Four years ago, I posted an article on the True Spirit of America Party blog titled, "Is the Crash of 2016 Upon Us?", as well as an article on this blog titled, "Will the Coming Crash of 2016 Accelerate the Transition to Matriarchy?". In the first, I outlined the various reasons why I predict that author Thom Hartmann was probably right in that there will be another financial crisis and stock market crash in 2016, perhaps even one that that will make 2008 and even 1929 look like a walk in the park. Looks like that didn't materialize in 2016, as that year is now in the rearview mirror, but seems to be happening right now in fact. Yes I know, I could in fact be wrong. But recent events are making it look increasingly likely every day.
The bubble--scratch that, BOIL--looks like it has been lanced. And the novel coronavirus (now called COVID-19) would have been almost a non-event in terms of its effect the stock market had the market not been so grossly overvalued and precarious in the first place. Not just stocks, but bonds and derivatives as well. This can get real ugly real fast!
So what does that have to do with Matriarchy and the inevitable transition in that direction? Turns out, a lot in fact. Basically, in order for Women to finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, men need to surrender to them. And most men will not surrender until they truly hit rock bottom. It's just our nature that way. Of course, even with the most cursory look at the statistics (and an open mind), we can all see the writing on the wall. Women are rising, while men are falling. In fact, Women have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of education and are well on their way to becoming the richer gender, meanwhile us fellas are falling away and falling apart. We are being gradually replaced by both Women (for higher-skilled jobs) as well as robots/machines/AI (for less-skilled jobs), our wages have been falling, our once-great labor unions have been busted by the powerful men at the top who threw the bottom 80-90% of us under the bus, and we are thus are becoming increasingly redundant. And the past two recessions, especially 2008-2009, have basically been dubbed "mancessions", in which men got hit significantly harder than women in terms of un(der)employment (excluding of course the "austerity" government budget cuts that happened in 2010-2013, that hurt Women more than men). We must note, and it bears repeating, that this is NOT the fault of Women, but rather the result of our very own karma.
Thus, if the next or current crash is like 2008 or worse, I predict that men will likely be collectively hit so hard that they will never fully recover. We still haven't fully recovered from the last one, so this time would likely be the ultimate death blow for us. Sooner or later, it is only a matter of time before men will literally be begging women for a bailout. And when that happens, Women would then be in the power position. Not right away, of course, but we can see how this could accelerate the transition in the medium to long run.
Donald Trump was unfortunately elected POTUS as of January 20, 2017, as he "won" the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. That seemed to set the Women's movement back quite a bit, at least in theory. But this is America's "dark night of the soul", thus also a time of transformation. Look no further than the #MeToo movement to see how galvanized Women have become. And now in 2020, soon Trump will be out of office (hopefully replaced by Bernie Sanders) and we can all see the light at the end of the tunnel, God willing.
(This is true not only for the Trump era, but for the entire 40 years of neoliberalism since Reagan and Thatcher as well.)
So fellas, it is time to do some serious soul-searching. If you have not yet renounced the demonic patriarchy in all of its forms, now is the time to do it. God willing, we will soon need Women to rescue us. Because let's face it, we have dug our own graves and will be in over our heads in no time. It will happen sooner than you think. And when Women finally do take over, they will remember exactly how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday.
Monday, March 9, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
The Great Cosmic Custody Battle
One of the most vexing questions about the 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 the 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 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, 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, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was rewarded in their culture. This theory orginated from anthropologist Marija Gimbutas, and makes a great deal of sense. But it 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.
I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's most recent book "The End of Patriarchy", 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 society. While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy a bit too short and often mischaracterizes what it really is, and I also think that the best way that his tri-une society or something like it can be created is with Women in charge.
But one thing is certain. Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of 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 Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't also helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus. That is 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.
Thus patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist movement that is not on board with 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. The entire edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail.
Without youth rights, children and young people are essentially treated as "un-persons", and what results is what I call the Great Cosmic Custody Battle between the toxic authoritarians on both sides of patriarchy vs. reverse patriarchy. And as long as that battle continues, so too will patriarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny.
So let's finally smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday! What better time than now?
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, 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, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was rewarded in their culture. This theory orginated from anthropologist Marija Gimbutas, and makes a great deal of sense. But it 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.
I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's most recent book "The End of Patriarchy", 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 society. While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy a bit too short and often mischaracterizes what it really is, and I also think that the best way that his tri-une society or something like it can be created is with Women in charge.
But one thing is certain. Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of 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 Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't also helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus. That is 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.
Thus patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist movement that is not on board with 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. The entire edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail.
Without youth rights, children and young people are essentially treated as "un-persons", and what results is what I call the Great Cosmic Custody Battle between the toxic authoritarians on both sides of patriarchy vs. reverse patriarchy. And as long as that battle continues, so too will patriarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny.
So let's finally smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday! What better time than now?
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Who's Afraid Of An Aging Population? (Updated for 2020)
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.
The proof is clearly in the pudding.
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!
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.
The proof is clearly in the pudding.
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!
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is
Author Yuri Alexandrovich wrote a great article recently 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 the practice of slut-shaming.
Wait, what? There is still slut-shaming in 2020? 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.
(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 Alexandrovich himself says:
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.
One thing needs to be clear. As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight 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, 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.
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.
So what are we waiting for? Kill Switch Engage! Let the planetary healing begin!
Wait, what? There is still slut-shaming in 2020? 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.
(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 Alexandrovich 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 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.
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.
One thing needs to be clear. As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight 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, 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.
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.
So what are we waiting for? Kill Switch Engage! Let the planetary healing begin!
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
How Long Do We Have To Save The Planet? Spoiler Alert: Not Very
It's now 2020. According to the world's leading scientists who are now virtually unanimous about this: time is running out to save the planet from the converging catastrophes (especially climate change) threatening it's (and our own) very survival. We have at most eleven years left to fix climate change specifically, to say nothing of all the other crises (deforeststion, desertification, pollution, etc.) which brings us to 2030, most likely a very pivotal year.
I don’t know about you, the readers, but I really do NOT trust men to save this world. The past 7000 years or so is evidence enough. Thus, as per my prediction that I made several years ago, Women would need to take over by 2030 at the latest if we are to have any hope at all.
Of course, I am specifically talking about a political takeover, particularly in the Western world. That needs to happen as soon as possible. The spiritual side of things, on the other hand, will likely take several generations to complete, as Guru Rasa von Werder has noted before. Not perfect, of course, but if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.
What better time than now?
I don’t know about you, the readers, but I really do NOT trust men to save this world. The past 7000 years or so is evidence enough. Thus, as per my prediction that I made several years ago, Women would need to take over by 2030 at the latest if we are to have any hope at all.
Of course, I am specifically talking about a political takeover, particularly in the Western world. That needs to happen as soon as possible. The spiritual side of things, on the other hand, will likely take several generations to complete, as Guru Rasa von Werder has noted before. Not perfect, of course, but if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.
What better time than now?
Sunday, December 8, 2019
Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Guarantee for All, Yesterday (Re-post)
I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all. At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely. To wit:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts". What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard. And that needs to change. Yesterday. The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place. A UBI will make the transition much smoother and peaceful.
In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top. So why aren't we doing this yesterday? Because that would make far too much sense. To quote Buckminster Fuller:
We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate." And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life. Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless. Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society. So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, December 1, 2019
The "Anti-Mary" Exposed? (Spoiler Alert: Just Look In The Mirror)
It seems that the perennial anti-feminist backlash is rife these days, as one can see it most everywhere today. This backlash is always strongest when Women seem to be winning the gender war against patriarchy. As I had noted in a previous post, there have been several anti-feminist Women who have done more harm to the cause of feminism and Matriarchy than any man could ever hope to do.
But it seems a more subtle yet effective attack from another angle can also be added to this list as well. While I really do not want to give her any sort of publicity, a female conservative Catholic "scholar" by the name of Carrie Gress has apparently written a book called The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity. And this book is in dire need of a serious debunking, even more than when I debunked Mark Regnerus' own verbal defecation.
Like the concept of the Antichrist, Gress claims that there is a demonic spirit called the "Anti-Mary" that first reared its head in the late 1960s via the second-wave feminist movement. She calls it the "Anti-Mary" in that she believes it is diametrically opposed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, in Gress' view, the entire feminist movement, the pro-choice movement, birth control, the pursuit of personal happiness (for Women, that is), divorce, gay rights and gay marriage, the Goddess Movement, and the "occult" are all manifestations of that same spirit (peppered with the obligatory references to Lilith and Jezebel, of course). And according to her, there is a small group of elite Women controlling society from behind the scenes since the late 1960s that she ironically calls "The Matriarchy" (which paradoxically demeans and opposes motherhood, go figure), thus the book essentially becomes its very own parody. And she blames this so-called "Anti-Mary" (read: feminism) for essential all of modern society's ills today, and believes that Women are more miserable than ever as a result, or at least less happy now than they were in the so-called "good old days" before the 1960s. Riiiight.
In other words, she apparently wants to go back to a time of rigid and dehumanizing gender roles when Women had no real civil and human rights and were essentially treated as brood mares at best. Because that is exactly what happens when Women are denied their reproductive rights to decide when or whether to have children, and when Women's sexuality is repressed and controlled by men, the church, the state, or all of the above. While she would never say such blunt words out loud, she certainly implies them in an Orwellian fashion (where freedom is slavery and vice-versa).
Remember, even the supposedly "kinder and gentler" patriarchy of "third way" Catholic Distributism is still patriarchy, and thus cannot be redeemed. And no amount of disingenuous zero-sum thinking can turn a Big Lie into the truth, or turn enforced motherhood into liberation.
And of course anyone familiar with the Goddess Movement would almost instantly recognize the patriarchal splitting of the Great Mother archetype into the Good Mother (Mary) and the Terrible Mother (Lilith/Jezebel) archetypes in Gress's writing. Which is of course, neither novel nor inspiring.
There is a lot to unpack here, a pack of lies mixed with just enough truth to confuse and misdirect the gullible, but I can assure you that while it takes a real leap of logic to actually believe such fatuous and facile arguments wholesale, her thesis will nonetheless actually resonate with numerous disaffected Women who are looking for a scapegoat for the problems of the modern world, and her words will certainly tickle the ears of anyone who does not immediately respond with rage and vomiting. Her thesis reeks of internalized misogyny, albeit in a shiny and pretty wrapper, and there seems to be no shortage of that, as so many Women seem to be socialized to be their own worst enemy even today.
Having the GALL to try to openly pit the Blessed Virgin Mary against feminism and Matriarchy and the Goddess Movement (i.e. effectively against Mother God Herself!) is nothing short of blasphemy, and ironically exposes who the real "Anti-Mary" actually is: traitorous anti-feminist Women who side (and collaborate) with the demonic patriarchy.
QED
But it seems a more subtle yet effective attack from another angle can also be added to this list as well. While I really do not want to give her any sort of publicity, a female conservative Catholic "scholar" by the name of Carrie Gress has apparently written a book called The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity. And this book is in dire need of a serious debunking, even more than when I debunked Mark Regnerus' own verbal defecation.
Like the concept of the Antichrist, Gress claims that there is a demonic spirit called the "Anti-Mary" that first reared its head in the late 1960s via the second-wave feminist movement. She calls it the "Anti-Mary" in that she believes it is diametrically opposed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, in Gress' view, the entire feminist movement, the pro-choice movement, birth control, the pursuit of personal happiness (for Women, that is), divorce, gay rights and gay marriage, the Goddess Movement, and the "occult" are all manifestations of that same spirit (peppered with the obligatory references to Lilith and Jezebel, of course). And according to her, there is a small group of elite Women controlling society from behind the scenes since the late 1960s that she ironically calls "The Matriarchy" (which paradoxically demeans and opposes motherhood, go figure), thus the book essentially becomes its very own parody. And she blames this so-called "Anti-Mary" (read: feminism) for essential all of modern society's ills today, and believes that Women are more miserable than ever as a result, or at least less happy now than they were in the so-called "good old days" before the 1960s. Riiiight.
In other words, she apparently wants to go back to a time of rigid and dehumanizing gender roles when Women had no real civil and human rights and were essentially treated as brood mares at best. Because that is exactly what happens when Women are denied their reproductive rights to decide when or whether to have children, and when Women's sexuality is repressed and controlled by men, the church, the state, or all of the above. While she would never say such blunt words out loud, she certainly implies them in an Orwellian fashion (where freedom is slavery and vice-versa).
Remember, even the supposedly "kinder and gentler" patriarchy of "third way" Catholic Distributism is still patriarchy, and thus cannot be redeemed. And no amount of disingenuous zero-sum thinking can turn a Big Lie into the truth, or turn enforced motherhood into liberation.
And of course anyone familiar with the Goddess Movement would almost instantly recognize the patriarchal splitting of the Great Mother archetype into the Good Mother (Mary) and the Terrible Mother (Lilith/Jezebel) archetypes in Gress's writing. Which is of course, neither novel nor inspiring.
There is a lot to unpack here, a pack of lies mixed with just enough truth to confuse and misdirect the gullible, but I can assure you that while it takes a real leap of logic to actually believe such fatuous and facile arguments wholesale, her thesis will nonetheless actually resonate with numerous disaffected Women who are looking for a scapegoat for the problems of the modern world, and her words will certainly tickle the ears of anyone who does not immediately respond with rage and vomiting. Her thesis reeks of internalized misogyny, albeit in a shiny and pretty wrapper, and there seems to be no shortage of that, as so many Women seem to be socialized to be their own worst enemy even today.
Having the GALL to try to openly pit the Blessed Virgin Mary against feminism and Matriarchy and the Goddess Movement (i.e. effectively against Mother God Herself!) is nothing short of blasphemy, and ironically exposes who the real "Anti-Mary" actually is: traitorous anti-feminist Women who side (and collaborate) with the demonic patriarchy.
QED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)