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.

The ONLY Real Long-term Solution For Peace In The Middle East

With the current Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, and the larger, decades old, Israel-Palestine conflict in general, the idea of lasting peace in the Middle East seems to be increasingly elusive these days.  But there IS actually a solution, one that is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon.  So what is it?

It's really quite simple.  Men on both sides need to step down yesterday and let Women take over completely.  Period, full stop.  Because practically all of the violence, terrorism, and warmongering are being done by one gender, and it's not Women (while many of the victims are Women and children).

Otherwise, there is no long-term solution.  But until then, a "two-state solution" is still far better than a "Final Solution" on either side, to the victors going the ashes of the spoils.

How To Get Men To "Accept The Unacceptable"

As any student of world history can tell you, the USA and its Allies were once up against an extremely formidable enemy during WWII, one who was even harder to defeat than the formidable Nazis.  That "honor" goes to none other than Imperial Japan, the country that got America into the war in the first place.  They were not only extremely skilled and disciplined fighters by far, but were also most notably extremely stubborn when it came to surrendering.  "Death before dishonor" was so integral to their code of ethics that they would routinely engage in suicide attacks against the Allied forces.  They literally saw the prospect of surrender as worse than death, and thus behaved accordingly.  That was what we were up against in the Land of the Rising Sun.

As powerful as General Hideki Tojo was, the Japanese troops ultimately answered to one and only one man:  Emperor Hirohito.  He was literally regarded as a god, and was obeyed accordingly.  He ultimately turned out to be Imperial Japan's weakest link, however.  Long story short, rightly or wrongly, when the USA had first bombed and napalmed Tokyo, and then nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emperor was scared straight into surrendering unconditionally to the Allies.  He was thus forced to address the people and admit that he wasn't really divine, and that it was time for Japan to "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to the Allies.  And they listened, for the most part.  (Some Japanese troops didn't want to believe him and continued fighting for a time, but that was a tiny number that was readily quashed.)  In return for Hirohito ordering his troops to surrender, the Allies allowed him to remain as a figurehead "Emperor" in the new constitutional monarchy imposed by the Allies, which he remained until his death and succession by his son, Akihito.

So what can we learn from this?  Will it be possible for Women to finally get men to surrender this way?  That is, would it require a very powerful and charismatic "bro", one who is practically deified, to convince men that it is in their best interest to "accept the unacceptable" and surrender?  And what would it take to get that man to do so?

In a way, one particular man, former President Donald Trump, would have perhaps fit the bill as the Hirohito of American men if he wasn't so narcissistic, unstable, demented, corrupt, and of course frankly misogynistic.  If there was a way to get him to unconditionally surrender to Women, he could have perhaps convinced about 50-60% of men to join him in surrendering, maybe even more.  But even so, that window has long since closed, as the Donald is now discredited and he is nowhere near as popular as he once was.

So who will it be now, if anyone at all?  That is an open question that only Mother God really knows the answer to.

Why Full Decriminalization Of Sex Work Is The Only Just And Rational Policy

A few years ago, I wrote an article titled "Prostitution: The Oldest Profession or The Oldest Oppression?" that looked at the issue of sex work from various angles, and ultimately came to the conclusion that full decriminalization was the only just and rational policy in that regard.  That is the same conclusion that such diverse voices as Amnesty International, the ACLU, the WHO, UNAIDS, Human Rights Campaign, and so many others have come to in recent years.  And the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has also long supported decriminalization as well.

New Zealand is probably the best example of full decriminalization, which has prevailed for the past two decades.  A few other places in the world have or have had some flavor of this policy as well, including some parts of Australia, and formerly in the US state of  Rhode Island from 2003-2009.  Ditto for Denmark, the only Nordic country where the so-called "Nordic Model" never really caught on.  And while not a panacea, it is clearly the least-worst policy.

This is to be clearly distinguished from "legalization", where sex work is confined to a narrow and tightly regulated framework but otherwise criminalized outside that framework.  Basically, the state becomes the pimp in practice, if not also in theory.  And it is a half-assed solution at best.  Nevada, the Netherlands, and Germany are classic examples of such.

As for the so-called "Nordic Model" or "Equality Model", which should really be called the "Entrapment Model", we see that after over two decades of it in Sweden, and several years in several other countries that tried it, it fails miserably.  (As of 2023, the only US state to adopt it is Maine, and they did so earlier this year.)  While it is arguably a step up from full criminalization, that's a pitifully low bar to clear.

And of course, not even Mao Zedong and all of his brutality was ever able to truly eradicate prostitution, and it wasn't for lack of trying.  Sex work has existed in practically every culture in history, except for a tiny few outliers here and there.  Matriarchal societies would mostly likely have significantly less of it for reasons of both supply and demand, but it would likely still exist regardless (e.g. Sacred Harlots).

Ideally, the adult trade should be controlled entirely by Women, as when men control it they inevitably ruin it horribly.  Thus, banning men from acting as pimps and brothel owners would likely be a good idea.  Otherwise, putting restrictions on the adult trade generally does more harm than good.

Thus, we still ought to endorse full decriminalization.  The case in favor has only gotten stronger over time.

QED

Excellent Article Debunking The New Sexual Counterrevolutionaries

The highly astute Joanna Williams at Spiked Online has written an excellent article debunking the new sexual counterrevolutionaries, particularly the self-proclaimed "reactionary feminists" like Mary Harrington and Louise Perry.  She does not mince words about why it would be a bad idea to attempt to roll back the sexual revolution, particularly for Women, and why blaming all or most of the modern world's real or supposed social ills on The Pill (let alone doing away with it) is foolish at best. Women's freedom, sexual or otherwise, is NOT the problem.  And she notes how it really does Women no favors the way the reactionaries essentially rob them of agency and autonomy, infantilizing them.  And the real kicker is that she actually does so from a somewhat conservative perspective (keep in mind that "reactionary" is politically well to the right of "conservative", properly understood).

And one need not agree 100% with every word of her article to conclude that she is nonetheless correct overall.  Contrary to what some may believe, one cannot simply roll back Women's sexual freedom to 1950s (or earlier) levels without also (deliberately or inadvertently) rolling back Women's political and economic freedom as well.

Last year I had written an article about the follies of the sexual reactionaries, and why "reactionary feminism" will backfire on any Women who embrace it.  And a while back, I also wrote another article about how sexual freedom for Women is essentially the "kill switch" of patriarchy. 

(In case you were wondering, one should note that there has never been a society where Women had sexual freedom but men did not, not even in the most Matriarchal societies past or present.  The reverse has unfortunately been true under patriarchy, but even that has often backfired on men as well.)

In contrast, attempting to roll back the half-finished (at best) sexual revolution is to accomplish nothing but to get stuck in a quagmire of perpetual limbo at this point.  We would be wise to reject the bluster of those who seek to do so.

To quote the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder:

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

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

UPDATE:  The independent and largely conservative news site The Free Press recently hosted a live debate on September 13, 2023 on "Has the Sexual Revolution Failed?"  Given the conspicuous lack of gloating from either side afterwards, it's pretty clear that the right-wing reactionary side (i.e. against the sexual revolution) largely lost the debate.

Beware Of Reactionary Patriarchy In Disguise

Right-wing reactionary patriarchal religionists have a new disguise among many, apparently.  And as Horseshoe Theory would predict, it is a sort of (cafeteria) Marxism.  But don't be fooled, this desperate rear-guard action will ultinately NOT save authoritarian patriarchy and patriarchal religion from its inevitable decline and collapse, though it WILL do a lot of harm along the way if it is allowed to do so.  

So don't fall for it!

Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Yesterday

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.  (Note that the "U" itself also stands for "Unconditional", which is VERY important.)  At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely.  And in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and their grisly social and economic aftermath, it is more crucial now than ever before, and will be for quite some time as well.  

To wit:

1. First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women".  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.  As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.  And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown.  And they are still continuing (and will continue) to suffer from the aftermath long after the lockdowns are behind us.  Lockdown is patriarchy on crack, basically.
2. Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women.  When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  And this will only increase in the near future.  This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later.  Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions:  1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money.  Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.  Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
3. A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy.  No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God.  It's simply a basic human right, period.  And it would be far less costly in the long run.
4. As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology.  And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you.  And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.  The fact that human beings, unlike literally every other species on Earth, somehow must PAY to merely LIVE on the planet on which they were born is now totally contrived and socially constructed, and is in fact an egregious Crime Against Nature.
5. Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem.  And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
6. We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
7. With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
8. Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.  Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way. 
9. Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve.  This is over and above the effects of poverty alone.  And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty.  (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
10. We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to.  Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like.  A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
11. And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts".  What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard.   And that needs to change. Yesterday.  The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place.  A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be.  (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)

Perhaps Bucky's other prediction, that Women would take over the world, is a prerequisite for his vision to be fulfilled?   Honestly, it can't happen soon enough!

In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top.  So why aren't we doing this yesterday?  Because that would make far too much sense.  To quote Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate."  And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life.  Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless.  Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.  And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.  

(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!