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.

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. 

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.

Neoliberalism: The Religion Of The World, Flesh, And Devil (Updated For 2024)

Neoliberalism.  It is a rather obscure-sounding term with a somewhat nebulous meaning.  It's anonymity and vagueness shroud it in mystery.  And yet, it is the very ideology at the root of most, if not all, of the modern world's problems.

So what is it, exactly?  It is best defined as a dogmatic belief in the inherent superiority and supremacy of unfettered free markets and privatization (and commodification) of nearly every single thing in the Universe.  Inequality, however extreme, and even greed itself is recast as virtuous (think Gordon Gekko of Wall Street).  The rich and the poor deserve their lot in life, because reasons.  Or something.  Poverty is in fact a feature, not a bug, as the resulting desperation makes people that much easier to exploit via economic coercion.  People are just objects to be used, as are animals and Mother Nature herself.  Citizens are reduced to mere consumers and wage-serfs, if not full-blown slaves.  And like the robber barons of old, today's high priests of neoliberalism are totally fine with robbing from the poor, giving to the rich, and torpedoing what's left of the middle class.  The only difference is that nowadays they typically do it with a smile and a veneer of pseudo-progressivism, while laughing all the way to the bank (often quite literally).

Neoliberalism's warped and twisted code of pseudo-ethics harbors a massive, gaping void that is essentially a moral black hole, since this ideology lacks a truly moral and spiritual component underneath it all.  Its entire foundation is shaky, empty and morally bankrupt, totally rotten to the core.  And yet, it has such mass appeal on both the (pseudo-)left and right of the political spectrum that it transcends that very spectrum.  And while neoliberalism is clearly the darling brainchild of patriarchy, it is such a wily and devious shapeshifter that it even transcends patriarchy itself as well.

From Reagan to the Clintons, Thatcher to Blair, Milton Friedman (who first coined the word neoliberalism) to Thomas Friedman, Greenspan to Powell, Facebook to ExxonMobil, Purdue University to Perdue Chicken to Purdue Pharma, Trump to Trudeau, Obama all the way to Biden, and Boris all the way to Natasha, it seems like no mainstream or pseudo-alternative politician, ideologue, technocrat, maven, or tycoon has been able to avoid being infected by neoliberalism to one degree or another, and sucked into its lifeless, soulless abyss.

(Trump, with the notable exception of opposing some of the "free trade" component of neoliberalism, otherwise supports essentially all of the rest of their evil and demonic agenda in practice, his disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.  And ALL neoliberals, Trump included, are largely anti-union in practice, if not also in theory as well.)

Though secular in nature, neoliberalism has all of the zeal of a religion, even a fundamentalist one.  And its dogmas have basically become the new orthodoxy from about 1980 onwards.  And we can thus conclude that neoliberalism is essentially the religion of the world, the flesh, and the devil, filling the voids left by the implosion of the mainstream patriarchal religions.  One can even call it a cult as well.

In Christian theology, the "world, flesh, and devil" have traditionally been considered the three primary enemies of the soul, as a sort of "unholy trinity".  Now, I personally believe that there is some nuance to this in that the world is only evil because of who rules it (i.e. the devil who works through men, particularly the oligarchs and their sycophantic lackeys), and the flesh is only evil when we choose to make it that way, since matter is essentially just a slowed-down form of spirit.  Neither of these first two are inherently evil or irredeemable in themselves.  But under the current regime of patriarchy, living exclusively for these two things is believed to ultimately lead to the third member, the devil.  Or wetiko, if you prefer.  Whatever it is, it is pure evil energy that cannot ever be redeemed.  And neoliberalism, in its sheer vileness, vainglory, often gratuitous cruelty, and wanton idolatry of money and worldly power above all else, effectively worships all three members of this unholy trinity.  There is really no denying that at all.

The rise of selected flavors of Christian (and other religious) fundamentalism since the 1980s has NOT stemmed the tide of neoliberalism, and the two increasingly seem to be joined at the hip nowadays.  And while patriarchy is currently in its death throes as we speak, the implosion of patriarchy and patriarchal religion is clearly non-linear, erratic, and chaotic.

And most notably, the recent rumors of neoliberalism's supposed death from the COVID-19 pandemic have been greatly exaggerated.  And by that, we mean that, if anything, neoliberalism has actually GAINED strength overall from the lockdowns and related restrictions which effectively robbed from the poor, gave to the rich, and torpedoed what was left of the already shrinking middle class.  It was basically the heist of the century, if not the millennium.  And not only did these draconian measures not appreciably save lives in the long run, they actually cost lives, particularly among poorer people and people of color who got the brunt of both the virus itself AND the collateral damage disproportionately shunted onto them while the affluent got to "work from home".  There was certainly nothing genuinely leftist or progressive about doing that!  And the novel experimental gene therapies that self-identify as "vaccines" have been not only a major cash cow for the oligarchs, but also have been (via mandates, "passports", and segregation) an effective weapon of power and control over the masses, especially via divide-and-conquer.  Not to mention, dare I say, a bioweapon as well, given all of the excess deaths, injuries, and disabilities (sorry, "coincidences") that have resulted from these concoctions.

The pandemic is long over, and all restrictions have ended as of last year, but the legacy and precedent still remain.

And, of course, Women have clearly gotten the brief end of the stick from the pandemic response as well.  Lockdowns had increased male-on-female domestic violence and Women had lost more jobs than men have as well.  Meanwhile, the majority of designated "essential" (read: expendable) workers have also been Women as well, especially in healthcare.  And school closures have also forced Mothers to either 1) stay home with the kids and lose income as a result, or else 2) take on a triple burden by trying to juggle it all at once.  It has led to nothing short of a collapse of Women's health and work.  Thus there is clearly nothing even remotely feminist about these toxic and illiberal policies, but rather these are things that neoliberalism salivates over the most.  The Rockefellers and their cronies must be grinning from ear to ear right now as we speak.  And while these pandemic and lockdown-related phenomena are over, there is no denying that it set the Women's movement back decades, and no sooner has the movement only begun to recover, than the right-wing reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries are trying so hard to drag Women back to Margaret Atwood's worst nightmare as we speak.  And that counterrevolution, of course, is also in league with...you guessed it...neoliberalism. 

TO HELL WITH NEOLIBERALISM!

The Great Trade (Re-posted and Updated)

Part 1:

WOMAN:  Men only want one thing.  I mean, they are completely governed by their "Finger Eleven", if you catch my drift.

MAN:  "If I traded it all, if I gave it all away, for one thing...." (to quote lyrics by the band, literally named Finger Eleven).

WOMAN:  Keys to the kingdom, so we can finally reclaim our rightful place as the new leaders of the free world?

MAN:  Your terms are acceptable.

Part 2:

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  Not so fast, little lady.  For what shall it profit a woman, to gain the world and lose her soul?

WOMAN:  Excuse you, random man, but us Women can multitask just fine, thank you very much.  You must be projecting.

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  A man cannot serve two masters.

WOMAN:  True, a MAN cannot serve two masters.  But a master can have many servants.  Now go make me a sandwich!

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  (Speechless)

Part 3:

OVERT MISOGYNISTIC TROLL:  Something about locks and keys comes to mind, if you catch my drift.

MALE CONCERN TROLL:  Something about cows and milk comes to mind, if you catch my drift.

WOMAN:  Something about pencils and sharpeners comes to mind, if you catch my drift.  And something about fish and bicycles comes to mind as well, you redundant male trolls.  Like the song says, "get me out of your starry eyes, and be on your way".

BOTH TROLLS:  (Speechless)

WOMAN:  (Mic drop)

OK Ladies, Do You REALLY Want To Know How To Control Men? Here Are The Cheat Codes

One of the most vexing questions facing Women in both the Feminist and Matriarchy movements is, how to keep men from taking over once again when they are no longer in power?  The prevailing view that men are inherently dangerous and always will be, and thus will need to be controlled somehow or else they will inevitably run amuck, is not one that can simply be handwaved or wished away.  The problem has a name, and its name is MUTINY.  So how do you do it?  Psychology has an answer.

Here are the three, albeit very counterintuitive, "cheat codes":

1.  Men need to THINK that they are free, regardless of whether they actually are.

2.  No taxation without representation. 

3.  Bread and circuses galore.

All three should become very obvious to any serious student of history, and all three need to be maintained in perpetuity in order for it to work.

The first one can be seen throughout recorded history.  It's self-evident and self-explanatory.  Google "they thought they were free" to see the darker side of it, of course.  But that darker side has really only been seen with men in charge, that is, with men using it to control other men along with the Women.  Either way, it works, for good or ill, for better or worse.

In other words, men would need to have JUST enough freedom to think they are free.  And both Women and men would need to be treated as sovereign individuals over their own bodies and minds.  Anything less would be uncivilized. 

The second one has also been seen repeatedly to one degree or another, and not just because it's catchy and it rhymes.  Rather, the LACK of it is what often leads to mutiny, especially when combined with desperation.  From the American Revolution to the French Revolution and so on, it has happened before and will happen again if and when the circumstances are right.  But as long as men think they are being represented, and that they are getting something in return for their tax dollars, they will be willing to pay fairly high taxes, as we see in the Nordic countries (where taxes are very high, are collected simply and relatively painlessly, and they get very robust social welfare states in return, with very little to no poverty).  And even in some indigenous Matriarchal societies past and present, they have men as (puppet figurehead) "chiefs" to give at least the illusory perception of male representation, and they are all hired and fired by the Women elders.  (Hey, as long as men are not in any positions of real power, why not?)

(That said, too many male puppet figurehead "chiefs" or representatives can potentially be a problem simply by sheer strength in numbers, so unless one lives in an indigenous culture that has been doing it for literally centuries or more, having all or most representatives being male has the risk of backfiring.  For everyone else, aim for a majority of representatives being Women.)

Again, for men, perception is everything.  While I once thought it would be a good idea to openly tax men at higher rates than Women, I realize now that would be a much too vulgar display of power that would shatter such a perception.  Best to tax both genders equally, at least for the non-rich, but to distribute the benefits more heavily towards Women, especially Mothers.  Either way, the NET result is effectively the same over the lifecycle.

The third one is so obvious that one may overlook it, but it is true nonetheless.  From most famously in the Roman Empire in reality to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World in science fiction, one of the most effective and time-tested ways to prevent revolts or mutinies is cheap and readily available entertainment plus some form of dole.  And that only becomes more urgent in an increasingly high-tech and automated society where men become increasingly redundant.  In the 21st century and beyond, that can take the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and related ideas, as well as the emerging trend for the many dead and dying shopping malls to be converted primarily to entertainment centers for everyone.  In fact, in the wake of the ongoing "retail apocalypse", any currently successful mall has become at least partially if not largely entertainment-based these days (see The Mall of America in Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Alberta, Canada, and even smaller ones like the Palisades Center in West Nyack, New York).

(About that last bit, I recall that the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder had mentioned something like that in The Future of Male-Female Relationships, Part I.)

On a related note, in a world where in the not too distant future, Women become the richer gender, and inheritances eventually become largely (if not entirely) Matrilineal, it will eventually get to the point where the only rich men left will be lottery winners.  So keeping some form of lottery in existence (hopefully with somewhat better odds than currently!) would be a form of noblesse oblige for Women to allow for the increasingly redundant gender, that will keep the fellas somewhat motivated, I guess.

(Who needs a "man tax" when you have the "idiot tax"?  Also known as the lottery.)

Proactively create a society where rebellion is unthinkable, unprofitable, uncool, and impolitic in the first place, and there will be little or no need to reactively put down any kind of revolts or mutinies, in other words.  It will not work on 100% of men, of course, but it will work on at least 80-90% of them, on both a small and a large scale, and those few "mavericks" and rogues who remain impervious to such control would be greatly outnumbered and outgunned, and thus rendered nugatory, God willing. 

This is NOT to say that it should be all carrot and no stick, of course.  Granted, a combination of both to some degree is probably necessary.  But comfort truly is the ultimate cage when you really think about it, hence why the ancient Stoic philosophers had such a strong dislike for staying in their comfort zones. 

In contrast, other half-baked ideas such as Femdom (at least of the popular androcentric variety), bonoboism (or rather, faux-noboism), various forms of lifestylism, etc. simply don't SCALE very well.  In fact, anything that falls into the trap of androcentrism (that is, centering males) as opposed to gynocentrism, is essentially guaranteed to fail in practice. 

Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  While males clearly do NOT belong at the center of society, one should note that all successful Matriarchal societies past and present (both human and otherwise) are also just as careful not to marginalize males TOO much either, lest they ultimately form their own insular and dangerous subculture (think the equivalent of the "alt-right", neonazis, MAGA, MRA/PUA/MGTOW, tradcons, GamerGate, 4chan, 8chan, and worse), to the utter net detriment of all concerned.  It is a very fine line and a very delicate balancing act.