give, the more you get. 

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

The Faustain Bargain That Wasn't, Or, Shutting Down The Agora Did NOT Benefit The Hestia (Combined And Updated Re-Post)

One perennial theme that seems to run through some circles of the Goddess Movement and Matriarchy Movement is the idea that Women made a sort of Faustian bargain during the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 1970s.  That deal, as the narrative goes, consisted of essentially "assimilating" into patriarchy by becoming more like men (i.e. less feminine and more masculine) or at least aspiring to the privileges once reserved for men.  And that is supposedly a very, very Bad Thing, as it supposedly represents the ultimate triumph of men over Women, and thus the ultimate triumph of the patriarchy.   The term "Female Erasure" is sometimes used to describe it as well, though the connotation varies.

Gender essentialism aside, this narrative indeed has all of the makings of a good story, except that it isn't really true.  What is sometimes called the "Eclipse" of the 1960s (or 1970s or 1980s, depending on one's perspective) does superficially seem to fit this narrative.  Instead of the patriarchy chewing Women up and spitting them out as in the pre-1960s world, this time Women appear to have been swallowed whole.  But what better way to finally destroy the patriarchy than from within?  In the belly of the beast, Women have been gaining almost unprecedented power, and soon they will be able to burst through and finally lay waste to that evil system once and for all, and replace it with their own, Goddess willing.

After all, sometimes darkness can show you the Light.  And besides, the apparently increasing aggression of Women actually began with suffragette and First Wave Feminist icon Emmeline Pankhurst, half a century before the 1960s even began.  Even Nikola Tesla remarked upon it in a 1924 interview, also predicting (quite accurately, it now seems) that Women would eventually take over the world.

So it appears that this so-called Faustian bargain was really not one at all.  And those purists and "retreatists", as I like to call them, who claim it is and want to somehow reverse it can easily find themselves to be inadvertent strange bedfellows with the reactionary Phyllis Schlaflys and other anti-feminist counterrevolutionaries of the world.  Unless, of course, that was really their intention all along.

Furthermore, the theory can be empirically tested in real time simply by taking a good and honest look at the consequences of the initial acute (and later chronic and rolling) Covid lockdowns and shutdowns of 2020-2021 in most of the world.  I mean, what better way to test if there was a net benefit shutting down or retreating from the supposedly hopelessly corrupt and irredeemable Agora (i.e. marketplace, or public sphere), in favor of the Hestia (i.e. home and hearth, or private sphere).  Had the theory been true, we would all be having a massive renaissance by now.  And, well, we all know the answer now:  it was in practice an unmitigated disaster in so many ways for everyone but the oligarchs, and especially so for Women as a class, setting them back decades in a matter of months, and still not fully recovered four years later.  I mean, after the "plague" should come the Renaissance once again, if history is any guide, but alas, that did not happen.  Neoliberalism is now worse than ever.

In other words, as I like to say, retreatism is defeatism.

And rest assured, try as treacherous men may, the true Divine Feminine can never, ever be truly erased or extinguished, as to do so would literally impossible.  And once Women reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, then we will really know that for certain, Goddess willing.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks that AI or robots will somehow successfully replace Women will be in for a very rude awakening.  After all, it is the SPIRIT that quickens (gives life), NOT the flesh, and AI literally has NEITHER spirit nor flesh.

Why (Sexual) Capitalism Must Die, And How To Humanely Euthanize It (Updated Re-Post)

I have discussed before how that favorite evil brainchild of patriarchy, capitalism, is literally killing our Mother Earth as we speak, and is thus both ecocidal and ultimately suicidal since humanity is in fact part of Nature (despite frequent and stubborn protestations to the contrary).  And that the only way to humanely euthanize that vile system is to give it the one thing it cannot survive--ABUNDANCE--while harsh austerity measures of any kind (ecological or otherwise) will ultimately backfire in the end, leaving us permanently stuck in a very bad place while still ending up destroying ourselves along with our planet.  (That is, like futurist Walter Baltzley said, the best way to win a tug-of-war against a stronger opponent is to simply let go of the rope and let them fall down.)  But did you know that capitalism also has a sexual dimension as well?

Wait, what?  That's right--and it is one that would make Freud himself blush beet red.  So much so that capitalism should really be called "greed patriarchy", while patriarchy should really be called "lust capitalism" or "sexual capitalism".  Please allow me to explain:

• While financial rentier capitalism uses artificial scarcity of money, goods and services, etc. to control the masses, sexual capitalism uses artificial scarcity of sex (and sex substitutes) to do the same.
• Sexual capitalism, which is part and parcel of patriarchy, uses the "commodity model" of sexuality to make sex just artificially scarce enough for the conditions of the times to effect maximum control of the masses.
• In the commodity model of sexuality, sex (however defined) is seen as something of value (perhaps even a sort of "currency" at times) that men "take" from Women, but not the other way around, and is seen as a zero-sum game.  A Woman's worth is thus considered inversely proportional to her level of sexual experience, while the reverse is usually (though not always) true for men (i.e. the classic double standard, slut-shaming, etc.).
• Therefore, men have a vested interest to keep the "cost" of sex as low as possible, while Women have a vested interest in keeping the "cost" of sex as high as possible.  One can see how this does not exactly make for harmonious gender relations or mutuality, since the interests of Women and men are inherently opposed in this model.
• At the same time, the (mostly) male elites have a vested interest to keep the "cost" of sex as high as possible, or at least just high enough to control the masses.  This is typically done by punishing Women in one way or another for having too much and/or the wrong kind of sex (i.e. "giving it away" for free or cheap), imposing a very high cost on Women who then pass some of that cost onto men.  Or demanding for specious and spurious reasons that sex be only for procreation and claiming that sexual pleasure especially for its own sake is somehow "sinful".  Thus, they control Women in order to indirectly control men, while (in the days before modern birth control and DNA testing) also ensuring paternity certainty as well.
• That explains the patriarchy's arcane and archaic rules against not only "fornication" and adultery (note how usually only Women have historically been punished for these in practice), but also masturbation, homosexuality, non-monogamy, non-coital sexual activities, abortion, "artificial" birth control, divorce (albeit with some nuance), pornography (albeit with some nuance), and most ironically of all, prostitution (despite the fact that patriarchal marriage is often little more than long-term prostitution in practice).  It also explains why so many self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" have the GALL to oppose birth control despite the fact that it actually has the net effect of reducing the number of abortions due to fewer unwanted pregnancies.
• A high cost of sex (and its substitutes), ceteris paribus, leads to higher birthrates (Women are the brood mares in this system) and more work done by men (men are the work horses) in order to gain access to sex, which ultimately makes the rich richer going.  A low cost of sex (or its substitutes), especially sex for pleasure, leads to lower birthrates and theoretically less incentive for the serfs to work harder to make the rich richer.
• Thus, a relatively high cost of sex is seen as necessary for the oligarchs to keep the whole Ponzi scheme of growth for the sake of growth (i.e. the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host) going to make them even richer.
• And the experience of physical pleasure, affection, and intimacy in general (not just sex, but overall) are restricted to one degree or another, so much so that people end up craving it even more through a narrow little keyhole called sex, particularly coitus.
• Not that such sexual strictures really make The System any more virtuous in any sense, of course.  A certain amount of male-defined prostitution, sex trafficking/slavery, rape, and even full-blown pedophilia and incest is virtually always tolerated or even tacitly encouraged (clandestinely or otherwise) to one degree or another in patriarchy provided it does not threaten The System or inadvertently give Women too much power.  And these ills tend to explode when sex in general is highly restricted and costly (see what happened in the Victorian era, for example).  It's all just "collateral damage" in the eyes of the patriarchy and the oligarchy, basically.
• And of course, Women primarily get blamed for "getting themselves raped", rather than the men who rape them, since under the commodity model, the onus falls on Women to be "gatekeepers" of the  "commodity" in question and keep it it from becoming "too cheap" in the "marketplace".  And the resulting fear of rape (and blame/shame for it) is used as a cudgel to keep Women "in their place".
• And much like in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, patriarchy relies on Women to police each other (enter slut-shaming, body-shaming, the "mommy wars", etc.), further enhancing the divide-and-conquer aspect of The System.
• And just like financial capitalism, sexual capitalism functionally sets itself up as a contest to see who cares the least, in more ways than one.  A contest that MEN, not coincidentally, nearly always win.

And really it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this model perpetuates the 7000 year battle of the sexes, promotes rape culture (much like how financial capitalism promotes crimes motivated by money and possessions), and even contributes to the destruction of Mother Earth in the process via overpopulation and ecological overshoot.  At best, it inherently centers men at the expense of Women, and to say that is actually being quite charitable.  Fortunately, the whole "commodity model" of sexuality is indeed currently dying as we speak, and that is a GOOD thing. Such an outmoded, outdated, toxic, and sexist paradigm is downright dehumanizing to both primary genders, and we would all better off without it. Sex is a mutual act, and it is time we started treating it as such. And marriage for economic reasons rather than love is becoming increasingly obsolete, as it should in an increasingly egalitarian society. And while marriage can be re-purposed for a post-patriarchal society, the idea that everybody must get married as the sine qua non of "real adulthood" is outmoded and no longer holds any real water in the 21st century.  Ditto for the whole "everybody must procreate" mentality as well, which is now downright maladaptive in a world of overpopulation and ecological overshoot. 

(Note that I while I condemn the commodity model, I do NOT intend to disparage any actual sex workers of any kind.  They are, after all, some of the most honest people on Earth when it comes to their intentions, and in any case are not the real problem here.  It is the "little man behind the curtain"--the system of patriarchy and capitalism--that is the real problem.)

This inherently capitalistic and patriarchal model should be regarded as obsolete and outmoded, and replaced yesterday with the "performance model" or "mutual pleasure model" of sexuality.  And thus sexual capitalism will also be humanely euthanized by giving it the one thing it cannot survive--ABUNDANCE.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin! 

Who's Afraid Of An Aging (And Shrinking) Population? (Updated for 2024)

I had long wondered why so many men, especially the elites, are terrified that our overall population is (gasp!) aging. It is not just because they fear that their economic Ponzi scheme of necrotic growth for the sake of growth will unravel, though that is clearly part of it as well. No, I think that their real fear is that the Crones (i.e. Women over age 50 or so) will have an *unprecedented* level of power due to relative strength in numbers, and thus so will Women in general. That is because Women are living longer than ever before, as well as having fewer kids. And the men are getting scared.  Hence the recent push to whittle away Women's reproductive rights, eventually including most if not all birth control as well.

Additionally, with birthrates declining over time, and each new generation thus slightly smaller than then previous one, that effectively means that there will be fewer younger Women relative to slightly older men, giving younger Women that much more bargaining power in the dating market despite an overall surplus of Women in general.  Thus by the 2030s, Women will get the best of both worlds, and be even more empowered as a result of such demographic trends.

(Note that this also means that statistically more younger men will be "mentored" by older Women in that regard as per the laws of supply and demand, which would also help further accelerate the transition to Matriarchy as well.)

Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population?  Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are essentially overblown.  In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per Woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population.  Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.  Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks.  And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare.

Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION.  Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life.  While technology (and Monetary Sovereignty) can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation.  And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so.  According to the best evidence, the best ways to accomplish this is 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is the MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise).  Seriously. 

Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.

So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5?  Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long.  Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective.  Well, the answer to that, again, is increased Female empowerment.  We see that European countries with greater Female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for Mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece.  Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per Woman.  

And now the USA, thanks in part to the pandemic and the lockdowns, and likely the jabs as well, birthrates have REALLY crashed through the basement.  The estimated TFR for the USA in 2020 is as low as 1.64, a record low.  And no sign of reversal anytime soon.

The proof is clearly in the pudding.

(Recently, there was a reactionary right-wing article that actually said the quiet part out loud about what the right-wing reactionaries and sexual counterrevolutionaries really want to do, if you have the stomach to read such disgusting verbal defecation. TL;DR version:  when Women are forced or coerced to mate in captivity, and/or otherwise forced or coerced to be utterly dependent on men, their birthrates are way higher than when they are not, go figure.  In other news, water is wet and the sun rises in the east.)

Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight.  But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time.  And honestly, it can't happen soon enough.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.  We have been warned, decades ago in fact. 

As the great Marianne Williamson once said, at this juncture of history we are now at the "menopause" of humanity, in which what we really need is fewer babies, and more wisdom.

In other words, VIVE LA FEMME!  Let the planetary healing begin!

Only Women Can Break The Cycle Of History (Re-Post)

 

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.

To be fair, many civilizations have lasted for much more than 200 years, and sometimes some of the stages listed here are truncated, inverted, and/or leapfrogged over entirely.  But as a general rule or heuristic, it largely holds true. 

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!