Saturday, March 23, 2024

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

Every war has casualites, and the 7000 year long gender war (which we call "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer) is certainly no exception.  There are many such casualties, and the four biggest ones are as follows:

  1. The first casualty is TRUTH.  And that is not just a clichéd statement, but is practically axiomatic.  If people really knew the truth, the continuity of the war will be called into question.  So the truth is deliberately hidden and replaced with lies, half-truths, and omissions whenever possible.  Eventually it leads to a "post-truth" society and world, in which the truth becomes essentially irrelevant in what passes for discourse.
  2. The second casualty is INNOCENCE.  Not as a euphemism for ignorance (for which there is still plenty), but in the most general sense, which includes the capacity for trust.  And that is a result of the first casualty, truth. Not to mention all of the actual and horrific atrocities of the war itself as well.  This results in jadedness, bitterness, and cynicism, which in the case of the gender war seriously poisons the relationship between Women and men, and also vitiates what remains of the sisterhood between Women as well.
  3. The third casualty is LOVE.  And not just in the romantic sense, but in the most general sense to include all forms of love, all the way down to and including friendship.  In fact, friendship is probably the biggest casualty of all.  When both primary genders regard the other as being inherently dangerous/evil and needing to be controlled, that kinda precludes all but the most superficial and/or authoritarian relationships between the two.
  4. And the fourth and final casualty is HUMANITY, in both senses of the word.
Thus, the gender war, like all wars, ultimately hurts everyone and thus needs to end yesterday.  And the only way to end it (without the entire planet being killed) is for us fellas to, paraphrasing the late Emperor Hirohito, "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to Women.  The sooner we finally cap the game, the better.  So what are we waiting for?

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

Friday, March 8, 2024

Happy International Women's Day!

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

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

VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!

Thursday, March 7, 2024

"The Feminist Perspective" by Carol Brouillet

AJAX SAYS:  I first found this excellent transcribed speech by long-time Green and community activist Carol Brouillet a while ago and then rediscovered it recently.  It is over a quarter-century old now, but it still remains true today, a fortiori in fact.  NOTE:  Due to decades of endemic neoliberal conditioning, for most readers, this perspective is almost certainly NOT what you think it is from the title.  So read on.

(Original can be found here at https://www.communitycurrency.org/feministP.html.)

This is a speech written for The Other Economic Summit (June '97). Please feel free to post or reprint in whole or in part. (This site employs Style Sheets so you also need to download CCstyle.css.txt, rename it "CCstyle.css", and include it where you put this file.


The Feminist Perspective

by Carol Brouillet

The word define, literally means to draw a line around something -- to separate a part of reality from the whole. At the Fetzer Institute, quantum physicists met with Navajo, Hopi and other indigenous people to discover that native languages were able to convey the nature of quantum realities much better than English or French. In the structure of our language, we separate subject and object. In Navajo or Hopi the separation does not exist, everything is in relationship. The foundation of the aboriginal cultures includes a reverence for the sacred dimension of life, our deep interconnection with the Earth, the Cosmos, and all living things and it is reflected in the language itself.

        Western Civilization has tried to separate spirit from matter. First dualism, then came the idea of God as the machine maker, and a mechanical worldview which put man above all else -- the alpha and omega of creation. Eventually God was eliminated, and we were left with a meaningless, purposeless Universe. Only recently have scientists begun to recognize and validate what indigenous cultures have been saying for countless millennia, that we cannot separate subject from object, we are all connected. Still there seems to be a jetlag between insights and institutions. Powerful illusions have been maintained by an extraordinary propaganda machine without which our institutions, and our governments would crumble.

        We realize that our planet is under attack, our oceans are dying, the rivers are being poisoned, our forests are being destroyed, millions of people are suffering from hunger and terrible exploitation, species are going extinct every moment. How can we reverse this onslaught, this wave of destruction? How can we fortify the people and lifeforms that remain?

        First we must recognize the root causes of the host of maladies that are afflicting humanity and the Earth. The dominant culture's worldview promotes disconnection, encourages specialization, neglects a holistic view of ourselves and our relationship to the world. This worldview amplifies and supports hierarchical systems, the control and exploitation of people, natural resources, as well as other lifeforms. It does not recognize the sacredness of life, or the value of living ecosystems, people, or anything that cannot be measured and monetized. The global economy is absolutely blind to the webs of interdependence between all living things and our mother planet. It's a systemic problem which has gotten progressively worse.

        It's easy to blame everything on the rapacious greed of politicians or CEO's who are earning obscene amounts of money while laying off employees and destroying the environment, but the system which molds their behavior must also be examined. In the past two decades, merger mania has dramatically restructured industry, resulting in the monopolization and vertical integration of large sections of the economy by fewer and fewer transnational corporations. There was a time when companies expressed concern towards their employees, when loyal, hard-working employees expected to keep their jobs and get a pension when they retired. Enlightened presidents and executive directors actually tried to treat their employees well and behave in a socially responsible manner. Many of those companies have been shut down and the goods they once produced are now being produced in Third World countries where military dictatorships keep wages low and drop environmental standards. The most socially responsible CEO's lost their positions, or their companies became the targets of hostile takeovers, the corporate raiders loot pension funds, liquidate the company resources for short term gains. Now, the tyranny of the bottom line means -- that it is almost impossible for CEO's to behave in a socially responsible way. The financial pressure demands that they externalize costs and increase profits or lose their positions or their companies. Unenlightened CEO's, who do not mind downsizing, are removed if they do not do it fast enough, and are found to be "underperforming " by Wall Street standards. In David Korten's book When Corporations Rule the World, there are examples of the CEO's of the largest corporations, GM, American Express, IBM, Westinghouse, being axed by an extractive financial system.

        Should we blame the managers of investment funds who wield this power? Or are the investors to blame for their collective blindness and greed? We need to look at the misconceptions and emotions which have created and maintain the dominant institutions which continue to "rule" and control the world. The fictitious entities known as corporations which are totalitarian and have rewritten the laws to gain immortality and rights over nations, states, communities and individuals. There is a book called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, first published in 1841 which chronicles in the first hundred pages those times when nations were caught up in speculative frenzies, the tulipmania in Holland in the 1600's, France and England with the South Sea Bubbles, and Mississippi Schemes in the 1700's. Everyone is familiar with the Wall Street Crash of 1929, but I think these historical speculative bouts were relatively mild compared to the speculative frenzy which is happening at this very moment.

        Bernard Lietaer, who is writing a book called The Future of Money: Beyond Greed and Scarcity, says that our official monetary system has almost nothing to do with the real economy. The volume of currency exchanged on the global level is $1.3 trillion per day. This is 30 times more than the daily GDP of all of the developed countries together. Of that, only 2 or 3 % has to do with real trade or investment; the remainder takes place in the speculative global cyber-casino. He sees the possibility of a crash as about 50/50 over the next 5 or 10 years. Many people, including me, say it's 100 percent. George Soros, who has made a fortune speculating in currencies says, "Instability is cumulative, so the eventual breakdown of freely floating exchanges is virtually assured." Joel Kurtzman, ex-editor of the Harvard Business Review, entitles his latest book: The Death of Money and forecasts an imminent collapse. Bernard elaborates that if there were a crisis, and if all the Central Banks were to agree to work together (which they never do) and if they were to use all their reserves (which is another thing that never happens) they have the funds to control only half the volume of a normal day of trading. In a crisis day, that volume could easily double or triple, and the total Central Bank reserves would last two or three hours. In 1929, the stock market crashed, but the gold standard held. The monetary system held. Here, we are dealing with something that's more fundamental. Bernard adds, "The only precedent I know of is the Roman Empire collapse, which ended Roman currency. That was, of course, at a time when it took about a century and a half for the breakdown to spread through the empire; now it would take a few hours."

        What is holding the system together? And when it does collapse, what will replace it? Each of us, consciously or unconsciously is playing a role in this. What we believe, what we do with our money, our time, either strengthens the dominant belief systems and institutions or weakens them and draws strength to the creation of new belief systems and alternative institutions.

        We are living in an extraordinary time of chaos and paradox, where all sorts of possibilities are opening up. The vast majority of people are losing faith in institutions and trying to improve their lives in countless ways. There are heretics within governments, corporations, educational institutions. Non-profit organizations continue to blossom and grow. There has never been a better time to organize. The New Age movement needs to be grounded. The hard core political activists could benefit from consciousness raising. The environmental movement needs to address the issues of class, race and gender. This is happening, as people come together, learn from one another, and build coalitions.

        We recognize that all our issues are interrelated, that we are more alike than different in our common goals -- peace, justice, a future for our children, a healthy planet and healthy environments for all living things. It is also a time of great personal transformation, our worldviews are continually challenged by new information. As we become more aware of the consequences of our collective actions, it becomes harder and harder to live a "normal" life because to live in adherence with our values, we must change our living patterns, and change the most basic systems upon which we depend. How we obtain the food we eat, the clothes we wear, our shelter, our means of transportation, how we educate our children, take on greater meaning and become political acts, broadcasting our belief system and our values. This cannot happen overnight, so each of us must experience the contradictions, paradoxes of transformation which we are witnessing in the world today.

        Aung Sung Suu Kyi wrote: "It is not power that corrupts, but fear -- fear of losing power and fear of the scourge of those who wield it." This fear corrupts politicians and immobilizes the vast majority. Fear is used, created, to justify all military activities, the ever expanding security forces that governments use to oppress their people, and the expanding prison industry. Anything we do to add to that level of fear, that immobilizes people and reduces their capacity to respond in a creative, positive way can be harmful. Academia and the media play a major role in promoting the myths which feed fears and create the image of a dangerous world of scarce resources where overpopulation threatens us with extinction.

        Is the world dangerous? Are people dangerous? The world would be a much safer place without armies and police to "protect" us. Imagine if the military budget and the money spent on police and prisons were spent on health, education, housing, clean water. The fears are created to "control" and "exploit" people.

        Look at the scarce resource myth promoted by Malthus before we were born. "Resources are scarce; we must compete for them in order to survive. They are getting scarcer and scarcer all the time as the population grows and there is less land, less water, less fish in the sea." Well, if Malthus had said, "Resources are not scarce; there is plenty for everybody, so long as we share." he would probably not have become famous, his ideas would have served no useful purpose for the ruling class -- but if the idea that the Earth has abundant resources, if they are equitably shared had prevailed, I don't think we would have the disparity between the rich and the poor that we have now. Look at the distribution of wealth. There is plenty of money, and yet there is no money for meeting the basic needs of the vast majority. While the number of billionaires increase and the transnational corporation's economies grow to dwarf those of countries, more and more people are being denied their rights to live and support themselves and their families.

        Overconsumption is surely as threatening, if not more threatening, than overpopulation, but the corporate media aren't going to promote the idea of voluntary simplicity. It's obscene that 20% of the world is consuming more than 70% of the world's energy while the remaining three-quarters consume less than 30%. The closer we look at those numbers, the worse it looks -- two billion people have no access to electricity. Blame the world's problems on those least able to defend themselves has been the favored tactic of the rich and powerful.

        When the Europeans first began to colonize the rest of the world, they used force. In order to get people to work for them, they had to drive people off the land. The same techniques have been used again and again throughout the world. A tiny percentage of people hold most of the world's land and are the greatest cause of abject poverty. Forced into cities or wage slavery, torn from their cultures, women have had ever larger families. Access to land, equality, education and the availability of family planning would reduce birthrates dramatically. One percent of the world's wealth is held by women, and most of the world's work is done by women, whether they are paid or not. Truly there is enough to meet everyone's needs, but there will never be enough to satisfy the greed of the few.

        Buckminster Fuller created a game called "The World Game." You can play it with between 50 and 200 people on a board the size of a basketball court, which represents the world. Each person is given the actual resources available in the part of the world that he represents, but instead of trying to take over the world, the object of the game is to solve the world's problems. The illuminating thing about the game is that the problems are very solvable, if people simply play cooperatively. It just shows that in the real world, what we lack are not resources, but the political will to put aside narrow personal interests and act on behalf of the greater good.

        In the film, Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies & Global Economics, Marilyn discovers the origins of the U.N. Systems of National Accounts, a system imposed upon every country that joins the U.N. and hopes to get a loan from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. The system was based upon a pamphlet by John Maynard Keynes and Richard Stone entitled "The British System of National Accounts and How to Pay for the War." This system enables the global elites to finance their militaries. Indeed it is in the economic interest of the major powers, who earn so much from their arms deals, that there is always a war going on somewhere. The system does not recognize the value of peace, an intact ecosystem, or the unpaid labor of women. Monetary transactions are measured and deemed of the greatest importance, no matter how devastating their effects are. It does not see anything of unquantifiable value -- life, people, the Earth; it only sees that which it measures -- money. The forests, the lungs of our planet, our worthless according to this system, unless they are chopped down and sold as timber.

        By elevating money to the point where everything else may be sacrificed to obtain it, by confusing money with real wealth, our civilization is rushing to destroy itself. Toynbee chronicles the rise and fall of civilizations, one feature that they have in common is the extreme concentration of wealth and power, and ecological collapse. The rich have never been richer nor the poor poorer. Agribusiness has meant a loss of 90% of the edible plant species since the turn of the century; it rivals the military as far as the devastation that it has wreaked upon all arable lands. Despite the obvious needs of the vast majority of humanity, money is being siphoned from the poor to the rich. Through the IMF and the World Bank, the money continues to flow to the wealthy countries, in 1994 net payments to the US from "developing" countries reached $2 billion. The Bretton Woods Institutions force countries to open themselves to foreign investment, devalue their currencies, switch from growing food for local consumption to growing export crops. These policies are as devastating as war and just as deadly. If the children who starve quietly in their homes as a result of World Bank policies were taken out into their village squares or city parks and shot, the world would be horrified. But the catastrophic suffering remains invisible to those who focus their attention on making money, and feel no connection to people outside of their class and culture. As cancer, unchecked consumes its host; the world's parasites continue to feast upon the world oblivious to the suffering of the bulk of humanity and the stresses on our mutual life support system, the planet. Without water, food, friendship, love, health, all the money, gold, toys become worthless baubles.

        The old system has relied upon military force and control to maintain the wealth and privilege of the ruling elite. Weapons, misinformation, and money are the tools this system has relied upon. By beating the drum and blaming the world's ills on overpopulation, it subtly encourages the idea that masses of people are expendable, institutionally it says that the lives in industrialized nations are worth more than those in "developing" nations and within wealthy countries the rich are idolized and society's ills blamed on the poor. Wherever we can, we must challenge military expenditures, expanding "security and prison systems." We must nurture all efforts towards non-violent conflict resolution. We need to institutionalize a global minimum wage and a maximum wage. We should respect and honor people for their integrity, character, wisdom and gifts to society, as opposed to the amount of wealth they can extract from society. We should also recognize the gifts we have received from the Earth and recognize our responsibility to future generations to safeguard their living heritage.

        We must speak "truth" to power and challenge the misinformation which is broadcast by the major media. For example -- the growth illusion, the GDP myth; GDP is more indicative of the rape and exploitation of resources in a country than the health and well-being of its people or ecosystems. We need new indicators which measure what really matters -- our health, the health of the environment, quality of life. the disparity between the rich and the poor. We must support the alternative media, which is not dominated by corporate or government interests and tries to speak for those whose voices need to be heard.

        I just read 3 books by Makoto Shichida who has studied children in Japan for decades and specializes in developing courses for preschoolers and mentally retarded children. He has written over 50 books, including Babies are Geniuses and Right Brain Education in Infancy -- Theory and Practice. His thesis, basically, is that geniuses are people who use both sides of their brains. Generally, in the west, we only give attention to the abilities of the left side of the brain, but it is the right side that should be nurtured in its most formative years. Right brain abilities include mathematical calculating ability, photographic memory, image visualization, the ability to absorb vast quantities of information and make sense of it, and what is referred to as extra-sensory perception, telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition. Imagine how different the world would be, if every baby born were loved, nurtured and given the opportunity to develop all their abilities, mental, spiritual and physical. The well being of our infants and children worldwide should be at the top of our priority list, as a species!! Therein lies the hope of humanity and the world. A few enlightened people aren't going to turn our situation around; its time for collective enlightenment. The dominant worldview is a dying worldview; the holistic, cooperative, worldview is being born, the youngest are the quickest to grasp these truths, when they are given the opportunity.

        Hilka Pietela, Hazel Henderson see that the real economy is for the most part "invisible" to those blind "economists" who are mainly hired by the rich to serve "their" agendas. The life support system of the planet, the warming rays of our sun, these "gifts" form the foundation of the human economy upon which everything else depends. The unpaid work of women, the voluntary networks of cooperation and community are also a fundamental vital chunk of the real economy. On top of that, there is the protected sector which provides many basic services, and is guided by official means for domestic markets, food, construction,...The smallest part of the economy, the icing, so to speak, is the "global economy" which includes large scale production for export, and to compete with imports. This gets most of the attention, and the transnational corporations that dominate world trade get most of the profits, employing less than 1/3 of 1% of the world's population. Pietela finds that the most fatal shortcoming of the prevailing economics is that it does not distinguish the cultivation economy from industrial production. This effort to control, and extract value from living nature is taking a great toll on people and our world.

        I have a T-shirt with a Dollar bill on it which clearly states- Warning! Use of this product may cause apathy, laziness, selfishness, ignorance, loss of identity, greed... environmental destruction, racial tension, murder, war, and impoverishment for others. Continuous and excessive use could render a permanent state of indifference to the welfare of those around you. Use at your own risk!

        I think we should make little warning labels and stick them on our cash. We need to shatter a few illusions about money -- who creates it, who benefits from its use and who suffers. We need to remind people that our health, our relationships, the well-being of our communities, the health of our eco-systems, economic justice, world peace, and our happiness are more important than our bank balance.

        Bankers create money out of thin air and loan it to governments and others at interest, but they don't create the interest, so it is never possible to pay off all the debts. Money is a tool of empire; it allows the flow of resources from the poor to the rich. It used to be called usury and was condemned by all the world's religions, but when the Catholic Church became the largest landowner, it figured out how to break the old taboo.

        Helena Norberge-Hodge has chronicled in her film and book -- Ancient Futures how a nonmonetized culture, in Ladahk, rich in Buddhist spiritual traditions, with an intricate system of family and social ties, where ninety percent of the land was evenly distributed amongst families, people lived ecologically and sustainably. Almost everyone knew how to build a house and meet all of their basic needs. Money, a road to India, tourism have been disastrous for the culture, creating the same problems we find in industrialized societies. There are lessons to be learned here, to reverse this process and point our culture towards a more sustainable, happier existence.

        Suppose we create a different kind of money, with a different dynamic, based upon that which we value -- to encourage healthy relationships, build community, and restore the environment. We could write those values directly on the money to raise awareness and remind people of what is important. This is what Paul Glover in Ithaca, New York and others have done. Not only does local currency help build community and prevent resources from being drained away by transnational corporations, it is a tool to raise consciousness, to promote meaningful exchanges, and help reweave the bonds of community. Community comes from words meaning "the free exchange of gifts." In ideal societies, there is no need for money because people exchange their gifts freely. We must remember that money is simply a tool, it can be impersonal, anonymous, destructive or we could redesign it to encourage recognition of our deepest values and to help build a world based upon respect and healthy relationships between all people.

        There is a concerted effort, at the moment, by the rich, to make sure that this doesn't happen. It's called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and if the rich countries agree, the poorer countries might be forced to sign on to an elimination of all barriers on foreign investment. It gives all rights to capital, and removes the ability of communities, states, sovereign nations to demand some sort of accountability from "investors." As the World Trade Organization became a Bill of Rights for corporations, this international agreement could become a bill of rights for the very rich, at the expense of all governments, people, and the environment. The only good thing about it is that if any politician votes for it then you know he or she is a prostitute working for monied interests with no regards for their constituency; the bad thing is that if it does go through, to undo it would take at least 15 years, so by the time you get rid of the politicians that passed it, the others won't be able to do much about it.

        So we need to launch a public education campaign about this, and why not teach people about the monetary system at the same time? Create community currencies, print the values you wish to strengthen and encourage on your bills and point out how "the other monetary system" is hell bent on destroying those things.

        Explaining the monetary system to most folks is not easy. It shatters too many belief systems that have been held for a long time. Yes! The Journal of Positive Futures, latest issue is on the subject of money and local currencies with great articles by David Korten on the difference between money and real wealth and Bernard Lietaer whom I've quoted. It's a great consciousness raising tool for grown-ups. It's much easier to explain this to first graders, who don't have to unlearn so much and quickly grasp the main ideas. In one sentence -- our current monetary system concentrates wealth and power destroying the Earth in the process; we need to create a new system that redistributes wealth and power, healing the Earth in the process.

        As our old system is dependent upon fear, greed, military force, misinformation, the new system should be based upon love, respect, compassion, cooperation, beauty and truth. The old system will topple because it is so disconnected from the real world, the real economy. The new system will be born out of recognition for what people value in their communities, and how they organize and cooperate to meet their community's needs; their will be as many systems as there are communities, richly diverse. The shared values of different communities will give rise to regional or bioregional currencies. Let us create a system that relies upon cooperation and trust to meet the needs of all people and improve the health of the ecosystem upon which all life depends. The old system relied on "fear" to control others. Let us create a system which "nurtures" people and life and actively encourages diversity.

        It is time to practice cooperation, respect and love in all areas. My husband and I took a class in "building equality" in relationships. Our instructor, Bill Moyer, explained to us that in his work with men who had been violent towards their wives, he had discovered that only 3% of the violence was physical, 45% was verbal and the rest was psychological. The difference between most people and violent guys was that 3% area. He discovered that the men always felt that they were the victims when they attacked their spouses -- because their wives had threatened their self-image or their worldview. (This applies to government behavior, as well.) We are conditioned by society to "win" arguments, to "dominate," to have the last word, to have our opinions prevail. We are not generally taught that our perception of ourselves is not dependent upon other people's opinions or that if we actively listen to, and respect one another, we will learn from one another. We generally unconsciously start debating and defending our views, controlling and dominating others. The class helped my husband and I become aware of the way we communicated with each other, as well as our interactions within different groups, but where I really felt the difference was in my relationship with my children. It is so easy to adopt "control" mode with 3 little boys who want to go off in 3 different directions. It is a daily challenge for me to transform myself, to listen, to develop cooperative patterns within my home. Now I realize that they are my teachers, and our lifelong learning adventure is a cooperative one.

        The old system depended on "experts" who imposed their ideas upon the many. Let us actively encourage the participation of all, so that we might learn from one another and go from a "smart" culture to a "wisdom" culture.

        Let us nurture respect in all of our relationships and organizations. Let us recognize that our own well-being cannot be separated from the well-being of all people.

(End of Carol Brouillet's speech.)

AJAX SAYS:  And THAT is what it looks like to use one's right-brain properly!  No wonder our left-brain dominant culture may find this hard to understand.  Now, I may not necessarily agree 100% with everything she says, but overall, she is really right on the money here.  And the fact that some people today may not even recognize her feminism as such, only goes to show just how co-opted and infected mainstream "feminism" has ulitmately become by the now-endemic virus of neoliberalism

Let the planetary healing begin!

Friday, March 1, 2024

Why Do Cold-Blooded Psychopaths Rule Our World? (Updated Re-Post)

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson), William Bond, and Rasa Von Werder.

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog in 2019, which in turn was adapted from an Embodiment of God article from 2014 by Rasa and William)

It seems that these days, and indeed for as long as anyone can remember, psychopaths and sociopaths (the former are born, the latter are made) have long been grossly overrepresented in positions of power.  The higher the echelons of the power hierarchy, the greater prevalence of psychopaths/sociopaths there are.  And it seems to have only gotten that much worse in recent decades in fact, and more global as well.



(Garden-variety psychopath, knife optional)

So why is that?  The answer, it seems, is patriarchy.  The following article from 2014 is a conversation between the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and great author William Bond, originally published on Rasa's Embodiment of God website. (My interspersed comments, as Ajax the Great, are in red.)

PSYCHOPATH PATRIARCHAL LEADERS by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

If we want to understand why we live in a world of conflict — wars, violence, abuse, poverty and suffering, then we have to go back to basics.  What is undisputed is that men rule our world and have done so for thousands of years.  Male-rule is what feminists call patriarchy – masculine rule – and masculinity (as defined in our present society) is aggression, force, violence and intimidation.

AJAX THE GREAT: Absolutely true indeed.  Truer words were never spoken.

RASA:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, Women are rising, while men are falling away and falling apart, and have been so for a while now.

RASA SAYS:  THIS BEGS, FOR ME, A NEW DEFINITION OF “MASCULINE.”  I POSIT AS A MASCULINE MAN, FOR INSTANCE, SAINT REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.  THERE WAS A REAL MAN, WHO RISKED HIS LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS, AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS JESUS DID.  I READ HIS BOOK “THE STRENGTH TO LOVE,” WHICH WAS ABOUT LOVING THOSE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY BOMB YOUR HOUSE.  HE KNEW THE MEANING OF LOVE, HE WAS STRONG.  THAT’S A REAL MAN, OR A REAL WOMAN.  BULLIES ARE NOT REAL MEN, THEY ARE COWARDS, THEY ARE WEAK, CRUEL, AND THEY WILL BE REMOVED AWAY LIKE “THE CHAFF WHICH THE WIND BLOWETH AWAY”.  THEY ARE ALL BLUFF AND BLUSTER, BUT IN ETERNAL LIFE, THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE EXCEPT BURNING IN HELL.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, bullies have what is now known as "toxic masculinity", which is detrimental to everyone, and they are also cowards.  They are certainly not real men!

We can see this in the way male animals behave in the rutting season.  Every spring animals like bulls, rams and stags fight each other for dominance and access to females.  In these fights the winner takes all, the biggest and strongest males gain access to all females, while the weaker ones get zero.  A successful stag is not only bigger and stronger, but aggressive, ruthless and selfish.  Sharing with other stags is not an option; there can be only one winner who takes everything for himself.

RASA SAYS:  YES, INDEED, GOOD ANALOGY.  HOWEVER, I TAKE NOTE THAT ANIMALS KILL BY THEIR INSTINCT, TAKE HAREMS THROUGH VIOLENCE, BUT THERE IT ENDS.  HUMAN MALES ARE NOT ANIMALISTIC, BUT “SUBHUMAN,” AS THEY NOT ONLY FOLLOW INSTINCTS BUT THEY ARE SENSELESSLY SADISTIC.  ANIMALS DO NOT RAPE TINY ONE DAY OLD BABIES (AND MANY ARE KILLED) OR SMALL INFANTS….THEY DO NOT PLAN MURDER, THEY DO NOT DO “GENOCIDES.”  THEY DO NOT, IN ORDER TO GAIN PLUNDER, WIPE OUT THOUSANDS OR HOPE TO MURDER MILLIONS.  THEY DO NOT USE THEIR MINDS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SUCH AS ATOM BOMBS, INVENTION OF AIDS PUT SECRETLY INTO VACCINES; THEY DO NOT PLAN TO MICROCHIP MILLIONS AND USE THEM AS SLAVES, THEY DO NOT CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH OVENS READY TO EVAPORATE PEOPLE AT 2,500 DEGREES.  THEY DO NOT SKIN OTHER ANIMALS ALIVE TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PELTS.  THEY DO NOT PLAN FRANKENSTEIN CROPS LIKE GMO’S NOR DO THEY PLAN TO MAKE HEALTHY FOODS ILLEGAL.  HUMAN MALES HAVE TAKEN THIS INSTINCT TO THE POINT OF DEMONIC SUCH AS HAS NEVER EXISTED – THAT IS WHY MOTHER GOD IS RENDERING HUMAN MALES EXTINCT.

AJAX SAYS:  Very well-said, Rasa.  Indeed, sub-human or demonic is the best way to describe such evil and sadistic behavior that goes way, way beyond natural instincts.  And even many of those who are not so extreme are still willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre.

We see the same in patriarchal societies.  The vast majority of the wealth and power of any country is possessed by a small minority of people.  Like rutting stags, the winner takes all, while the losers, the poor, get “the crumbs from the rich man’s table”.  Men, also like stags, are violent, because the boundaries of any country are decided by war.  For this reason, all countries have to have a strong military against invasion.

AJAX SAYS:  There are in fact more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to have a decent standard of living, yet poverty and extreme inequality remain.  Why?  Patriarchy features winner-take-all economics, and reverse Robin Hood economics.  Rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class until there are only two classes left:  master, and serf.  And plenty of violence and war, which enriches the oligarchs.

In contrast, as the late great Buckminster Fuller once noted, the feminine paradigm of leadership would reject men's outdated, inane, and insane self-fulfilling prophecy that war and scarcity are somehow inevitable.

Until then, mechaninzation is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites--most of them MEN.

RASA:  IT IS A PATTERN.  UNTIL AND UNLESS WOMEN TAKE OVER COMPLETELY THIS WILL GO ON AS IF BUT HALF THE WORLD IS PATRIARCHAL, THE OTHER HALF HAS TO HAVE ARMIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEIR VIOLENCE.

AJAX SAYS:  Very true.  Certainly, abolishing the military entirely would be very naive and foolish so long as other countries remain patriarchal and maintain their own militaries.  Though in the USA, we can certainly downsize by cutting our "defense" spending in half and we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world.  Because currently it is not used so much for defense, as it is wars of aggression for plunder and empire, to enrich the psychopathic oligarchs at the top.  See "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, truly a must-read for everyone. 

In any patriarchal society – where men dominate – we have the rule of force, aggression and violence.  If “masculine” people rule our world, then off course it is going to be a brutal where “might is right”. If we want a loving, caring world, then the only way to achieve this is to be ruled by loving and nurturing women.
The abuse of women and children is going to happen because they are smaller and weaker than fully grown men. Men use can use their greater size and strength to get what they want from smaller and weaker people.  The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud hinted at this in his Oedipus complex theory, where the son wants to kill his own father, and possess his mother.  The actual reason for this is probably that the son was being abused by the father and hates him.  He also wants to protect his mother from abuse by the father, but Freud wasn’t allowed to say this.  The tragedy of this is that the son, when he grows up, is likely to treat his own wife and children in exactly the same way.
Freud did write a paper on the physical and sexual abuse children suffered by their fathers and other male relations, but this paper was censored.  To save his career, Freud no longer posited the theories but only hinted at them.  Since then, things have changed with the rise of feminism.  Women are now able to assert themselves and take more control over the children.  As the result, men who beat their wives and physically/sexually abuse their children can now be sent to prison.  As women gained power, children were protected from male abuse.

RASA SAYS:  EXCELLENT POINT.  UNTIL WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, THEY ARE LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.  WHEN WOMEN GO TO THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS POLITICIZED AGAINST THEM, IN FAVOR OF MEN.  I HAVE BEEN THEIR VICTIM.  WHEN A WOMAN IS RAPED, THEY BLAME THE WOMAN.  WHEN A CHILD IS RAPED, THEY REALLY DON’T CARE.  IF ALL THE MEN WHO RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE PUT INTO PRISON, PROBABLY HALF OF ALL MALES WOULD BE INCARCERATED.  MALES STICK UP FOR OTHER MALES.  THE MALE POLICE PERSUADE WOMEN TO DROP CHARGES.  MALE DA’S WON’T PROSECUTE CRIMINALS FOR INJURING OR RAPING WOMEN – IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE.  THIS IS CHANGING, BUT IT STILL EXISTS.  IN MANY COUNTRIES, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SLAVES AND THEY ARE SAVAGED.  LOOK AT THE THEOCRATIC MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE STATISTICS PROVE WOMEN ARE RISING, MEN ARE FALLING.  BUT IT IS THE WESTERN WOMEN THAT ARE RISING, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE REST OF THE WOMEN IN OPPRESSED COUNTRIES.  IT WILL TAKE TIME.  WE WILL DO IT.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, having male leaders in charge of prosecuting male violence against Women and children, is like the fox guarding the henhouse.  The "good ol' boy" network is all too real, as is the victim-blaming mentality.  Things are slowly but surely improving in that regard, with significant declines in rape, domestic violence, and child abuse statistics since the early 1990s, but we still have a very long way to go before we are anywhere close to a truly "civilized" society.  Women really need to take over.  Yesterday.

The more males dominate a country, the more violent it becomes, as women, children and other men suffer violence, rape and abuse. In such a brutal world we end up with psychopaths running everything, as they are the most vicious and brutal.
An example of this would be Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003.  He became the leader as being a psychopath and had no qualms about killing or torturing people.  In the eyes of many this made him a strong leader.  In fact, people now claim that the people of Iraq suffer more from violence, since he was deposed by the USA, than while he was in power.  This is because without a strong brutal leader, in this extreme patriarchal county, law and order has broken down.  The whole of history is full of leaders like this, who take power and hold on to it, through violence and brutality.
Unfortunately, psychopaths not only exist in extreme patriarchal countries but in more moderate, democratic countries.  In their book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”, by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert Hare, Ph.D.  They point that in business, psychopaths are far more likely to be successful.  The reason is that they have the ‘right’ qualities to succeed in a male dominated world.  To quote. –
“Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”
This doesn’t only apply to businessmen; you only have to look at successful politicians to see the same thing.  A politician in a patriarchal system has to be able to appear on TV and tell lies without any hint of shame or embarrassment.  This means that being a psychopath is a big advantage in patriarchal politics.
Men off course invent all sorts of excuses to justify why we live in a world of injustice and violence.  Patriarchal religions like to blame the Devil for all the harm men do.  The big problem with this idea is that if God has created everything, then he made the Devil as well.  So why would God make a person like the Devil, who opposes him?  Religion also tries to blame women as well, in spite of the fact women are far less violent and far more caring than men.

RASA SAYS:  MY OPINION OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN IS THE ORIGIN IS MEN, IT COMES FROM THEIR PSYCHE, THEIR ID.  THEY HAVE UNLEASHED THE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF DEMONS ON THIS PLANET.  IT COMES FROM THEIR LOWER CHAKRAS AND INSTINCTS.  BUT THEY ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS, THEY ARE SUBHUMAN, AS I ALREADY SAID.  IT IS NOT ALIENS, IT’S HUMAN MEN.  IF IT WAS ALIENS, WOMEN MIGHT BE AFFECTED – BUT THEY ARE NOT.  WHY ONLY MEN?  THE ALIENS ARE THE FALL GUY, THE EXCUSE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE.  THEY TRY TO USE ANIMALS AS EXCUSES, THAT WE ARE VIOLENT AS THEY ARE.  BUT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS ARE THE BONOBOS.

AJAX SAYS:  That makes sense.  According to Paul Levy and Jack D. Forbes, it is the "wetiko" mind-virus, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  Essentially the same thing as Satan and demons.

CONSIDER THAT, WILLIAM BOND.  INDEED THERE ARE BULLS AND STAGS.  BUT OUR GENEOLOGY IS CLOSEST TO BONOBOS.  THEY ARE MATRIARCHAL, THEY ARE HORNY, FRIENDLY, THEY SOLVE ALL CONFLICTS BY TOUCHING AND FEELING.  THE MOTHERS RULE THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY, AND THEY ARE STRONG, AND THEY POSTURE, BUT THERE IS NO WAR.  WHEN MALES INTIMIDATE FEMALES, THEY ARE MOBBED AND PREVENTED BY SEVERAL FEMALES, THEY CANNOT DOMINATE.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, "make love, not war" is essentially how the bonobos live.  That, and like the Robin Morgan quote, "sisterhood is powerful".  We can really learn a lot from them.

Science tries to justify men’s selfishness and violence onto “evolution”.  They claim that the violence of male animals is “survival of the fittest”; where the strongest and fittest males get to breed the next generation of animals.  They totally ignore the female’s role in evolution.  The fact is that the mother gives birth and cares for the young, and this is a far more important role in the survival of any species, than what males do.

RASA SAYS:  WHAT A BRILLIANT POINT WILLIAM HAS MADE, THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT MEN, AS MEN WANT US TO BELIEVE.  THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEMALE WITH HER OFFSPRING IS MORE IMPORTANT!

AJAX SAYS:  Brilliant indeed, as usual, William!  You really hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Even Darwin himself was apparently not a Social Darwinist at all.
 
Conspiracy theories try to blame secret societies like the Freemasons, the Illuminati or even alien reptiles for the ills of our world.  The rich tend to blame the poor and the poor blame the rich, but few people will acknowledge the fact that as it is men who are ruling our world, then the problem must be male rulers.

RASA SAYS:  ABSOLUTE LOGIC, ONCE AGAIN, OF WILLIAM BOND.

AJAX SAYS:  BINGO.  Psychopaths/sociopaths are completely ruthless since they have no conscience, and since the patriarchal paradigm rewards ruthlessness and aggression, then psychopaths/sociopaths will be the ones who inevitably rise to the top under male rule.

It must be obvious that any system that puts psychopaths in leadership positions is a bad arrangement.  Yet, this is what patriarchy does all the time.  Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and this is not a real problem if they are kept under control.  Unfortunately, when men rule our world the most violent, aggressive or devious men end up in positions of power.

RASA SAYS:  SURE, IF WILLIAM BOND OR JESUS CHRIST RULED OUR SOCIETY WE’D HAVE A PEACEFUL AND LOVING WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  True.  And Ajax the Great as well.

Patriarchy also breeds psychopaths.  It has been discovered that many psychopaths had appalling childhoods.  A case in point would be Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein – all of whom were beaten mercilessly as children.  Extreme patriarchal cultures encourage this, as they claim that abuse, “toughens up” boys and turns them into ‘real men’.  Certainly turning a man into a psychopath makes him a good soldier, as he can kill without mercy.  A more ordinary man is not such a good soldier, as he has qualms about killing the ‘enemy.’

AJAX SAYS:  So very true, William!  And you can add Pol Pot to that list (by his ruthless teachers) as well.  It seems that "beating the devil out of 'em" is really more like beating the devil INTO 'em, which is what the sinister agenda of the demonic patriarchy really wants to do to turn boys, and thus men, into cannon fodder and "Good Germans" at best, and subhuman demonic zombie killers at worst, to do the bidding of the psychopathic oligarchs at the top. 

RASA SAYS:  GOOD POINT.  BEING BRUTAL AND VIOLENT TOWARD MEN MAKES THEM SO, AND THEREFORE, OUR WORLD ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE THROUGH ALL MEDIA; GLORIFIES IT.  THEY HAVE EXCUSES FOR THIS AS “ENTERTAINMENT,” AND “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” BUT IT’S MORE THAN THAT.  THEY WANT TO BREED DEMONS – MEN WITH NO FEELINGS WHO KILL WITHOUT MERCY.

If we do not want to be ruled by psychopaths then the obvious solution is for women to rule our world.    It is known that psychopaths can be created by extreme abuse, and in a patriarchal society where women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male, they are far more likely to suffer abuse of all kinds.  Yet, in-spite of this, there are still far less female psychopaths then male.

RASA SAYS:  ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT I FIRST HEARD FROM WILLIAM BOND.  THE SAME ABUSE/VIOLENCE ON WOMEN DOES NOT ENGENDER THE SAME REACTION FROM WOMEN AS IT DOES MEN.  IT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAIN, THE INSTINCT.  WOMEN HAVE A STRONGER INSTINCT TO GIVE LIFE, MEN LESS SO; THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS SO THEY HAVE MORE VIOLENT TENDENCIES; BUT THESE MUST BE TEMPERED AND GUIDED RIGHTLY, NOT RUN AMUCK.

AJAX SAYS:  I am not sure how much of this is nature versus nurture, but I would hazard a guess that it is a mixture of both.  Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

So it makes sense for us to be ruled by caring and nurturing females rather than aggressive males.  We can see all over the world the more women are oppressed the more violent societies become.  But in countries where women are empowered society is peaceful.  When women are powerful, everyone benefits – bear in mind how brutal men are to other males.  Abusive fathers appear in elite families as well as poor – men such as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam were brutalized.
The only way to overcome all these problems is to have women take over.  It is true, there are caring men, but the psychos rise to the top — What psychopaths do is take acting lessons in how to appear loving and caring, then they are elected.

AJAX SAYS:  So true.  For thousands of years, the "good guys" have proven wholly incapable of defeating the bad guys on their own.  If us fellas could do it, we would have already done it long ago.  Even when a particularly notorious mass-murdering genocidal dictator like Hitler was defeated, that was achieved with the help of another, equally evil dictator, Stalin, who only gained strength afterwards and subsequently turned against the Allies after we no longer had a common enemy in the Nazis.  Only Women can truly defeat all of the bad guys for good.

RASA SAYS:  YOU CAN SEE LIARS ON TOP OF ALL GOVERNMENTS PRETENDING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR LIES.  IT HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIES.  TAKE KIND HEROD TELLING THE MAGI TO LET HIM KNOW WHERE JESUS IS BORN SO HE TOO, CAN GO WORSHIP HIM.  THEN HEROD SENDS OUT HIS SOLDIERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWO.  HE EVEN DUPED THE WOMEN TO BRING THE CHILDREN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS SO THEY COULD BE FETED – THEY BROUGHT THEM ALL DECKED OUT IN GARLANDS OF FLOWERS, WHERE THE SOLDIERS STABBED AND SPEARED THEM TO DEATH.  AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HEROD AND ALL THESE MALE LEADERS WHO KILL SO MANY PEOPLE?  THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE EVENTUALLY BUT USUALLY ON EARTH, THEY, LIKE THE GODFATHER, DIE OF OLD AGE.  BUT THE INNOCENT ARE KILLED.  SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE ON EARTH, CERTAINLY DOESN’T EXIST IN A PATRIARCHAL WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  They give with one hand, and they take with the other.  And they take plenty of lives in the process.

Yes, there are ruthless and deceiving women as well, but not in the same numbers as men.  Women have a powerful maternal instinct and once this instinct is activated then she not only wants to love and care for children of her own, she has the same desire to care for other people’s children, to look after the sick, old people and animals.  If we look at violence, we find that men commit over 99% of all acts of violence.  The reason is that because as women bring life to our world and want to nurture it, so it is harder for women to be cruel and uncaring for others than with men.
The competitive and aggressive instincts of men make them totally unsuitable to rule our world; they instigate conflict, war and injustice.  The maternal/ nurturing instincts of women enable them to run the family and the world – A world ruled by women would be fair, loving and caring.
by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

RASA SAYS:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND.  THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY.  HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL.  THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT.  THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

FINAL THOUGHTS:  Can I get an AMEN?  So very true indeed.  We are all ruled by an oligarchy of a few hundred to a few thousand cold-blooded psychopaths and sociopaths at the top.  And that is the logical conclusion of patriarchy, basically.  Worse, even if they are deposed, these evil villainaire rulers will ultimately return if we don't stamp out the conditions that cause such evil to rise to power in the first place.  Thus the better half of humanity, Women, must rise up and take over once and for all, Goddess willing.  Only then will there ever be true peace on Earth.





What better time than now?


2024 UPDATE:  It was recently revealed in a new study that the prevalence of Female psychopaths and sociopaths is likely significantly greater than previously estimated, likely because they often use different tactics compared to male ones, and because other people's cognitive biases don't always easily register their behavior as such.  That said, unlike patriarchy, there is truly ZERO evidence that Matriarchal societies systematically incentivize psychopathy/sociopathy in any way, and in fact they strongly disincentivize psychopaths and sociopaths from rising to the top.  In fact, the very best way to defang, neutralize, and ultimately prevent such evil people, regardless of gender, from doing so is Female Empowerment in general, hands down.  It is really only when Women in general are disempowered, that the psychopaths (of either gender) inevitably fill the resulting power vaccum sooner or later.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

The Master And HER Emissary

Neuroscience is one of those fields that, despite exponential growth in recent years and decades, is still largely in its infancy.  We have truly come a LONG ways since the bygone days of phrenology over a century ago, but even now, so much of what we thought we knew with at least reasonable certainty just a few years ago is now revealed to be not only inaccurate, but sometimes even 100% wrong.  And when it is ultimately watered down for the layperson as "pop neuroscience", such an observation applies a fortiori

Once in a while, however, a book or two comes along that really does make an impact, and largely in a correct way.  There are two such books, both written well over a decade ago, that still have yet to be successfully and conclusively refuted. They seem disparate at first, but they can actually be synthesized, as you will see by the end of this article.  

Starting with the most recent, The Master and His Emissary:  The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist (2009), we delve into the familiar idea of the left vs right hemispheres of the brain.  Only unlike the usual surface-level analysis in that we see in pop neuroscience, this one is a real deep dive into the truly resounding implications of these brain differences for society and civilization.  Ten years later, it was even made into a documentary, The Divided Brain (2019), by McGilchrist himself along with award-winning documentary filmmaker Vanessa Dylyn, et al.

To summarize:  the two hemispheres of the brain each see the world and process information in fundamentally different ways:  the left brain is more reductionistic in thinking, while the right is more holistic in thinking.  The left is more logical, analytical and detail-oriented, while the right is more creative, intuitive, and sees the bigger picture.  The left is more linear, while the right is more non-linear.  The left sees the map, while the right sees the territory.  And so on.  While both sides are of course quite valuable and necessary, the brain functions best overall when the right brain is in charge.  The left is a great servant, but a terrible master, hence the title of the book.  And Western culture has, for thousands of years, oscillated between favoring the overall relative dominance of each of the two hemispheres.  In recent centuries and decades, as in some other historical periods as well, we have become far too left-brain dominant, with very negative consequences, according to the author.  Not only does the left not really know what the right is doing, but at least half the time the left doesn't even know what the left is doing!  The left brain has thus essentially hijacked society, and that in turn leaves us "increasingly incapable of grappling with critical economic, environmental, and social issues, ones that shape our very future as a species", as the documentary would put it.  I am largely oversimplifying what he said, of course, but that is the basic gist of it overall.

One obvious reason for this excessive left-brain dominance could be due to poorly-designed education, of course.  But another could be that the left brain is faster in terms of processing speed than the right, and the pace of life is undoubtedly much, much faster nowadays than even the recent past.  Though the latter would be more of a chicken-or-the egg question.  And as we will see, there is more to it:

(And to all of the political conservatives and reactionaries who try in vain to shoehorn all of this into their silly left-wing vs right-wing political spectrum, like that one guy on The Daily Sceptic did recently, please get your own ideas.  This book, by a renowned Oxford scholar, truly thoroughly transcends such a naive interpretation of politics.)

The other book, The Alphabet Versus The Goddess:  The Conflict Between Word and Image by Leonard Shlain (1998), is a bit more amateurish and not quite as science-y, but answers another piece of the puzzle:  that of gender.  That is, it helps partially explain of how Matriarchy gave way to patriarchy thousands of years ago. Could it be that excessive left-brain dominance is at least partly a stand-in for male dominance, and vice-versa, in a vicious cycle?  That assumption may not really be all that farfetched.  Per Wikipedia in a nutshell:
Shlain began with the insight: "when a critical mass of people within a society acquire literacy, especially alphabet literacy, left hemispheric modes of thought are reinforced at the expense of right hemispheric ones, which manifests as a decline in the status of images, women's rights, and goddess worship." He then applied this paradigm to 35 pairs of concepts and historical periods.
(And that, ladies and gentlemen, also explains the esoteric reason for the uneasiness of certain famous ancient patriarchs about so-called "graven images" as well.  They may have scoffed at the golden calf, but they (at least metaphorically) worshiped the "golden phallus" all the same.)

Shlain also, more hopefully, believes that in the more recent trends towards images in today's media, our brains are actually trending towards becoming more balanced, with the right brain making a comeback (along with, not coincidentally, the rise of Women), in contrast to McGilchrist.  So which is it?  If one attempts to answer the question with one's right brain, one can come to the conclusion that both are true to some degree since we are in fact experiencing two diverging trends at the same time that have not completely cancelled each other out.  Only time will tell which one wins.

It is well-known that Women's brains are relatively more balanced between the left and right hemispheres, though at least somewhat favoring the right side, while men's brains tend to be more lateralized, tending to favor the left side.  Not every study agrees, of course, but the general weight of the evidence (whether seen through the left-brain perspective OR the right-brain perspective) favors that overall interpretation.  And of course, the late, great Ashley Montagu noted in his book, The Natural Superiority of Women (1953, and last updated in 1998), Women have a significantly larger corpus callosum, the part of the brain that connects and allows the two halves of the brain to communicate with one another.  (No wonder men are so bad at multitasking, for example.)

That is, just like we saw which side of the brain needs to be in charge, so too do we now see which gender needs to be in charge as well, for more or less the same reasons.  

"As above, so below", in other words.

One sticking point I have with McGilchrist is that when he discusses the Renaissance, as a period (along with the Romantic period) where the left and right brains were supposedly in perfect balance (in contrast to both the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, which he disdains as being too left-dominant), he completely elides and glosses over the Inquisiton and Burning Times (aka Women's Holocaust) during that time, which is a glaring omission that if noted would suggest that perhaps there wasn't such a perfect balance after all at that time.  But in light of what I just noted about gender differences of the brain, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why.  Sylvia Federici, author of Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (2004), would truly have a field day with that!  (Spoiler alert:  the "witches" and "heretics" targeted were in fact (mostly) Women revolutionaries who attempted to overthrow the patriarchy during the rough transition from the slow implosion of feudalism to the rise of patriarchy's ultimate favorite left-brainchild, capitalism.)

So now, we see how it all ties together.  It should really be called, "The Master and HER Emissary". And it is probably about as close as one can get to a "theory of everything".

And truly, a brain divided against itself cannot stand.

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  See here for a good, quick animation about McGilchrist's book and documentary.  Also note how, contrary to one of the biggest pop-culture neuromyths out there, true reason actually requires both hemispheres, and emotion is also present in both as well.  Food for thought. 

See also here how the overall thesis ties in feminine vs masculine energy as well.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Mother Nature Knows Exactly What She Is Doing

In a previous article, I had noted that we have little if anything to fear from an aging and eventually shrinking population in the future, while the very real ecological problems of overpopulation and ecological overshoot greatly dwarf any social and economic problems of the former.  But I did not get fully into the mechanics of exactly WHY birth rates are falling and have been falling for quite a while now.

I would of course be remiss not to note that the plandemic and especially the jabs (I for one refuse to inaccurately call these novel and experimental gene therapy drugs by their preferred V-word) played a role, but the trend of falling birthrates began LONG before anyone ever even heard of the "novel coronavirus".  In fact, it goes back decades.

It's almost like Gaia is trying to tell us something.  So read on, and let's answer the "clue phone" ringing louder than ever....

There also physical factors dampening fertility such as endocrine disruptors and other pollutants, which clearly play a role, along with widespread use of both licit and illicit drugs as well, but most of the drop in birthrates is due to more people of both genders choosing (consciously or unconsciously) to have either fewer kids or no kids at all.

The obvious reason?  Women are generally no longer forced and coerced as they once were to be serial breeding slaves, at least not in the rich-world countries.  So unsurprisingly, they are now having fewer kids, and starting later in life than before.  No wonder the reactionaries want so desperately to revoke Women's hard-won reproductive rights.  In fact, Women all over the world are increasingly FED UP with patriarchy, especially in traditional societies that have recently modernized.  To cite an extreme example, the country with the world's lowest total fertility rate (TFR), South Korea, there is currently even a Lysistrata-like movement called the "4B movement" (a combination of reproductive strike, dating strike, marriage strike, and sex strike against men by primarily the younger generation of Women) that is apparently rapidly catching on over there.

And in parallel with that, a more subtle reason also emerges:  as men now have more "skin in the game" legally in regards to children that they sire, compared with just a few generations ago, men also are finding that having too many kids and/or too soon is more burden than benefit for them as well.  Furthermore, at least in the rich-world countries, children are generally no longer a source of cheap labor anymore.  So it really doesn't make economic sense anymore for men to have lots of kids like in the past either.

Meanwhile, under late-stage capitalism and late-stage patriarchy, the cost of raising children continues to skyrocket along with the extreme inequality and (often planned and artificial) scarcity of resources (especially housing) thanks to the oligarchy and their sycophantic lackeys in government.  That impacts both genders, of course.  Increased life expectancy, urbanization, technology, and an accelerating pace of life also contribute to reduced birthrates well.

It is also an opportunity cost for Women as well, in that now that Women are now allowed to have (gasp!) education, careers, and stuff like that, and thus attempting the high birthrates of the past would clearly interfere with and put a damper on that.  Time and energy are finite resources, after all.  Reactionaries of course, at least when they aren't too craven to say the quiet part out loud, would cynically argue that Women thus have "too many choices" now, and that forcibly taking opportunities away from Women (!) would be the only way to restore the high birthrates of the past.  Technically, they are not entirely incorrect. That, and/or restoring the very high poverty and death rates (both infant/child and maternal) of the distant past, would indeed be the only way to restore such high birthrates.  But I don't think any sane person really wants to do either, nor would it be even remotely ethical.

Nor are the high birthrates of the past really a good idea in an overpopulated world in ecological overshoot, obviously.  "Replacement rate," which ultimately results in a long-term stable population number that is neither growing nor shrinking, is a total fertility rate (TFR) of roughly 2.1 children born per Woman.  For example, a TFR of, say, 1.5-1.8 or so (where most of the world currently seems to be converging towards, even in many non-rich countries) for a few generations would lead to a gentle and gradual population decline of roughly 10% to 25% per generation once positive momentum ends and then negative momentum sets in.  (A TFR of 1.0, around where most of East Asia seems to be converging, would result in an even sooner and faster population drop of about 50% per generation, and so on.)  Then, as the world becomes less crowded, and thus the cost of living drops, Women will likely decide to have somewhat more kids and the TFR will eventually settle around replacement rate once again.

All of this dovetails nicely with the Gaia hypothesis per James Lovelock.  That is, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing when a grossly overpopulated species wreaks havoc on the Earth as we continually transgress planetary boundaries like there is no tomorrow.  In the case of modern humans, we have artificially (and temporarily!) pushed back many of the natural limits that once held our population in check, so now we are, not coincidentally, losing at least some of the previous desire and/or ability to procreate until we ultimately get back into balance with Nature, God willing.  So it is unsurprising that all of the overt pronatalism in the world, even literally paying Women to have kids, is NOT really working to raise birthrates more than at the very margins.  Even the very generous and progressive Nordic countries are still significantly below replacement rate, albeit still higher than most of their neighbors to the south (except for France, who is also almost as generous as the Nordics).

That's not to say that a generous progressive and pro-humanity agenda (such as Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, paid family leave, flexible work-life balance, free or subsidized childcare, improved education, and stuff like that) would be useless, far from it.  I believe that it is simply the right thing to do for it's own sake regardless.  It's called ethics, and respecting the inherent dignity of the human person.  But, short of literally paying Mothers at least a quarter-million dollars per child* (the approximate low-ball cost of raising ONE child from birth until age 18, excluding higher education) up front, if one is somehow counting on such things merely to stop the population from aging or shrinking, they are most likely barking up the wrong tree.  The most it could do in that regard is slow down the rate of aging and decline, so as not to hit too large a "pothole" on the road to sustainability. 

(*NOTE:  If your jaw just dropped reading that figure, think of it like this:  Mothering is literally the most important job in the world, yet it is one that literally pays NEGATIVE "wages".  A quarter-million dollars is really just breaking even, basically.  Now you see why practically all pronatalist initiatives, monetary or otherwise, don't really move the needle.)

Regardless, we must leave room for Nature, lest Nature ultimately not leave room for us.  We ignore that basic maxim at our own peril, not to mention that of the entire planet.

And certainly, we must never, ever, force, coerce, or deceive anyone to have kids against their will, period.  That is a very backward, outmoded, illiberal, and all-around toxic thing to do to anyone, and does NOT respect the dignity of the human person.  Doing so treats humanity solely as a means to an end, not an end in itself.  That should go without saying, of course, but when carrots fail, there will be the temptation to use sticks, as some countries are already doing today.

In a nutshell, an aging and shrinking population is inevitable, baked into the cake for several generations now, and the only thing we can really do is adapt to it.  How we will "ride the slide" is ultimately the "make or break" point for our species during the current Anthropocene epoch.  And the Earth will ultimately thank us if we get it right (and we absolutely cannot afford to get it wrong, as that is not an option).

Let the planetary healing begin!

P.S.  I realized that I had glossed over and neglected to mention the factor of NARCISSISM.  Some would argue that a supposed increase in "cultural narcissism" is at least partially responsible for people choosing to have fewer kids or none at all.  If that is true, then that is actually a GOOD thing on balance.  Narcissists truly make some of the very worst parents as a rule (second only to psychopaths and sociopaths), and narcissists of course tend to beget more narcissists, via nature, nurture, or both.  And a culture causing fewer narcissists to procreate as much will cause them to ultimately go largely extinct within a few generations, which would be to everyone's ultimate benefit overall.  Once again, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing. 

(Mic drop)

Should Child Support Laws Be Eventually Phased Out?

First, I should note that I do NOT approve of actual deadbeat dads under the current system.  They are literally welchers of the worst kind, and I cannot stand welchers of any kind.  To any fellas reading this, I strongly advise you NOT to have any unprotected PIV intercourse at all unless you either 1) had a vasectomy, and/or 2) can afford to set aside the quarter-million dollars or so per child to raise such children with at least a halfway decent standard of living from birth to age 18 (or an even higher age in some states for child support obligations).  And that doesn't even include college or the possibility (nay, probability) of massive medical bills in the USA.  Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.  Under the current imperfect system, if you want to play, you may very well have to PAY.  And if you don't pay, well, then you get to face the modern-day version of debt peonage or debtor's prison.  You can thank the patriarchy for backfiring on you per the law of karma.  Also don't forget to thank neoliberalism (including the hypocritical President Slick Willie in the 1990s, one of the biggest rakes and cads in modern history) as well for essentially gutting what passed for a social safety net, and thus for "hunting you down and making you pay" in return.

In other words, fellas, discipline yourself to say, "no glove, no love" as a matter of course, lest you play a risky game of Russian Roulette both physically and financially. 

That said, as we make the rocky and often nonlinear transition towards a Matriarchal society, a very vexing question will inevitably come up.  What to do about child support laws?  Should the very concept be phased out?  Many men will reflexively say, "Hell Yeah!", while many Women would say, "Hell NO!", or at the very least, have an abundance of caution about the overall idea.  On social media, for example, I have even encountered some Women here and there who say they want to create a world where no one knows or cares who the father is, yet somehow still want to force men to pay for it all.  I guess they want a rule of "joint and several liability" or "deep pocket rule", of all of the potential fathers for all children, not unlike what Lenin briefly had in the USSR during their ill-fated first attempt at a "sexual revolution" in the late 1910s and early 1920s, that is, before Stalin did an about-face and abruptly reversed it after the orphanages became (paradoxically) packed to the brim with unwanted children.  Yes, that was before modern birth control and paternity testing, of course, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that sort of policy probably would NOT end very well at all under late-stage capitalism today either.  That circle simply does NOT square at all.

Meanwhile, many right-wing reactionaries (including so-called "reactionary feminists"), believe that the more obligations people have in general, the better, because reasons.  Even if some tacitly believe that Women should have all the rights but men should have all of the obligations, or vice-versa.  That circle doesn't really square either.

Yet in actual Matriarchal societies, past and present, such as the Mosuo, we know that men generally have no real liability for their own (putative) children at all.  Why?  Not only due to the traditional lack of paternity certainty (at least before the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing), but also because the Women do NOT want themselves or their children be tethered to or dependent on the men, for obvious reasons, as that is a major conflict of interest.  Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and with men's shekels come the shackles.  And men, as a rule, in every society patriarchal or Matriarchal or anything in between, have always been the lazier gender overall, and often seem to be congenitally allergic to responsibility.  Sure there are exceptions, but those exceptions really only prove the rule.  If Women are going to inevitably carry the bulk of the "mental load" regardless, to say nothing of the physical load too, they might as well be fully in charge as well. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and heavy is the head that wears the crown.

In other words, it is understood that with power comes responsibility, and thus men would have both less power and less responsibility relative to Women under Matriarchy, particularly in regards to children.  That makes sense, as it's a trade-off.  Women would also be the richer gender as well, and children would ultimately be raised (more or less) collectively by the "village".  And to paraphrase the philosopher Iris Murdoch (in a different context), one cannot simply go on indefinitely living off of the interest of a capital that one has long since rejected, at least not for very long.

(Perhaps that is one somewhat esoteric reason why, contrary to popular opinion, even Feminists have long been divided on the issue of child support laws and reform.  Any Feminist Women who do support reform (despite it being a very hot-button, "third rail" issue), however, generally use equality-based arguments to openly make their case, though.)

And yet, abruptly ending all child support obligations right now (especially in the USA) would be nothing short of catastrophic, leaving millions of Women and children high and dry, while rakish men get to laugh all the way to the bank.  So that is clearly a no-go, hands down.  Especially in a world where Women's hard-won reproductive rights are currently on the chopping block as we speak.  

The fellas can't have it both ways, of course. If Women are to be treated as brood mares, then it logically follows that men would be....WORK HORSES.  And we must all say "NEIGH" to both of those "traditional" and dehumanizing gender roles.

Long story short, in the long run, I do support gradually phasing out the child support laws, for children born at some point in the future, but we must be very careful NOT put the cart before the horse.  Before we even begin to do so, we must do ALL of the following first, at a minimum:

  • Fully codify and guarantee Women's reproductive rights in federal law.
  • Birth control and abortion access must be readily available to all on demand.
  • Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all, aka Social Security For All, with NO strings attached.  Goodbye poverty!
  • At the very least, we must have some flavor of UBI for children, similar to what we very briefly had in the USA with the expanded child tax credit.  We could even call it "collective child support".
  • Universal, single-payer Medicare For All.  Goodbye massive medical bills!
  • Generous paid family leave for both genders.
  • Free or subsidized high-quality childcare for all who want it.
  • "Baby bonds" to make every baby a trust-fund baby and build generational wealth.
  • Free college and/or trade school for all who want it.
  • As long as other social welfare and safety net programs like TANF still exist, remove the perverse requirement for single Mothers to name the father in order to receive benefits (you can thank Slick Willie for that one). 
  • And so on.  In other words, the genuine progressive wish list, funded collectively via progressive taxation, Georgist-style taxation, financial transaction taxes, Pigouvian taxes, vice taxes, and/or money creation.
After that, the first phase of the phaseout would be to allow men to get a so-called "paper abortion" early on before birth of the child, wherein they irrevocably sign away all parental rights and responsibilities.  Even before that, one can nibble around the edges a bit and start with ending all existing child support requirements at age 18 (albeit with a grandfather clause, of course) and not a day later, and also categorically exempt all vasectomized men from child support going forward as well.  Then, gradually phase it all out organically from there.  Eventually, it will simply become the norm to put "father unknown" on birth certificates by default.

(And repeal the Bradley Amendment too.)

"But men will behave even more like cads then!", some Women may object.  Well, I've got news for you:  men have been doing that since before Jehovah had Witnesses, lol.  That is, they have their own personal Jehovah between their legs, and their balls are the Witnesses, lol.  And it is only a fairly recently innovation that men ever had any real "skin in the game", legally speaking. One can, in fact, draw a straight line between men's newfound "skin in the game" on the one hand, and their more recent aversion to procreation, commitment-phobia, work-shyness, and overall penchant for Peter Pan-style perpetual adolescence on the other.  Men have always been stuck in perpetual adolescence, of course, and it simply went from subtle to overt, in other words.

Thus, the answer to the question is ultimately yes, but a VERY, VERY qualified yes.  In the long run, phasing out these rigid and increasingly outmoded 20th century policies is a truly necessary step (though by no means sufficient by itself!) on the way to finally extricating Women and children from the age-old quagmire of patriarchy for good, God willing. 

P.S.  Men are NOT the only ones who are forced to pay child support, by the way.  Women often have those very same laws weaponized against them as well, particularly when crooked Family Court judges perversely grant abusive men full custody of their kids.  And the forced payments directly from the alienated Mother to the abuser (!) thus add further insult to injury as it gives the abuser even more power over her and the kids.  Yes, that really still happens frequently even to this day, though the mainstream is deafeningly silent about it:  just Google "Motherless America" to learn more.

UPDATE:  The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder later remined me that there is also yet another thing that can backfire just as hard on Women if not harder, and that is called PALIMONY.  It's basically like alimony but for those who had lived together without being officially married, typically if lived together for eight of more years per common law (but that varies by jurisdiction).  It is nuanced, to be sure, but that needs to phased out even sooner IMHO, with the aforementioned safeguards in place, of course.