Women Are Indeed Higher Beings (Updated Re-Post)

NOTE:  This article was originally posted in 2017, and updated accordingly since then.

A 2017 scientific study on gender difference confirms what we in the Matriarchy movement have already known, and thinkers like Ashley Montagu have discussed over half a century ago:  Women are indeed the better half of humanity.  And Women's and men's brains really are apparently wired differently, to one degree or another.

This study, consisting of behavioral experiments conducted by neuroscientists (Alexander Soutschek, et al.) at the University of Zurich, find that not only are Women more likely to be generous and men more likely to be selfish, but that there is a neurological explanation for such differences.  To wit, Women's brains tend to reward prosocial (unselfish) behavior where as men's brains tend to reward selfish behavior.  The brain's reward center (the striatum, which releases a hit of dopamine as the reward) was found to differentially activated in that regard in these experiments.  And when dopamine was blocked, the opposite tendencies were increased by both genders.  Thus, at a neurological level, Women are essentially rewarded for kindness, while men are rewarded for being selfish.  

Gee, who woulda thunk it?  In other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and a bear does its business in the woods.

Of course, the perennial "nature versus nurture" question inevitably comes into play here, and the researchers predictably conclude that their findings are more likely due to nurture than nature.  But I believe that it is, at the very least, a bit of both, if not more nature than nurture, as any explanation for the findings that relies entirely on nurture seems to merely coast toward such a conclusion.  Women seem to be naturally more prosocial and community-minded on average than men, even if culture can magnify (or reduce) such differences as well.

Thus, this study should lend support to the idea that Women are likely much better leaders than men, and that their feminine paradigm of leadership would be superior as well.  And any economy run by Women is likely to eventually tend more or less toward a "gift economy" rather than an "exchange economy like we have now under patriarchy.  (Though I would argue now that a pure gift economy" would be very difficult if not impossible to do at scale, and thus I advocate a "hybrid economy" of both gifts and exchanges.)  Remember, the literal meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts" in the original Latin.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin!

And to all the men reading this:  DO NOT take this study as license to be selfish jerks!  Women's kindness and generosity is NOT a weakness, and it is NOT unlimited, so stop treating it like it is unless you really want to see their dark side (yes, it does exist, and I strongly advise against activating it, ever).  Remember, when Women are happy, the world is happy.  And when they are not, watch out, fellas!

Paid Family Leave Revisited

(This is an updated version of an article originally posted in 2018.)

In 2017, an op-ed at CNN by Vanessa Brown Calder of the pro-corporate glibertarian Cato Institute claimed that paid family leave policies actually backfire on Women by making companies less likely to hire them as well as entrenching traditional gender roles.  She seems to see it as a zero-sum game for some reason.  And even now, the article is still likely being linked to on other articles discussing this important topic.  Even if they don't always cite it directly, people on social media still repeat the ideas found within it, for example.

First of all, except for a very few states, the USA is the only modern or even semi-modern country that does not offer any paid leave for Mothers, let alone fathers or anyone else for that matter.  And even then, the few states that do are rather stingy compared to most other industrialized nations.  The USA makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus by comparison in that regard. (So much for "Mothers and apple pie".)

Secondly, is there really any truth to the op-ed author's specious claim?  According to the weight of research evidence over the past decade or two, not really.  Except perhaps for poorly-designed programs that 1) force employers to pay for it, rather than via taxes (or money creation), 2) are limited only to mothers or are otherwise not gender neutral, and/or 3) have an unusually long duration--though that last one remains debatable, given the stunning success in the Nordic countries (whose durations of paid leave often exceed a year).  In fact, the only conclusively proven and robust downside--if one can even call it that--to long leave durations (i.e. longer than a year) is that they tend to discourage Mothers from returning to paid work compared with durations between nine months and a year.  (A very subjective "downside" at that.). 

Otherwise, the well-documented benefits to Women, children, society, and even men as well outweigh any supposed costs.  Ultimately, everyone is better off as a result. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs, in other words.  Thus, a no-brainer.  See Taryn Morrissey's 2017 book Cradle to Kindergarten for a good review of the general topic of why the USA should join the rest of the developed world and invest much more in early childhood care and education, which will pay major dividends for society in the long run.

And in a country where Women have already reached a critical mass in the workforce, especially at mid- to high-level positions, have very generous paid family leave of a year or even longer could literally be done right now given enough political will.  Otherwise, starting fairly small and then gradually making it more generous and longer duration is a good foot-in-the-door strategy in the long run.

Of course, once Women finally reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, this will no longer even be a debate anymore.  In the future when all or nearly all high-level managers and executives are Women, and many if not most of whom are Mothers, things will be very different indeed, and likely fundamentally so.  

True, paid family leave is not an end goal, but merely a good starting point for a more equitable society overall.  That is the FLOOR, not the ceiling!  Other things need to happen as well, such as Universal Basic Income (UBI), single-payer Medicare For All, shorter and more flexible workweeks for all workers, more paid time off for all workers, equal pay, affordable high-quality childcare and early childhood education, as well as longer-term cultural changes as well.  And of course, the biggest elephant in the room--MEN--really need to start pulling their weight for once.  But in the meantime, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.  

So what are we waiting for?  MAMASTE!

Only Women Can Break The Cycle of History (Updated 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, in 2025 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 vicious 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!

ICYMI, Be Sure To Check Out Guru Rasa's New Magnum Opus: "The Man Whisperer"

ICYMI, be sure to check out the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder's latest book now published and available on Lulu, The Man Whisperer:  How an Old Lady Snags Young Men for Sex.  With its self-explanatory title, she chronicles and discusses in depth her experiences as a Cougar in the college town of Binghamton, New York, and shares important wisdom and lessons she had learned along the way.

Enjoy! 😊

P.S.  Not to toot my own horn, but the book also features a little bit of William Bond and myself as well. 😊

"Smash The (Adulto-) Patriarchy", Or, "The Great Cosmic Custody Battle", Revisited

(Updated and expanded from its original 2017 version)

NOTE:  I generally don't put youth rights content on this blog, as I typically reserve it for my True Spirit of America Party and Twenty-One Debunked blogs.  But given how this article is about intersectionality, I believe it fits quite well here.  The opinions presented here are my own, and not necessarily those of anyone else in the Matriarchy movement.

One of the most vexing questions of all about the ultimate origin of patriarchy is, how did men take over in the first place, if Women are the superior gender and were already in power to begin with in the last Matriarchal age? And this question is NOT merely academic, as the answer will at least partially inform us on how to prevent men from taking over again in the future.  History may not always repeat itself exactly, of course, but it sure as hell does rhyme nonetheless.

Some theorists would say that was because Women were too lenient with men and allowed them too much freedom ("give them an inch, and they take a mile") while others say the opposite, that Women were too harsh and strict and did not allow men enough freedom, so they rebelled ("forbidden fruit" or "reactance theory").  (Note also the parallels with today's discourse about teenagers and young adults, as this foreshadows the rest of this article.)  Still others, such as Riane Eisler and many others in the Goddess Movement, inspired by Marija Gimbutas, put forth the "Kurgan theory", namely that a few patriarchal cultures formed in central Asia and the Arabian peninsula, and violently conquered their peaceful Matriarchal neighbors and eventually the world.  These cultures, called Kurgans, were semi-literate or illiterate nomadic sheepherders who really had no culture of their own to speak of, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was indeed rewarded in their culture.  But that still does not fully explain how those cultures came to be patriarchal in the first place, except for the fact that aggression is wittingly or unwittingly rewarded in nomadic pastoral societies, and men are generally more aggressive and competitive than Women.

(Rasa Von Werder and William Bond each have their own theories as well.  Rasa believes that Women had sexually selected for more "macho" men by preferentially mating with them, which thus resulted in men becoming too "macho" in a toxic and dangerous way after many generations of such cumulative selection, while Women became less and less "macha" at the same time.  And William believes that Women had essentially allowed men to take over by trusting them too much with power.  I am summarizing and glossing over the details of both here, but that is basically the gist of it.  Both theories I think have at least some merit to them, and both can explain at least part of what happened, to one degree or another.)

I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's fairly recent book "The End of Patriarchy" back in 2017, I inadvertently discovered a similarly-titled book by Claudio Naranjo, titled, "The End of Patriarchy: And the Dawning of a Tri-une Society", which led me to a new theory on the matter.  And while I don't agree with everything that Naranjo says, he does make some good points nonetheless.  He posits that young people were the ones in charge in the Paleolithic age, then Women were in charge in the Neolithic age, and then men took over in the Bronze Age and remained in power since.  And as the title implies, he looks forward to the end of patriarchy and the beginning of a new, "tri-une" society that combines the best of all three past ages, with Women, men, and children all being equally valued members of human society.  While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy way too short, and often mischaracterizes what it really is.  And I also still think that the best way that his "tri-une society" or something like it can be created is with Women in charge, that is, Matriarchy.  Only Women can be truly trusted to be the "Guardians of Liberty" IMHO.

In a nutshell, Naranjo (inspired by fellow Chilean, Totila Albert) delineates three main epochs of human history:  

1) Filiarchy:  This was during the Paleolithic Age more than 12,000 years ago, when people were largely nomadic, and foraging, gathering, and hunting were the norm.  In this early system, neither gender really dominated (though I think it was most likely gynocentric), but children and young people had essentially all of the power, and allegedly tyrannized their elders to one degree or another.  Obviously, this system had its downsides, to put it mildly, so it later evolved into...

2) Matriarchy:  This was during the Neolithic Age (and perhaps even a bit before that too) from 10,000-12,000 years ago with the advent of horticulture and then agriculture, to about 5000-7000 or so years ago, and even into some of the Bronze Age.  Women were in charge then.  Here he makes it seem that individuals were completely subordinate to the collective, which is presented as one of its downsides, along with some possible human sacrifice too.  This part is where I think Naranjo kinda sells Matriarchy too short, and the accuracy of such claims is questionable at best.  But otherwise he describes it fairly well overall, and certainly far, far more peaceful, relatively equal, and eco-friendly than what came next, which was, you guessed it.....

3) Patriarchy:  During the Bronze Age and Iron Age, men had taken over and ruled ever since, spreading their cancerous system around the world.  It's origins began in a few areas during perhaps even the Neolithic, but didn't really take off until well into the Bronze Age.  Here we see lots of war, violence, genocide, ecocide, rape, torture, imperialism, racism, inequality, greed, and stuff like that.  And as they say, the rest is history.  And now in what I like to call the "Leaden Age", that system's days are increasingly numbered as we speak.  Slowly but surely, Women are rising and men are falling, and the proverbial Rubicon has already been crossed by now, Goddess willing.

But one thing is certain:  Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of children and young people) can theoretically exist without patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist without adultism.  To wit, men would never have been able to disempower Women as much as they did if young people had not been thoroughly disempowered first by adults of both primary genders (even if done more so by men).  Kind of like how the rich would never have been able to torpedo the middle class as they did from President Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't first helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus.  That was my latest insight after coming across the work of Naranjo.  After all, it took thousands of years to remove Women from power and subjugate them, and it looks like adultism was one of men's "secret weapons" to accomplish this nefarious and perfidious act.

And of course, adultism continues to perpetuate patriarchy and vice versa to this day.  Both are mutually reinforcing, hence the term "adulto-patriarchy" used by the youth rights movement to emphasize the essential intersection between the two systems of oppression.  Adultism is of course a form of ageism, with the other side of the very same coin being the prejudice and discrimination against senior citizens, often simultaneously by the very same forces.  And at base, adultism is likely rooted subconsciously in an overblown fear of a return to filiarchy, much like patriarchy and misogyny are ultimately rooted in an irrational fear of a return to Matriarchy.  The "cork theory" per William Bond comes to mind:  when you hold a cork underwater, it will stay there, but loosen one's grip enough, and it rises to the top.

As a lifelong (albeit moderate) youth-rights activist myself, I am NOT arguing that children and early adolescents should be blanketly treated as equals to adults in every way, as that would be quite a strawman argument indeed.  So don't go putting words in my mouth now!  But the idea that they should have no civil or human rights at all, and/or should be treated as slaves, serfs, pets, or vermin, is just as odious as if that logic was applied to any other demographic group.  The fact that it has become normalized for people below an arbitrary age limit of (pick your poison, as any age limit is arbitrary) to have fewer rights than prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, and more restrictions than convicted felons, could not have happened without consequences that backfired on adults as well!

With Women in charge, I personally believe that the best way for them to govern both men and children/youth overall is similar to the way that Dutch parents are towards their children.  They have a saying over there, "when you permit, you control."  And another good saying, though not specifically Dutch, is "be a mentor, not a tormentor".  This is largely in line with Riane Eisler's "partnership model" of social interaction.  Others in the Matriarchy movement may or may not agree with me, and that's fine, but that is what I believe nonetheless.

(For what it's worth, I recently discovered that Everything Voluntary Jack, a "voluntaryist" Substacker, had written a great article about what he calls "Parentarchy", which basically ends up being the same thing as what the youth-rights movement calls "adulto-patriarchy", that is, the intersection between adultism and patriarchy.)

Thus, patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist or other civil or human rights movement that is not largely on board with at least the moderate wing of the youth-rights movement as well is indeed a major intersectionality fail.  Much like how "brocialists" and "manarchists" are towards Women, and how "White Feminists" (TM) are towards people of color.  Or how far too many "normies" in practically every movement are towards people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (ableism), and so on.  The entire evil edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail.  Even if patriarchy is in fact the biggest crux of the entire pyramid scheme and protection racket.

In other words, the gender war will simply continue until men surrender to Women.  And the "Great Cosmic Custody Battle" between patriarchy and Matriarchy will simply continue in some form or another until children and young people are also liberated as well.

So let's smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday!  And the rest of the kyriarchy too.  And may we all one day enjoy liberty and justice for all.

(Mic drop)

1484: The Witches' Hammer

Here is a good preliminary idea for a historical fiction novel, short story, or movie perhaps, tentatively titled "1484: The Witches' Hammer", a title which is clearly laden with puns:

Inspired by Sylvia Federici's 2004 book Caliban and the Witch, and a few recent Substack articles from Katie Jgln as well as the author with the pen name "15th Century Feminist", I have been thinking of an idea lately.  As Federici notes, the Inquisition which devolved into the Burning Times / Women's Holocaust (aka witch trials of Europe) was in effect a counterrevolution against the slow-burn Women's revolution of the 14th and 15th centuries and a bit beyond as well.  That is, in addition to midwives, herbalists, healers, and of course Women who owned property (so it could be seized by men), the primarily-targeted Women as "witches" were in fact revolutionaries against feudalism, patriarchy, and what eventually came to be known as capitalism.  And combined with the enclosures of the commons, such a counterrevolution, lasting into the latter half of the 17th century, and even into the 18th, ultimately paved the way for patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, which was actually a regress from feudalism for the first few centuries.  The entire working class ultimately suffered as a result, and poverty worsened dramatically until the 19th century. 

(Men were victims of the Burning Times too, of course, but except in the very strange case of Iceland where it was mostly men killed, men were largely collateral damage, and persecuted primarily as "heretics" rather than "witches".  In fact, if you go back far enough, there was even a double standard where "sorcery" was still socially acceptable for men, but not for Women.  Read that again.  Natch.)

Anyway, while this bloody gynocidal counterrevolution had already begun before it, it did not really take off in earnest until after the Malleus Maleficarum ("The Witches' Hammer") by Heinrich Kramer, was published in 1486, following that fateful "load of papal bull" from Pope Innocent VIII (or as I like to call him, "Pope Guilty As Sin", given how much blood he had on his hands) in 1484 which inspired it.  It was the 15th century equivalent of clickbait, fake news, misinformation, and disinformation, and it was the gasoline dumped on the smoldering fires of what would soon become the Burning Times.  And as Katie Jgln notes, it was in fact enabled by the advent of the printing press, without which such disinformation could not have traveled nearly as fast.

So my idea for historical fiction would be for a group of people, mostly or entirely Women, from the present era to find a way to go back in time to 1484, and publish (using those same printing presses) a counter-manifesto rebutting and discrediting the execrable Pope Guilty's vile and slanderous words and the entire moral panic he inspired, and warning everyone about what the patriarchal establishment planned to do.  Then, after that but sometime before 1486, they would take an actual, literal hammer to as many printing presses as they could find, preventing or at least delaying the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum itself, long enough for it to be discredited before put into practice.  That would buy the Women revolutionaries some time to at least "tread water" (if not advance further) until around 1600 when they would finally get access to the "magic elixir of revolution" (as foretold in the counter-manifesto) when it arrives in Europe for the first time:  COFFEE.  And then from there, and also with tea from 1650 or so, the revolution would have accelerated, and Women would have eventually won the gender war and gradually taken over completely by now.  

First Europe, then the world.  In an organic, protopian, slow-burn revolution, i.e. the way Women prefer to do revolution. 

(In actual history, when it was first introduced to Europe from the Middle East, coffee literally came be associated with revolution for a while, and the first coffeehouses generally excluded Women, of course.  Gee, I wonder why that was?)

Indeed, as the old adage goes, if you change one thing, you end up changing everything.  By doing so, a time paradox occurs where many of the people who would have otherwise existed would end up not existing, or more likely having been reincarnated as other species.  That is because after Women took over, they refuse to be breeding slaves for men, so the world population ended up much smaller it currently is.  And since Women are much better stewards of the Earth than men, nonhuman species would have flourished more, and not been decimated nearly as much, as they have been under male rule.  And of course, capitalism would have been leapfrogged over completely (or at least largely) towards some flavor of post-capitalism and/or communalism.  

(And let's not forget all of the fuzzy kitties that would have been superstitiously targeted by the evil purveyors of the Burning Times as well, but were spared when such atrocities were largely prevented by smashing those printing presses!)

In other words, perhaps the key to having any future that is worth having, is to go back in time and correct such a truly terrible mistake.  Let the planetary healing begin!

P.S. To anyone reading this, especially Women, please feel free to steal this idea, as I hereby release this general idea of mine into the public domain, giving due credit of course to those who inspired me.  God knows that men have been stealing Women's ideas for thousands of years, so many things, from beer to baseball to the automobile to computers to the structure of DNA and so much more.  Even horticulture, most likely invented by Women thousands of years ago, has been rediscovered and rebranded as "permaculture" by men.

(To be continued....)

Guru Rasa's Latest Magnum Opus: The Man Whisperer

ICYMI, be sure to check out the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder's latest book now published and available on Lulu, The Man Whisperer:  How an Old Lady Snags Young Men for Sex.  With its self-explanatory title, she chronicles and discusses in depth her experiences as a Cougar in the college town of Binghamton, New York, and shares important wisdom and lessons she had learned along the way.

Enjoy! 😊

P.S.  Not to toot my own horn, but the book also features a little bit of William Bond and myself as well. 😊

The Four Words To Psychologically Disarm Practically Any Patriarchal Man

This is probably the shortest post yet.

The four words that best psychologically disarm practically any man, particularly patriarchal men, are as follows:

"I CALL YOUR BLUFF!"

Because at least 9 times out of 10, if not 99 times out of 100, they are BLUFFING.  Not always, of course, but usually.  In fact, the late Ashley Montagu noted that the notion of male superiority is itself the biggest bluff the world has ever seen.

The End

The Lazy Gender

Let's be brutally honest about something:  humanity is basically a "lion's pride writ large".  Men have always been the lazier gender (relative to Women at the same time and place), and barring a truly quantum leap in human evolution, most likely always will be.  This has consistently been true in all known human societies, whether patriarchal, Matriarchal, filiarchal, tri-une, or anything in between, so it is not entirely a social construct like some would prefer to believe. 

The difference is that in an actual lion's pride, which is actually Matriarchal, the hardworking females have practically all of the power, while the lazy males have little to no real power at all, just the illusion of power as "King Nothing", like the famous Metallica song.  Whereas in patriarchal human societies, men generally have power without responsibility (which is very dangerous), while Women generally have responsibility without power (which is very harmful to Women and children).  And even for the most rudimentary job of all for males, to "guard the perimeter" to protect the females and their young, male lions still do it better than most men, as evidenced in the fact that 55% of American men just voted for, and thus bowed to, a known misogynistic fascist dictator, and when you include those who voted third party or didn't bother to vote at all, now you are looking at well north of 60%, that is, a solid majority of men who utterly failed to protect Women and children.  

Honestly, if you can't be a provider, at the very least, be a protector, fellas!  (Facepalm)

And, of course, men have long had the absolute GALL to, um, lionize the so-called Protestant Work Ethic (TM) (that is, "work for the sake of work, to justify one's own existence"), all while simultaneously and hypocritically devaluing and exploiting Women's unpaid and underpaid labor.

In contrast, in Matriarchal human societies, both historical and contemporary, Women have more power and more responsibility, while the men have less power and less responsibility (albeit sometimes holding puppet figurehead "chief" roles for show).  That is, power (or lack thereof) and responsibility (or lack thereof) go fully hand in hand, and as a result, gender relations are as harmonious as it gets.

So here's a good visual aid, courtesy of Wikipedia:

The Laziest Kitty of All

The Real Natural-Born Leaders

And last but not least, a hat tip to the ever-insightful Liz Plank, whose Substack article from a few weeks ago at least partly inspired me to write this article.  Thank you 😊

International Men's Day: A Day Of Atonement

 

In case you didn't know, November 19 is International Men's Day (which also happens to be World Toilet Day, interestingly enough).  As if we really needed a day to celebrate ourselves, lol.  What International Men's Day should really be is a day of atonement, a sort of Yom Kippur for men.  And for those guys who arrogantly claim that they have literally nothing to atone for, prepare to eat some humble pie, and apologize to the Divine Feminine.  The following is food for thought:

So what has our gender collectively done for the past 7000 years or so?

We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it "peace".  We devoured and suffocated our own empire, the world is on fire, and now we are all paying a heavy price for it.  It's 14:59 of our proverbial 15 minutes of fame, and the clock is ticking.

All because we foolishly decided one day to depose Women from power because we thought we could somehow do better.  Well, we were wrong, dead wrong in fact.  We are sorry, but clearly we can stuff our "sorrys" in a sack at this point.  The agony of regret indeed.

Yes, I know, "not all men".  But the fact remains that the "good guys" among us have clearly and consistently failed to prevent the truly bad guys from subjugating, tyrannizing, raping, abusing, and degrading the better half of humanity (while also doing the very same thing to Mother Earth as well), and overall turning heaven on Earth into hell on Earth.

So how could heaven turn to hell?  You guessed it, it was us all along.  But one day the shadows will surround us, and the days will come to end.  And now we see clearly...

We both knew, it would always end this way...

(Bonus points for anyone who can find the hidden and not-so-hidden pop-culture references and lyrics to various songs contained throughout this apology to the Divine Feminine. Give up?  Scroll down to the bottom for the answer.)

And just like you should never wish someone a "Happy Yom Kippur", as there is really nothing happy about atonement, we should probably avoid doing the same with International Men's Day as well.

The new song "The Feminine Divine" by Dexys Midnight Runners also comes to mind.

But the cultural references above are really from various songs by Joni Mitchell, Shinedown, Sugar Ray, and Five Finger Death Punch, et al.  And also Seinfeld, and a paraphrase of the Ancient Roman historian Tacitus as well.

And now with the very latest example of Adam throwing Eve under the bus, AGAIN, that is, given how a majority of American men of all generations voted (or failed to vote) in the 2024 election, all of the above applies a fortiori now.

And to those men who voted (and gloated) for the Manchild Who Would Be King, well, all I can say is, enjoy your pride before the fall.  Karma is NOT on your side, bro.

Is Ethical Heterosexual Sex Possible Under (Late) Patriarchy?

NOTE:  This article is written primarily for a male audience.

One of the common "straw feminist" arguments often weaponized by anti-feminist and "manosphere" types to try to discredit feminism in general is one that only the most truly extreme fringe ultra-radical feminists (a vanishingly tiny few, nearly all from the second wave in the 1970s and early 1980s) have ever actually put forth with a straight face:  some flavor of "under patriarchy, all (heterosexual) sex is rape".  That statement is, of course, quite easy to refute, as it completely denies Women any agency at all over their own bodies and minds, and is thus infantilizing and demeaning to Women.  And I don't go anywhere near arguments like that, so you will never hear anything like that from me.

Such patronizing and paternalistic nonsense really serves only to discredit feminism and Women in general, trivialize rape, throw out the baby with the bathwater, and put men in a reverse double bind (i.e. a duty to refuse sex, but no right to refuse)* as well, thus it has no place in the 21st century. 

But what if there were a kernel of truth to such an extreme and absolutist argument?  That is, not that it is necessarily rape, which a truly egregious violation of a Woman's bodily integrity and a desecration of the Sacred Feminine, but more like there is "no ethical heterosexual sex under patriarchy", much like the argument that there is "no ethical consumption under capitalism" (which is true, but obviously doesn't stop either gender from going shopping).  Could a more nuanced case be made in that regard?

Well, I hate to be a buzzkill, fellas, but just like consumption under capitalism, heterosexual sex can never be perfectly ethical as long as patriarchy still exists.  Sorry.  The problem is systemic, and goes very, very deep.  And unfortunately, just like we are living under "late capitalism", we are still living under some flavor of "late patriarchy", even in the most progressive, social democratic, and (relatively) gender-equal countries.  (And certainly still in the USA!)  But again, that doesn't stop either gender from going shopping, so is it possible for men to have sexual relations with Women while maintaining a (relatively) clear conscience?

The good news is it's a qualified yes, albeit imperfectly, provided that certain rules are followed.  ("Wait, what?  There's rules?  I thought we dispensed with such stuffiness like so much bric-a-brac decades ago!  Boooooo!")  Relax, fellas.  These rules are hardly oppressive, and actually tend to make sex better for both Women and men.  Such rules may reduce the quantity and frequency of sex, but will more than make up for that in terms of the quality of sex.  Plus, you actually get to LIVE with yourself, sleep well at night, and not have to constantly worry that you are literally playing Russian Roulette with your soul (!) in that regard.  Here they are:

1. First and foremost, be sure to obtain enthusiastic consent before proceeding, each and every time, and at each stage of escalation or changing to a different act.  When in doubt, check in and make sure.  In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!"  Period.
2. Always take NO for an answer.  Period.  Do NOT force, coerce, pressure, or manipulate anyone into sex.
3. Do NOT objectify or degrade Women (or men).  Always think in terms of "I and Thou", never "I and It".  Or as Immanuel Kant would say, "Always treat humanity as an end in itself, never solely as a means to an end".  (Contrary to the antisexual Kant, though, attraction per se does NOT automatically imply objectification.)
4. Avoid anything one-sided or "selfish in bed," as it should always be mutual.  After all, Women are human beings, NOT sex dolls or masturbation machines.
5. Whoever has the yoni makes the rules.  She is taking way more of a risk than you are, thus she is extending to you a much larger grace than you are to her.  Look up to her, not down on her.  Be sure to prioritize her pleasure!
6. No cruelty, violence, or abuse of any kind.  That should go without saying, before, during, and after.
7. Do not be a deceiver.  Honesty is always the best policy.
8. Practice radical empathy.  Try to actually see things from her perspective for a change. 
9. As Gabrielle Blair would say, "Ejaculate Responsibly".  If you feel you must have penetrative intercourse, USE A CONDOM as "standard operating procedure", with any exception requiring serious justification. 
10. And above all, DO NOT abuse, violate, or desecrate children in any way, shape, or form!  There is a special place in the Lake of Fire for those who do.  Same goes for those who abuse animals in any way as well.

Otherwise, have fun, fellas!  

(Mic drop)

(*Bonus points for anyone who recognized that statement with an asterisk as simply the mirror image of the double bind that Women have been forced into for millennia.)

P.S.  Contrary to what Maoists (and reactionaries, in an example of Horseshoe Theory) tend to claim, marriage is NOT necessarily "the least oppressive form of sexuality under [patriarchal] imperialism" for Women.  It is still, at base, a patriarchal institution, regardless of any attempts (with varying degrees of success) to re-purpose it for a post-patriarchal world to come, and is still all too often rigged in men's favor.  Thus, at a minimum, the same ethical sex rules listed above should still apply whether married or not.

And it should also go without saying, on the other side of the coin, that the same rules apply even if, or rather especially if, the sexual activity in question falls under the category of "casual".  Remember, "casual" in that regard simply means uncommitted or intended to be short-term.  It does NOT mean meaningless, disrespectful, or treat your partner like garbage.  The human dignity floor of mutual respect must still remain in place regardless of how the sex is labeled. 

The 4B Movement Goes (Relatively) Mainstream

Looks like the famous 4B Movement is spreading beyond South Korea to the USA now in the wake of Trump winning the presidential election.  Basically, it is like a Lysistrata-style strike by Women, but broader, to essentially "boycott men" completely.  To quote the NPR article:

Following President-elect Trump’s victory — which was fueled by male voters and to many looked like a referendum on reproductive rights — some young American women are talking about boycotting men.

The idea comes from the South Korean movement known as 4B, or the 4 No’s (bi means “not” in Korean). It calls for the refusal of dating men (biyeonae), sexual relationships with men (bisekseu), heterosexual marriage (bihon) and childbirth (bichulsan).

It is apparently trending quite a bit in recent days on social media, and even in mainstream legacy media.  Whether the movement is limited to a sliver of the Female population, or ultimately ends up achieving critical mass, is not yet clear, but the message sure is clear as day.  Men really need to answer the "clue phone", as it is ringing louder than ever now.  

The fact that so many men were willing to throw Women under the bus during this election, because reasons, is more than justification enough for Women to go on strike.  To call such an act of betrayal "the straw that broke the camel's back" is truly the understatement of the century!

I have often half-joked that Women could take over the world in a matter of weeks if not sooner, if they all (or enough of them) did something like this at the same time.  After all, in economic terms, men's demand for sex in particular, let alone everything else, is very "inelastic", at least in the short run, while Women's demand for sex is far more "elastic".  Despite Women actually having a higher sex drive overall than men (a fact that was famously well-known by everyone long before the Victorians attempted to erase and invert it), for men it is still more urgent and linear.  Thus, men will hand over the "keys to the kingdom" in order to desperately end the strike.  

(Men's demand for marriage is similarly "inelastic" as well, but with the important caveat that that is true only if it is rigged in their favor.  It is at base a patriarchal institution, after all.  The moment it ceases to be rigged in their favor, their demand for marriage then becomes much more "elastic".)

Whether one sees it as a sprint or a marathon (and a case can be made for both, in fact), the more Women lean heavily into it at the beginning, the more effective it will be.  Men can thus be "broken like wild horses" fairly quickly (if temporarily), at least long enough for Women's demands to be met.

It's too soon to tell at this point, but this development may very well be a silver lining of the otherwise horrible national (and global) calamity of Trump winning, namely, that we become that much closer to Matriarchy if this movement gains enough traction, God willing.  Only time will tell.

P.S.  All the fellas (including myself) who are at least tempted to reflexively say some flavor of, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kamala!" (which I of course did) in response to this, are really missing the point, and that is just as tone-deaf and chutzpah as saying "Not ALL men!" as a typical canned response to Women's concerns about male violence against Women.  Expecting kudos for merely meeting the bare minimum standards of a decent human being truly reeks of privilege.

Adam Throws Eve Under The Bus. AGAIN.

Well, it's official.  Trump won the 2024 presidential election.  Again.  And this time, we can't blame it on the Electoral College or Russian interference or anything other than We the People.  Or rather, about half of us.  And the half of us that voted for Trump is overwhelmingly male, unsurprisingly.  If only men's votes were counted, Trump won by a landslide.  If only Women's votes were counted, Kamala Harris would have won by (almost) a landslide.  Very much like 2016.

Only this time around, literally everyone knew what he was all about, and so many still voted for him.  So literally NO ONE can credibly claim naivety or ignorance (unless truly willful) this time.  They had an easy out, and yet they chose to go right back to Trump.  They are NOT victims, they are volunteers, often very eager ones, which makes them complicit with the oppressors.  In fact, in the two weeks leading up to Election Day, Trump deliberately darkened his already vile rhetoric even more to get more undecided or apathetic folks off of their couches to go to the polls.

And the gender gap was surprisingly wide for younger (Gen Z) voters as well.  And Trump/Vance clearly went out of their way to court the "bro vote", as they like to call it.

And it wasn't even the usual "deplorables" and "alt-right" and adjacent guys that were the biggest disappointment.  Rather, it was the perfidious squishy-center, middle-of-the-road, fauxgressive, "educated", and "cool" types of guys who apparently thought so little of the better half of humanity (or could care less about them), that in an election where Women's human rights were literally at stake, they blithely and casually threw Women under the bus by voting for Trump.  They literally chose the rapist, racist, misogynistic, convicted felon, lunatic, and insurrectionist candidate over the highly accomplished Woman of color candidate, because reasons.  Or they simply didn't vote at all, or they voted third party, because they chose to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and we all ultimately got neither as a result. 

Women, and the men who genuinely love them, will NOT forget such perfidy!

And yes, plenty of Women (particularly white ones) were also apparently self-hating misogynistic (and/or gilded-caged and privileged) enough to betray their own gender too by voting for Trump, but that is a topic for another conversation. 

Of course, this is sadly NOT the first time the fellas have done such a thing.  It's been going on since Adam threw Eve under the bus after they both got caught eating the forbidden fruit.  And to those fellas who apparently see nothing wrong (or at least nothing worth opposing) with the Republican Project 2025 agenda essentially forcing Women to be brood mares, remember that that would also make men....WORK HORSES.  After all, the punishment for Eve was to "increase the pains of childbirth", while for Adam, he would have to "work for every crumb" going forward.  Sounds like the authors of that story readily anticipated the 2024 election and its aftermath!

They had ONE job this time, and that was to simply get off the damn couch and cast a secret ballot for Kamala, the only person really standing in the way of Trump, and no one would ever have to know.  And they couldn't even do that!  And now that they have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind!

Unfortunately, ALL of us will.

America is basically dead and done now.  And it would truly take a miracle of miracles to transcend this madness and make it out the other side in one piece.

One may recall an article from late 2016, titled "Kali Takes America, I'm With Her".  Basically, Trump's first term was predicted to be a "dark night of the soul" for America, in other words.  Apparently, America learned NOTHING from that ordeal, and thus we end up repeating it again, and likely worse and darker this time around.  And it seems an even darker analogy is called for now.

The 2015 song "The Vengeful One" by Disturbed (and its excellent video) comes to mind as to what is called for in times like this:  "I'm the Hand of God, I'm the Dark Messiah, I'm the Vengeful One".  Sounds just like what the doctor ordered!  The dark, messianic figure in the song is male, of course.  But what if that figure was a Woman instead?  Well, I thought of a somewhat esoteric idea, getting back to the overall general theme of this article.

Enter Adam's first wife, from well before Eve even existed.  Or more accurately, his first lover, as the patriarchal institution of marriage hadn't even been invented yet, and it's safe to say she wasn't exactly the marrying kind.  In fact, their fairly brief relationship had failed precisely because she refused to submit to Adam.  She was almost entirely erased from both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, leaving only very subtle traces behind, and only explicitly mentioned elsewhere in Jewish and Mesopotamian folklore.  And she was predictably (and quite literally!) demonized by the patriarchs, as they have often done to Goddesses of the Matriarchal religions they have appropriated, co-opted, and perverted for themselves.  While more recently, Sarah McLachlan famously called her "the first feminist", and thus named her Women's music festival after her.  So who is she? 

Lilith is her name.  You may or may not have heard of her explicitly, but the general concept of her can be found practically everywhere one is willing to look.  Contrary to those who demonize her, she is not actually evil, but rather she is best described as "beyond good and evil", which is of course a reference to Nietzsche.  That said, it's probably NOT a wise idea to piss her off!  So if there were ever a Woman candidate for "Dark Messiah", it would have to be Lilith.

In fact, 20 years ago in 2004, author Alex Gordon even wrote a book about Lilith called Nine Deadly Venoms, a part autobiographical, part self-help book about the nine most important obstacles and challenges that one needs to personally conquer in order to truly stay alive in the 21st century.  In this book, she is portrayed as a Matriarchal Age warrior priestess, who is supposedly planning a second coming, in order to cleanse the world of evil and establish a new Matriarchal Age once again.

Again, that's really just what the doctor ordered in times like these!  And her rage is a rage that truly belongs to every Woman, and always has, especially now.  After all, contrary to what one may believe, Feminine energy is not always "love and light", as it can also be very, very dark at times.

(I haven't read the actual book itself, but I recall reading his old website about the book back then after stumbling upon in serendipitously, which was one of several things over the years that piqued my interest in Matriarchy in general.)

And in fact, like practically every other Goddess that has a name, one could even consider Lilith to be yet another facet of the very multifaceted Mother God Herself.

And perhaps Mother God allowed all of this to happen for a reason, such as to trick the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy to fatally overdose on capital, and ultimately usher in post-capitalism and Matriarchy sooner rather than later.  That is, if Trump doesn't get us all killed in the meantime, of course, which is sadly a very real possibility. 

So as the darkness settles in once again, we need to keep all of this in mind.  And once again, we all must #RESIST tyranny of any kind.  If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. 

Gynocentrism Is Beautiful

The word "gynocentrism" has been tossed around a lot in recent years, most notably by the "manosphere" (MRAs, PUAs, MGTOW, Red Pill Movement, and many tradcons as well), who claim it is a Very Bad Thing, because reasons.  In fact, in the  "manosphere bingo" memes, it is one of the most prominent spaces on the chart. 

Per Wikipedia, its definition is:

Gynocentrism is a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice. Anything can be gynocentric when it is considered exclusively with a female or feminist point of view in mind. The opposite practice, placing the masculine point of view at the centre, is androcentrism.

Thus, gynocentrism is centering, and thus prioritizing, Women and their perspectives.  And that is somehow a bad thing because? 

News flash, our species, that is the entire human race, is a gynocentric species.  It is literally baked into the DNA of both primary genders.  In psychology, it is called the "Women are wonderful" effect, which is consistently observed in both Women and men, often implicitly and subconsciously, no matter how much the patriarchy has tried to stamp it out.  It is NOT the result of some shadowy conspiracy per the Red Pill movement or whatever, but rather simply what Mother Nature wants, and for the most prosaic of reasons:  to better ensure the survival of the species.  Think about it.  Women are the limiting factor in reproduction.  As the saying goes, "eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap", as true now as it always was, even if men's pop-culture hot takes (like the book by the same name) get it at least largely wrong.  Thus, prioritizing Women would obviously lead to far greater Darwinian reproductive success than prioritizing men.

That's not to say that the patriarchy hasn't also historically (and also currently) weaponized gynocentrism as well against Women.  Since men obviously cannot stamp it out entirely, try as they may, they have taken to pervert it into "benevolent sexism", which is the velvet glove to hostile sexism's iron fist.  Granted.  But that weaponization should really be seen as the perversion that it is, not as gynocentrism per se.

And since gynocentrism is a built-in feature of both genders, prioritizing Women actually promotes better intergender bonding, and thus better gender relations overall.  (If nothing else, we can bond over that.) Androcentrism, on the other hand, can only drive a wedge between Women and men.

Remember, fellas, it's in your best interest as well.  Female happiness is highly contagious.  And so too is their misery. 

Thus, we should all reclaim gynocentrism as a Very Good Thing.  After all, it is what Mother Nature wants.  Shout if from the rootfops:  "Gynocentrism is beautiful!"

Excellent Article By Celeste Davis

An excellent new article by the ever-insightful Celeste Davis is certainly worth a read.  Titled "Do you not like sex, or do you just not like patriarchal sex?", it explains well the crucial differences between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality.  Spoiler alert: male-defined sexuality is rather one-sided, and Women generally do not like it one-sided.  Female-defined sexuality, on the other hand, is mutually beneficial for both genders.  Thus it makes far more sense to center Women in sex than it does to center men.  

In other news, water is wet, and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, of course.  But far too many people still don't seem to fully dig that.  And Davis explains it brilliantly.

Excellent Article by Dr. Kirti Patel

Check out this excellent article by Dr. Kirti Patel about Matriarchy (or as she calls it, Gynarchy):

https://buymeacoffee.com/matriarchytimes/exploring-gynarchy-dr-kirti-patel-on-creating-future-beyond-patriarchy

She really makes some excellent points indeed.

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 while the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns are behind us, their grisly social and economic aftermath tends to linger, and thus it is still more crucial now than before 2020, and will still 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 was 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.  As Marco Fioretti notes, the laws of physics ultimately demand UBI from a limits-to-growth perspective.
11. According to the ever-insightful Marco Fioretti, UBI is essentially the logical conclusion of Catholic Social Doctrine.  And at the same time, the ever-insightful Rodger Malcolm Mitchell also makes some great arguments from a more secular perspective as well.
12. As sociology professor Jessica Calarco notes, neoliberalism has broken the social safety net, forced and conditioned society to accept precarity, and made Women bear the brunt of that precarity via their often invisible labor in place of the social safety net.  And I believe that is yet another argument for UBI.
13. 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)

Back By Popular Demand, The Legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder Has New Videos Again

Back by popular demand, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has new videos again:

And there are more new videos where that came from, so be sure to check those out too!

ICYMI, Guru Rasa Von Werder Has New Videos

ICYMI, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder's long-running YouTube Channel, now called  "Guru Rasa Von Werder:  New Religion 4 Women", has many new videos, including ones of her appearing in person.

https://youtube.com/@gururasavonwerder?si=gUSOz2PfqSxzBDoG

Be sure to check it out!

An Open Letter To Women In Politics

(Updated for 2024 America)

To any Women who are running for office, in office, or considering running for office in the near future:

You have probably noticed that the world is on fire, and has been for quite some time now.  We stand on the verge of World War III as we speak, and our overburdened planet is in grave danger.  We continue to flirt with the prospect of mass extinction (including humans, by the way) in the not-too-distant future, as we continue to cook the planet with reckless abandon.  We know what is causing all of these problems, and we already have the technology and wherewithal to solve them if we really wanted to, yet our current Big Wetiko "leaders" refuse to solve such problems because they are sycophantic lackeys to the parasitic elites, if not the very same elites themselves.  And these plutocrats are hopelesly addicted to "business as usual".

So how did we get here in the first place, exactly?  The answer lies in ancient history, about 7000 years ago or so, when men apparently got the bright idea to take over the (known) world piece by piece, by deposing you from power.  That's right, it was originally Women who were in charge for most of humanity's existence, and us fellas apparently thought we could do a better job as leaders than you ladies did.  Well, history shows us that we were wrong--dead wrong in fact.  Indeed, the best advice that us men can give to Women is "don't be like us", because we f**ked the world up royally. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it "peace".  We have devoured and suffocated our own empire, and now we are all paying a heavy price for it.  That's right--WE did it.  And we're sorry about that--though we can clearly stuff our "sorrys" in a sack! 

Oh, and to top it off, us fellas decided to hit America's self-destruct button and vote overwhelmingly for Donald Trump for President in 2016.  Yes, really.  Because apparently we couldn't screw things up enough already.  Fortunately, thank Goddess, the damage was limited.  But if he wins again in 2024, we may not be so lucky this time.

And now it is time for you to reclaim your rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, starting with the USA and eventually spreading from there.  In fact, it is LONG overdue for you to do so.  We cannot apologize enough for handing you such a monumental clusterf**k of a world for you to fix, of course, but we fellas have plenty of faith that you will be able to do so. We know that Women, not men, are the real natural-born leaders, and you can clearly handle power a lot better without it going to your heads than us.  We know that your preferred paradigm of society, what Riane Eisler calls the "partnership" model, is far better than the "dominator" model that we have been practicing for the past 7000 years.  As the saying goes, never send a boy to do a man's job--send a Woman instead.  Truer words were never spoken, and we need you now more than ever before.

The highest and tallest "glass ceiling" in the world--President of the United States--is still waiting to be smashed in 2024, as are plenty of other important political offices as well.  Even though Hillary already did that with the popular vote in 2016, the Rube Goldberg machine known as the Electoral College was systematically rigged against her.  But Goddess willing, Kamala Harris will win in 2024.  We wish all of you the very best of luck.  Now, go forth and make old Buckminster Fuller proud!  Vive la femme!

Sincerely,

Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)