More New Videos From Guru Rasa Von Werder

ICYMI, more new videos from the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder:

ICYMI, Guru Rasa Von Werder Is Back On YouTube

The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder is now back on YouTube again.  Here are the first and second videos from her new series:

First video:  "Introduction to the new Podcast: Guru Rasa Von Werder preaches & teaches what she knows about God"  https://youtu.be/CXQAh5RO2Ls?si=AmY-7M-2gQ6F4T3P

Second video: "Who & What Is God? Guru Rasa Has Finally Solved the Mystery" https://youtu.be/PFqKXCWwLcQ?si=_lYunocJlgN3DMGs

And here is the link to her YouTube channel in general:  

https://youtube.com/@KellieEverts--conductsNightTra?si=j1KJjCi1ghpe2-FH

Enjoy, and don't forget to subscribe!

UPDATE:  Rasa also has posted a third video in the series as well, about, among other things, the crucial differences between the shady "Prosperity" preachers and false prophets versus the genuine Gospel of Jesus Christ:  https://youtu.be/sTJWau2ED-M?si=ukQWMW8Fo0nQb-50

And a fourth one as well, also about those shady preachers and false prophets and their false doctrines:  https://youtu.be/qw_5-iCmO0g?si=YBV9XJZ7sCbTZfZn

Why Telling Women "Just Get Married" Is The Most Tone-Deaf Advice There Is

An excellent article by Lyz Lenz was written recently as a rebuttal to that famous viral essay on marriage published in The Cut.  Lenz points out that, contrary to what some believe, marriage is NOT a panacea, nor is it really a way for Women to opt out of capitalism.  And telling Women to "just get married" as the go-to solution is utterly tone-deaf and really misses the mark by a very large margin.

The idea of "traditional" marriage as some sort of a "benevolent protectorate" for Women is really quite ironic, as under patriarchy it (like patriarchy itself) has historically been more like a protection RACKET.  That is literally why the "institution of marriage" was invented in the first place, for men to control Women (and not the other way around, as men often like to claim when they think they are being clever).  And while times have indeed changed, the fact remains that today's "kinder, gentler patriarchy" is still patriarchy, and can still be a trap for Women (even if it can sometimes backfire on men as well, granted).  That is not to say that marriage cannot ever be repurposed by Women for their own benefit, of course.  But the specious notion that it is somehow the end-all-be-all or sine qua non for everyone is woefully outdated and outmoded at best.  

In other words, as Lenz says, "gilded cages are still cages".  And as for it being a means of opting out of capitalism, that is also not possible as long as patriarchy and capitalism remain joined at the hip (as they have been for centuries). 

Anyway, Lenz does a better job explaining it than I ever could, so be sure to read her article. 

Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Yesterday (Updated Re-Post)

I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic protopia 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 capitalist 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!

(Mic drop)

Strongest Evidence To Date For Ancient Matriarchy

Or, "Queens of the Bronze Age"

The Minoan Civilization was an ancient Bronze Age culture located on the island of Crete from circa 3100 - 1100 BC(E).  Long held up as an example of ancient Matriarchy, there has been a long-running debate among scholars on whether or not they really were a Matriarchy.  There has long been a plethora of denialism in general about there being any sort of precedent at all for genuine Matriarchy, of course, for obvious reasons.  Academics (of both genders, unfortunately) have often notoriously tried to obfuscate, suppress, and bury the idea of Matriarchy in a flurry of doublespeak and deception.

But more recently in 2017, a new article came out that conclusively settled that question in regard to the Minoans, as conclusive as anthropology and archaeology can ever be.  A University of Kansas researcher has put forth new evidence in favor of the idea that the Minoans were Matriarchal.  John Younger, KU Professor of classics, has analyzed several pieces of art and archeological evidence that support the idea that Women had indeed ruled the Minoan Civilization.  "Basically, this culture on Crete around 1600-1500 BCE is the closest candidate for a matriarchy that we have. That's huge," Younger said.

Indeed, that is huge.  Observing how prominently Women featured in Minoan art and religious artifacts relative to men, and the manner in which they were depicted, the idea that Women were in charge is the most logical conclusion of such observations.  The shrines known as "lustral basins" (while their exact purpose was unknown, they loosely resemble the "menstrual pits" in other cultures, except that these basins were decidedly NOT sequestered) in the middle of their palaces or large halls also support the idea as well.

The island of Crete was eventually conquered by the Mycenaeans from the mainland (who were Greek), but Professor Younger has a new theory about how the Matriarchal Minoan society may have undergone a revolt from within before the Mycenaeans ultimately took over.  That is, due to the fact that practically everything on the island was destroyed except the main palace at Knossos, he theorizes that an internal revolution, presumably from men, may have occurred, even if that particular theory is not yet settled.

Exactly why men had revolted against such a presumably peaceful Matriarchy (note the absence of fortifications) still remains unclear, however.  Was it a "fifth column," perhaps?  Were the Women in charge too lenient OR too strict in regards to men?  (Much like holding sand, holding too loosely OR too tightly will ultimately cause the sand to slip away, as the famous saying goes.  It's a delicate balancing act.)  Did the men perhaps feel too marginalized or underrepresented in some way?  Was there too much division in society by gender?  Or was it a result of natural or sexual selection of the most "macho" men, who eventually became too dangerous and difficult to contain?  Or some combination of these things?  That will of course require further research to determine, and is beyond the scope of this article.

(According to Wikipedia, one common historical misconception is that the Minoan Civilization was destroyed by a volcanic eruption, but that was revealed to be false due to the fact that the eruption occurred centuries earlier than the end of the Minoan era.  Plus, the destruction was too uneven to be due to anything natural, as the palace itself was spared despite the destruction of the town of Knossos.  Thus, the end of the Minoan civilization was clearly either due to an internal revolt, conquest from outside, or both.)

Minoan texts may have been written in a language that is still not understood.  But truly a picture is worth a thousand words, and their art and artifacts tell the story well.

So take that, denialists!

Original KU article can be found here:  https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2017/06/09/art-religious-artifacts-support-idea-minoan-matriarchy-ancient-crete-researcher-says

The Four Biggest Casualties Of (Gender) War (Re-post)

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?

If men stop fighting, there will be no more (gender) war.  If Women stop fighting, there will be no more Women, and thus no more humanity.  The choice couldn't be more obvious. 

Happy International Women's Day!

Today is International Women's Day, a day to honor and celebrate the better half of humanity.  Celebrated on March 8 every year since 1909, in recent year it has taken even greater significance given the "Day Without A Woman" and the International Women's Strike taking place today, in which many participating Women refuse to do any paid OR unpaid work today.  Unfortunately not every Woman is privileged enough to be able to do this, and this fact has led to some criticism but those who cannot will likely do other actions (wearing red, avoiding shopping except at small, Women-owned and minority-owned businesses, etc.) instead in a show of solidarity.  The more Women that participate in one way or another, the more likely it will be to effect lasting social change overall.  To paraphrase Voltaire, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

It is also worth noting that the nascent movement for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee is a textbook example of a serious feminist issue as well, not least of which because, as Judith Schulevitz notes, it's "payback time for Women" given their long history of underpaid and unpaid work that continues to this day.  A UBI would also effectively make women less economically dependent on men, reducing the chances for abuse of all kinds.  And aside from general concern for social justice, a UBI also a way to defuse the ticking time bomb known as men, who are becoming increasingly redundant as time goes on.  Men are most dangerous when either 1) they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) they are desperate for money.  A UBI would go a long way to solving all of these problems.

VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!