Rasa Von Werder: March 2024

Sunday, 31 March 2024

Saturday, 30 March 2024

Mystery Of Marie Roget 1942

Epic Trilogy of Post-Capitalism

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the True Spirit of America Party blog)

The following three articles are all about the topic of the protopian transition to post-capitalism, to one extent or another, so I combined them all into one big article.

DEGROWTH IS A NONSTARTER AND WON'T WORK. HERE'S WHAT WILL INSTEAD. (RE-POST)

From ecological overshoot to all of its attendant crises, including climate change, resource depletion, pollution, and mass extinction, along with the current global energy crisis, the idea of "degrowth" (i.e. a deliberate and planned shrinking of the economy) may seem like an appealing alternative in some circles. However, not only is it a political nonstarter, but the level of central planning and austerity required would ultimately do more harm than good, get us permanently stuck in a bad place, and we would still end up destroying the Earth in the end (albeit a bit more slowly, compared to business as usual). It would "flatten the curve", of course, but really just drag it out and prolong the pain without solving the problem. In other words, it would basically be like Covid lockdown, only permanently, though hopefully minus all of the antisocial distancing and ocean-killing masks. And we saw what a disaster that was, with the Global South faring the very worst in terms of collateral damage.

And that's before we get into the sort of extremely high and confiscatory tax rates (on both income and wealth) that would be required on not only the rich, but also on the middle class and working class, and even the working poor of the Global North. Which the oligarchs would so artfully dodge with ease of course, leaving the rest of us holding the bag. Though to be fair, not all degrowthers necessarily agree with that idea, and many prefer Pigouvian taxes on pollution and resource depletion (most notably carbon taxes), and perhaps also taxing advertising revenue as well, instead of income and wealth.

(For a flavor of a possible worst-case scenario, see Susan Cooper's dystopian novel Mandrake. Then add hell AND high water to the mix. Just lovely!)

Some excellent articles casting doubt on degrowth can be found here and here, truly food for thought indeed.

Of course, we clearly need to end our inane and insane addiction to growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell (as Edward Abbey famously said) which ultimately kills its host. We need an economy that is no longer dependent on growth and can still provide prosperity for all with or without growth. We need to stop obsessing over the fundamentally flawed metric of GDP, which really ultimately stands for God Damn Profits nowadays. Rent-seeking, usury, artificial scarcity, cronyism, speculation, and other forms of parasitism and economic manipulation from the top down are the ultimate reasons why our current economic system is so hooked on growth for the sake of growth.

As the futurist Walter Ignatius Baltzley noted back in 2015, the only way to end this system of cannibalism (sorry, "capitalism") is to give it the ONE thing that it absolutely cannot survive: ABUNDANCE. That's right, capitalism needs scarcity to function, which is why it has to create so much artificial scarcity nowadays to prop itself up. Capitalism will thus fatally overdose on capital, in other words. Abundance is of course the polar opposite of the sort of eco-austerity of degrowth. With enough abundance, we can humanely euthanize this dreadfully toxic system for good, and easily transition to post-capitalism, and ultimately a post-growth and post-carbon economy.

For example, Baltzley in another article applies this idea directly to Big Oil. How do you win a tug-of-war against a much stronger opponent? By simply letting go of the rope, and letting them fall on their butt. Thus, as crazy as it sounds, get out of the way and simply give the fossil fuel fat cats what they say they want so much. Yes, you read that right. Let 'em "drill, baby, drill", and "frack, baby, frack"! The government can even buy their oil (and natural gas) at a premium and then turn around and re-sell it at a loss. The resulting massive surplus of cheap energy would flood the market, bringing down the cost of living in general, and by doing so....will also bring down the cost of renewable energy alternatives like wind and solar that will ultimately replace fossil fuels, while oil and natural gas become less profitable over time. In the very short run, it would be quite a boon for Big Oil, but in the long run it would be giving them the very rope with which to hang themselves. (Fortunately for us, Big Oil is extremely shortsighted.)

Yes, it's quite the Hail Mary pass indeed. But when both Plan A and Plan B have been ruled out as impractical and/or politically impossible, and time is running out, that ultimately leaves us with Plan C.

So what are we waiting for? Prime that pump, and prime it good! Let Big Oil and the oligarchs enjoy their utterly foolish pride before the fall. Remember, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. That's the joke. Yes, oil production will inevitably peak at some point. Duh! And hopefully demand will peak before supply does. But we still have more than enough to deep-fry the planet many times over.

Quite frankly, the biggest supply constraint of all right now is NOT geology, but rather geopolitics, as Europe is currently learning the hard way with Russia weaponizing its natural gas against them. And the aforementioned plan would solve that as well. Canada alone could supply more than enough (liquefied) natural gas to Europe to be free from Russian energy dominance, but they won't, because they never developed the export facilities to do so in time. That leaves the USA to fill in the gap, of course.

So what exactly will post-capitalism ultimately look like when the dust finally settles? The TSAP doesn't claim to know the details. But eventually it will very likely organically evolve into something like mutualism or a gift economy to one degree or another, as well as a "steady-state economy" of course. While a pure gift economy may not necessarily work at scale, a hybrid gift/exchange economy could be better. Whatever it is, it has to develop organically.

One thing is absolutely certain, though: if we are to create an economy that no longer has to "grow or die", we must first phase out and eventually abolish usury entirely. That means that interest and all other kinds of fees for the mere use of money will need to be officially capped at ZERO, period. (Or at least when the borrower is a natural person, as opposed to an organization or institution.) To avoid seizing up the financial markets and crashing the economy, set a "sinking lid" at, say, 10% APR, and then gradually lower the cap each year until zero is eventually reached. Usury has ultimately led to the "financialization" of the economy, inflation, worsening inequality, and just about every other social problem that has a name. There is a reason why it used to be considered such a sin. So let's make it history.

Oh, and by the way: unless the population also shrinks as well at least as fast as the economy does, degrowth is, ipso facto, fundamentally an exercise in futility. That is true both from an economic perspective as well as an ecological perspective.

FINAL THOUGHT: We may have been a tad too harsh on some of the degrowth advocates, particularly Jason Hickel, by lumping them all together. While our roadmaps for how to get there may diverge, the TSAP's ultimate goals for post-capitalism at least seem to be more or less the same as Hickel's (though that's not necessarily true of some of the other degrowth advocates out there). Ditto for Charles Eisenstein and Kate Raworth as well to one degree or another.

See here as well.

Rasa says: Pete Jackson, aka Ajax the Great, is brilliant as usual. He understands how the Patriarchy works, knows the research, the experts, the books & the answers of how it’s to be UNDONE. Great article.

THE (PARTIAL) SOLUTION TO "LIMBIC CAPITALISM"

"Limbic capitalism" is the term of art given to the phenomenon by which Big Business deliberately engineers addiction to various products and services to encourage more consumption, and therefore more profit. It is an externality-generating practice that is ultimately a collective action problem at base. We currently see it in practically everything from Big Tobacco to Big Tech to Big Media to Big Food to Big Booze to Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Casino and so on, all the way up to and including Wall Street, the world's largest casino of all. And of course, the only true and complete solution to end limbic capitalism for good is to end capitalism itself completely.

After all, it's all part of the same general addiction at base: i.e. growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host.

That said, partial solutions can still be worthwhile, and we should not let the Nirvana Fallacy paralyze us in that regard. Ending capitalism itself completely is a lot easier said than done, or at the very least is NOT a particularly quick process. Thus, in the meantime, one "low-hanging fruit" measure to take is to pass a broad law that makes it categorically illegal to deliberately, and for no legitimate purpose, design a product or service to be more addictive than it would otherwise be. That would of course include wilfully adding any gratuitous and questionable additives or features that cannot otherwise be legitimately justified. That would of course include a wide range of troublesome food additives, and of course practically all tobacco additives a fortiori, but also the more subtle things such as curated "addictive feeds", "infinite scroll", and "frictionless sharing" on social media, and various blatantly gambling-like features built into some MMO video games as well.

Some things are of course naturally or inherently addictive (to one degree or another) in themselves, granted. And humans are wired to seek such things out, thanks in part to our evolutionary baggage. But there is NO justifiable or redeeming reason at all to deliberately make such things MORE addictive than they would otherwise be, for the sake of filthy lucre.

Of course, at the same time, we would also still be wise to heed Lysander Spooner's famous and timeless maxim: vices are not crimes. We ignore such a crucial distinction at our peril, as history has shown.

Rasa says: As a Minister of God this sounds to me like people using the weak, the innocent or naive & those likely to go down the wrong path, all for the sake of profiting themselves. That would be evil & sinful & Pete explains this in secular terms. Well done.

OBJECTIONS TO UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME DEBUNKED (UPDATED RE-POST)

(The following was originally written as a shorter article back in 2017, and was further fleshed out recently after re-discovering the old article. I realize I hadn't quite made the best case for UBI in some previous articles, so I decided to post this one as well.)

Back in 2017, there was an article in The Week by Damon Linker titled, "The Spiritual Ruin of a Universal Basic Income". He basically argues that it is a Very Bad Idea for the left to pursue the idea of a UBI because 1) it fails to address (and perhaps even intensifies) the psychological and spiritual consequences of joblessness, which are (in his view) distinct from and worse than the economic consequences, 2) most people couldn't handle joblessness even with a basic income, and would thus become depressed and purposeless and give themselves over to video games, porn, and/or drug addiction, and 3) the left should not concede that automation (and the resulting job losses) is in any way inevitable. Because reasons, obviously.

And all of these things are in fact false. (Or to be exceedingly charitable, highly subjective at best.)

First, only a person of relative privilege could possibly see the economic consequences of joblessness as somehow entirely separate from, and less significant than, the (admittedly real) psychological and spiritual consequences of same. The former can indeed cause or contribute to the latter in a big way, and it is very difficult to disentangle them. Material poverty and desperation are in fact well-known to be objectively harmful to the mind, body, and spirit, and only meaningful work (as opposed to work for the sake of work) can really be said to be beneficial to same. And when the economic consequences are resolved via a UBI, the remaining noneconomic consequences of unemployment would in fact become that much easier to tackle in practice. Think about it.

(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, hello! Only when the lower rungs of basic physiological and security needs are satisfied (which UBI does) is it even possible to even partially achieve the higher rungs.)

Second, there is NO logical reason why a UBI and the sort of New Deal 2.0 jobs program that Linker advocates would be mutually exclusive. The TSAP, in fact, advocates exactly that combination, with both a UBI and a scaled-up Job Corps style program for everyone who wants one (even if not quite a guarantee). We also advocate shortening the workweek as well, which would spread the remaining work among more workers, thus more jobs. (The vaunted 40 hour workweek is literally a relic of 1938, and even then was almost going to be set as low as 30 hours.) Thus, the noneconomic consequences of joblessness can also be adequately dealt with as well, and in any case, one can always choose to do volunteer work (and there most likely will still be plenty of that available) to get the same ostensible psychological and spiritual benefits as paid work. So that is NOT a valid reason for the left to abandon the idea of UBI, anymore than it would be a reason to abandon the idea of a social safety net in general.

(Actually, John Maynard Keynes, along with many other futurists, predicted that with the increases in productivity due to technology, the average workweek would eventually shrink to 15 hours by the end of the 20th century. Of course, that didn't happen, since the oligarchs took nearly all the fruits of the productivity gains since the early 1970s, thanks to neoliberalism.)

Third, the idea that UBI will cause most people or even a particularly large chunk of the population to become lazy and/or self-destructive is NOT borne out by the facts. Numerous experiments with UBI and related schemes have been conducted in diverse cultures and locations in the past half-century, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence to date strongly suggests that this will NOT occur. If anything, one notable effect is an increase in entrepreneurship due to a decreased fear of failure and more time and money to invest in their goals. Students and new mothers will likely work fewer hours than before since they are no longer forced by dint of economic necessity (the effect on hours worked is likely negligible for everyone else), but is that really such a bad thing? Of course not.

No serious proposal for UBI has advocated one large enough to "live large" on that alone. (The most common proposals, including the TSAP's, rarely exceed $1000/month per adult and $500/month per child under 18.) Thus, there will still be plenty of incentive to work, since unlike traditional means-tested welfare programs, there is no penalty for earning more money than some arbitrary threshold.

In any case, with or without UBI, workers will work, and shirkers will shirk regardless. Employers may (at first) not be pleased about having to pay somewhat higher wages than before to attract and retain quality employees, but them's the breaks for solving collective action problems. In other words, it would now have to be entirely by mutual consent, not desperation or coercion. And ultimately, even the employers themselves will benefit in the long run as well, as Henry Ford famously noted long ago.

(If we really want to incentivize work in the event of a labor shortage, we can, in addition to UBI, expand and convert the EITC to a simpler "reverse payroll tax" that automatically tops up workers' paychecks by matching dollar for dollar up to a point. Such carrots would work far better than sticks in the long run.)

(And to all of the truly horrible and insufferable bosses out there, well, hear that? That's the sound of me playing the world's smallest violin for you. So go swallow your pride (and greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, and lust, while you're at it), before it swallows you whole. And at the same time, to all of the users, welchers, leeches, dregs, and ne'er-do-wells, there's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out!)

Nor is there any credible evidence that substance abuse would significantly increase either as a result of UBI, and it may even decrease. But just to drive the point home even further, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sam Altman argues that even if 90% of the population sat around smoking weed and playing video games instead of working, a UBI would still be better on balance than not having one, as everyone would be free to pursue their passions, and the remaining 10% would innovatively create new wealth. Not that he thinks that 90% would actually do that, of course, and nor do we, but the point was well-made nonetheless. One can also point to the Rat Park studies as well. It is amazing how addiction of any kind diminishes or even disappears when rats (or people) are not treated like caged animals in the aptly-named "rat race"!

(Some cynics will inevitably bring up the infamous Universe 25 "mouse utopia" experiments, but that would really be a gross disanalogy, since a gilded cage is still a cage regardless. And in any case, at the end of the day, rats and mice are not people.)

And finally, a real pragmatist would realize that automation really is inevitable in the long run. Contrary to what the neo-Luddites like to argue, fighting against it will NOT stop it, only delay it a bit. The best that we genuine progressives can do is admit that fact and do whatever we can to ensure that the fruits of this automation will benefit all of humanity, and not just the oligarchs at the top. To do so, we must take the power back from the oligarchs. And a crucial step to that goal is a Universal Basic Income, so We the People can actually have some bargaining power, no longer dependent on our employers for survivial. No longer would anyone have to be at the mercy of the all too often merciless. Whether we get this one right will basically be the difference between a futuristic pragmatic utopia or protopia (as Buckminster Fuller envisioned) or a horrifying technocratic dystopia straight out of 1984, Brave New World, or [insert other dystopian novel here]. So let's choose the right side of history!

After all, as the late, great Buckminster Fuller--the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century, famously said all the way back in 1970:

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

Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. And the only real arguments against it are selfish, patronizing, paternalistic, and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are NO good arguments against it in a free and civilized society. So what are we waiting for?

For more information and a much deeper dive into this topic, see the TSAP's "Why UBI?" page. See also this other article of mine for a perspective more relevant to Matriarchy.

P.S. I realized that the above arguments are largely utilitarian or consequentialist in nature, which still leave the reader wondering about nonconsequentialist or deontological arguments. For the latter, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative can also be said to apply to UBI: "Always treat humanity as an end in itself, and never solely as a means", as well as his principle of universalizability. Or as Robert Reich says, "The economy exists to make our lives better. We do not exist to make the economy better." And let's not forget the Golden Rule: "Do unto others, what you would have others do unto you", per Jesus Christ, plus the more subtle Silver Rule "Do NOT do unto others, what you would NOT have others do unto you," per Confucius, as well. Thus, even when ignoring all utilitarian arguments, the case for UBI still exceeds any case against it.

And in case anyone brings up the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers of the USA, keep in mind that one of them, Thomas Paine, actually advocated for some flavor of what we would now call UBI, what he called a "demogrant". So UBI is actually well within the envelope of the Founders' idea of limited government, and truly transcends the usual left-right political spectrum. Such disparate thinkers from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Milton Friedman to Charles Murray to Nina Turner to Andrew Yang to Ellen Brown to Rodger Malcolm Mitchell to even (however briefly) Hillary Clinton have all gone on the record supporting some flavor of UBI, as has the entire libertarian-leaning red state of Alaska since the 1970s.

After reading all of this, truly even the most utterly jaded of cynics can finally see the inherent pragmatism behind the whole concept, alongside the simultaneous idealism.

(See also some recent articles that directly or indirectly mention the concept of UBI, here and here.)

And regardless, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

(Mic drop)

Rasa says: This makes a great argument for UBI. But of course they won’t do it. Why? Because it means taking so much money which the rich have stolen from the poor & giving it back to them. The Patriarchal system is one of exploitation. It’s calling them to make a U turn away from their policies - fat chance. It’s telling Patriarchy not to be Patriarchy. King Louis XVI tried to get the nobles to give up some of their wealth as the country was bankrupt, but they refused. {Sadly, part of the reason was financing our Revolution, of which we never paid back one cent.} The wealthy will always refuse to give up what they have voluntarily; you have to cut off their heads. Good article.

Thursday, 28 March 2024

Strongest Evidence To Date For Ancient Matriarchy

Or, "Queens of the Bronze Age"

By Ajax The Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog)

The Minoan Civilization was an ancient Bronze Age culture located on the island of Crete from circa 3100 - 1100 BC(E). Long held up as an example of ancient Matriarchy, there has been a long-running debate among scholars on whether or not they really were a Matriarchy. There has long been a plethora of denialism in general about there being any sort of precedent at all for genuine Matriarchy, of course, for obvious reasons. Academics (of both genders, unfortunately) have often notoriously tried to obfuscate, suppress, and bury the idea of Matriarchy in a flurry of doublespeak and deception.

But more recently in 2017, a new article came out that conclusively settled that question in regard to the Minoans, as conclusive as anthropology and archaeology can ever be. A University of Kansas researcher has put forth new evidence in favor of the idea that the Minoans were Matriarchal. John Younger, KU Professor of classics, has analyzed several pieces of art and archeological evidence that support the idea that Women had indeed ruled the Minoan Civilization. "Basically, this culture on Crete around 1600-1500 BCE is the closest candidate for a matriarchy that we have. That's huge," Younger said.

Indeed, that is huge. Observing how prominently Women featured in Minoan art and religious artifacts relative to men, and the manner in which they were depicted, the idea that Women were in charge is the most logical conclusion of such observations. The shrines known as "lustral basins" (while their exact purpose was unknown, they loosely resemble the "menstrual pits" in other cultures, except that these basins were decidedly NOT sequestered) in the middle of their palaces or large halls also support the idea as well.

The island of Crete was eventually conquered by the Mycenaeans from the mainland (who were Greek), but Professor Younger has a new theory about how the Matriarchal Minoan society may have undergone a revolt from within before the Mycenaeans ultimately took over. That is, due to the fact that practically everything on the island was destroyed except the main palace at Knossos, he theorizes that an internal revolution, presumably from men, may have occurred, even if that particular theory is not yet settled.

Exactly why men had revolted against such a presumably peaceful Matriarchy (note the absence of fortifications) still remains unclear, however. Was it a "fifth column," perhaps? Were the Women in charge too lenient OR too strict in regards to men? (Much like holding sand, holding too loosely OR too tightly will ultimately cause the sand to slip away, as the famous saying goes. It's a delicate balancing act.) Did the men perhaps feel too marginalized or underrepresented in some way? Was there too much division in society by gender? Or was it a result of natural or sexual selection of the most "macho" men, who eventually became too dangerous and difficult to contain? Or some combination of these things? That will of course require further research to determine, and is beyond the scope of this article.

(According to Wikipedia, one common historical misconception is that the Minoan Civilization was destroyed by a volcanic eruption, but that was revealed to be false due to the fact that the eruption occurred centuries earlier than the end of the Minoan era. Plus, the destruction was too uneven to be due to anything natural, as the palace itself was spared despite the destruction of the town of Knossos. Thus, the end of the Minoan civilization was clearly either due to an internal revolt, conquest from outside, or both.)

Minoan texts may have been written in a language that is still not understood. But truly a picture is worth a thousand words, and their art and artifacts tell the story well.

So take that, denialists!

Original KU article can be found here: https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2017/06/09/art-religious-artifacts-support-idea-minoan-matriarchy-ancient-crete-researcher-says

Wednesday, 27 March 2024

Rewilding A Forest | Artist and Poet Maria "Vildhjärta" Westerberg

Tuesday, 26 March 2024

100 Heartwarming Acts Of Kindness Towards Animals That Will Make You Cry

四川传统野菜包子上桌秒光乡村欢乐生活

Girl: How to make a bamboo trough for wild pigs to learn to eat - green ...

Beautiful rain while cooking | Betel leaves can be a delicious snack | s...

Monday, 25 March 2024

Rescued Three-legged Dog Completely Transforms Once He Is Safe | The Dodo

Robotic Spy Beaver Makes Friends With Beaver Family & Little Muskrat too!

Baby Bison Follows Her Rescuer Everywhere | The Dodo

Neglected Cow Melts Into Her Rescuer's Arms | The Dodo Heroes

Cow tastes freedom after 17 years

This donkey was raised like a human baby after his mom rejected him

Donkey With Overgrown Hooves Runs Free For The First Time | The Dodo Com...

Mini donkey sees other donkeys for the first time in 10 years.

Ancient Primitive Lives - Highland Documentary - 100 years of History - ...

Building a COZY DUGOUT With a Fireplace That Will Last for Years, Bushcr...

What She Eats Will Amaze You - A Day with a Village Girl!

Hard life of a grandmother in a high mountain village in winter. Life in...

Hiber-Nation 54 -- Wild Animals I Have Known - The Springfield Fox Parts...

Building survival Shelter only with Stones.Winter survival bushcraft she...

Back To Living Alone In The Wilderness Log Cabin

Pup Who's Been Barking for 6 Years | Full Episode | S9 Ep3 | Dog Whisperer

Wild Animals I Have Known by Ernest Thompson SETON read by KHand | Full ...

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

Sunday, 24 March 2024

The Biography of a Grizzly. By Ernest Thompson Seton. Full Audiobook

Satisfying HOOF trim ~ Farrier~ TINIEST horse in the BARN! ~

Jerry Lee Lewis’ Former Child Bride Revealed the TRUTH About Their Marriage

Divorce Dad

Want to Separate from Dad 3-24-24

Don't need his Psychological Support any more re Love/Marriage

I’m outside somewhere – wide open skies – some structures like small houses. A woman is here to the left, my Dad is to the right.

I ascend, I guess up some stairs but it feels like I’m on air – onto a porch to the front of me in the middle of this area which I described as ‘wide open spaces’ with a foothill to the left, prairies to the right then way beyond, more foothills. And to the right of this porch is an INVISIBLE HOUSE.

As I ascend onto this wooden porch the lady to my left is amazed how I look as I am exquisite. I am incredibly thin - my waist super small. I have on a red dress & on top of it a coat fastened tightly at the waist, not completely covering the dress. It’s of a luminous thin stiff shiny material that shines in various hues – just like a jacket I have here. Both the dress & coat go to my knees or slightly below & I’m wearing super-high heels, at least 4” – spikes. So I look astounding even to myself, lol.

I’m on my way somewhere & looking for food before I go where it usually is on the porch. And I say

“What, no dog food?”

I also somehow convey to them both – the lady & Dad – that I want to separate from him.

He doesn’t want this & he quickly says he’ll get food for me – he goes somewhere & returns with a blue painted wheelbarrow like I used to work with here, & it is filled with a huge amount of beautiful cooked rice – looks delicious.

But for some reason I disdain this & say no thanks, I’ll eat elsewhere. Don’t know what I’m thinking but vaguely, will I stop somewhere at a coffee shop for a bite? It isn’t clear in my mind.

What is clear is that I’m done with Dad – as if he’s my husband & I tell them both I WANT A DIVORCE!

I ASK Dad if he’ll give me one & he said he doesn’t know about that.

I don’t know why I ever married him. He’s old – looks exactly like the years I last saw him, not attractive at all, late 60’s early 70’s.

And there’s a very young man near me standing there now & I cup his face, he’s the beautiful Puerto Rican ‘Buck’ I used to date when I was 29 – he was 19. And he smiles at me sweetly. And I tell them I have him, why should I stay with Dad?

Earlier there was a similar situation. This guy is with a female but he doesn’t love her. He wants to get away from her & he does & he comes to me & lies in my arms. I see the top of his head, thick straight black hair, & I caress his hair. He tells me he loves me. And I’m very happy as it looked to outward appearances he was with that other lady.

MEANING:

*{ME: Mother God, I sense this is about Nick & me being together, united as husband & wife & during my struggles to achieve this union, my Dad appeared often in dreams as the ‘man who gives away his daughter,’ – which means he is joined with his daughter & has her to give.

And it seems I’m saying, for one thing,

“OK, I have succeeded. He is mine now forever {Nick}. So I wish to split from Dad, no point in having him united to me. Am I right so far?

MG: Indeed you are. Nick is represented by two men in the dream, Buck & the other guy. The’ other guy’ put on a big show of being with his drug enabling partner but he loved you, not her & he admits it here.

ME: OK but there are many other symbols – the pastoral scene, the porch with an invisible house, asking about dog food, Dad tries to placate me with a whole lot of cooked rice – the way I look. I’m not getting what these mean.

MG: The way you look. You’ve been dieting 9 months & are looking good, perfect in fact, except in real life you want to lose even 10 more pounds. Your appearance says you have suffered but through this you have gained your goal – the goal was to have Nick, & you did it.

The invisible house is that you don’t have him on earth, to live with him, it’s cyberspace or the mystical realm – it’s not of this world, people can’t see it. But this is the perfection of the relationship. The red dress is suffering & the blue is depression or sorrow, two things you partook of during the whole time of your relationship. And the super high heels are it was a Cross – a big or tall one.

The lady who’s impressed is me, your Mother God.

Why wide open spaces as described with a great panorama, view? It’s Heavenly. Your relationship is now in Heaven but you’re still on earth so it’s both dimensions but you have achieved your goal. You even impressed yourself.

What is Dad upset about that he doesn’t want to divorce you & what is the barrow of cooked rice he presents?

This is more or less the temptation to stay attached to Dad as your security – that he’ll feed you emotionally – which is what’s supposed to happen on earth. You want to end this attachment & you are going to, so you disdain the food or nourishment he presents although it’s a lot & seems good.

You will find sustenance elsewhere- good bye Dad, your role is fulfilled I must leave.

It’s like a child that rebels against parents to find their own way. This is a psychological separation & it’s a good one.

You are free from the torture of his abandoning you as a child, the memory of it must be healed & it has. You can feel it.

ME: Why do I ask about DOG food?

MG: Yesterday you listened to a meaningful story by Ernest Thomson Seton about his dog Bingo, how they were united & how loyal & faithful Bingo was & even saved his life. You were like that to your Dad. So you are the dog, referring to food for you.}* (end)

The Scout Law by Ernest Thompson Seton

Saturday, 23 March 2024

1920s music compilation Nr.4 (1920s Jazz and Charleston)

Dancing to this sitting down - almost every night one hour - Staying in shape & on top of my game, lol

Bingo, The Story of My Dog Ernest Thompson Seton

Friday, 22 March 2024

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions on THE CRUCIFIXION- PART 1

Ruby's Story #appalachian #appalachia #story #stories #documentary

🥶 Montana winters are no JOKE 🥶 50 Below ZERO~These horses are TOUGH!

How did I DO It? My horse JOURNEY ~ It's not what you think!

The Diary Of A Chambermaid 1946 (Comedy/Mystery) Paulette Goddard

The History of Stump Houses

Thursday, 21 March 2024

This horse is EXHAUSTED! ~ Pasture prep begins ~ Today was GORGEOUS!

What Men Should Pay 4 Brides

What Men Should Pay for

Mail Order Brides 3-21-24

Spent the entire evening watching the ‘mail order brides’ documentaries, the likes of ‘A Foreign Affair,’ ‘Anastasia’ – ‘Thai Women Looking for Men to Marry’ & etc. Saw these years before, decided to look see if I can make more sense out of it.

Other than being annoyed, irritated & enraged – wanting to knock their blocks off because here you have ‘over the hill’, ‘let themselves go’, never were that in the first place, losers guys who can’t get a gal where they are, now fishing for ‘10’s elsewhere & hoping, expecting these ‘10’s for some mysterious reason, will fall in love with them.

Below: men like this want '10's' & they are OFFENDED when asked for money!

It dazzles the imagination the illusions, delusions these guys possess & the frustration on both sides.

The women everyone claims are desperate. The Thai men are total losers, worse than the over the hill gang. They can’t make a living – when they do – the spend it on booze & gambling, & when the wife protests, they beat her up, pour scalding water over her – so one woman says who did end up with a ‘decent’ Danish man {not handsome, just an ordinary guy, not a drunken pit bull} & spent 24 years with him. Then she went back to her roots in Thailand, he’s finished, fat as a hog, one foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel.

I saw a Filipino video years ago. A man barely surviving on his pension goes there, gets an underage girl to nurse him – he’s a disgusting 76, , they show this cute, shapely young girl massaging his saggy body, bringing him meds – he got an apt. for cheaps, {nice one} where they spend time. He wants to marry her, she’s too young. The man’s daughter is making the film – she’s going to blow his cover. But even so, the poor girl who this creep has convinced he’s a millionaire wants the crumbs from his table. They get married in a neighboring country but they can’t be together in the Philippines any more as someone squealed. I mean he’s 76, she’s 15……..that’s not all – he LIED through his teeth, she thought he could make her the Queen on top of the hill in a mansion. The daughter shows his residence, an average retired man’s dwelling, his income minimum wage.

These people are so poor the entire family depends on her success – her Dad is helping her with this man, to get hitched! In the end, all that happens so far is the old man puts her through nursing school – better than nothing. The film ends.

I know the Philippines is a place of dire poverty. A military man promised their maid he’ marry her if she’d get his wife killed. He gave her money. She gave it to her cousins who stabbed the woman to death. A life for $100! The man got caught, what his sentence was I can’t remember but the men who did it, the Philippine govt didn’t even investigate!

Back to mail order brides.

Seeing the utter frustration on both sides, the illusions, delusions, hopes & drams, broken promises, confusion & chaos, accusations on the agencies who live off this, temptations of fraud from certain people & agencies - all of that makes me draw conclusions.

These crazy men all want women to overlook their faults, but they refuse to overlook women's faults - they seek women in their 20's, perect beauties, with no children, & they expect thse women to fall in love with them no matter how they look & how old they are.

Why not just admit what this is – buying & selling - & turn it into legitimate business? Put a price on everything, from the beauty & youth of the wanna be brides, to the ugliness & sloven-liness {fatsos} of the wanna be buyers. Make some concrete conclusions who is worth what, put the prices down if you wanna play you pay – not for sex but for all that a woman means, all she gives, you are not going to let her play Russian Roulette with her youth, waste it on you, caring for you for subsistence, then you change your mind or it goes South, she ends up with nothing & past her prime - & all these guys want is young, young & younger.

Yes I know there’s a market for old woman, young man – but in my books on that subject I explain how patriarchs discourage this, shame the guys away from it. It’s still there but sub rosa. The young men want, {but this isn’t about young men, its topic is old, frustrated, divorced men over middle age – from 46 to 76} they can’t admit – that’s another subject.

{One super old man talks abut his penis. His face doesn’t matter, he says, his penis makes up for it. He reeked with fake confidence. Another man about 350 lbs said, ‘Let’s admit it I’m a bit overweight, but I hope other things make up for that.} But what do these men look for & judge by? Perfect bodies, very young, flawless – search no more than skin deep. Talk nonsense abut the women’s ‘hearts’ which means they put on a good act – it’s her personality they love so they claim, when one personality goes sour, seek another dozier of 40 or 50 ladies with no lines, no wrinkle, no children, no nothing except she must be blind & fall for HIM because by some mysterious standard he’s all that although no one wanted him in America, Australia or Norway, but suddenly, desperate women will swoon over him.

All the guys they showed on this dating spree, 9 out of 10, what were they looking at? The images were ALL women in their 20’s. Indeed, a couple guys mentioned they did NOT meet any ‘age appropriate’ women & they left the place disgusted. But I did not see women above, say 30, at any of these socials – apparently they aren’t encouraged, or might even be rejected as candidates by the agencies. I saw no fat women except in non-agency clubs, there some gals looked normal. But normal ain’t what agencies are selling, they are a meat market & it doesn’t mean they DELIVER – it means they will profit off the guys for TRYING – the letters cost money as someone translates. One fat man spent over 10 grand on letters & when he got to the Ukraine, the babe didn’t show up! It turns out she did not even write the letters. The agency finally did make her show up for a lunch with him, it was filmed. Fatso holds her hand & asks her straight out of she wants to marry him.

Sure, you asshole, & I also want to kill myself. She disappears pronto – he even tries to talk to her after that but you know where that goes. BTW, she’s not only gorgeous but sexy, could be a model or movie star. He’s the 350 lb porker I spoke of.

To see him holding her hand made my stomach turn as I’m sure it did hers. These guys are mentally ill in some way.

Or is it just gland stupor? I think so. I recall the days I worked in dives – clubs where they have the female staff rip guys off for drinks that cost $40 each! They wanted me to do likewise, when I tried it was half hearted & polite. I went up to this group of guys in Wheeling, West Virginia, recall it well. I politely say,

“Would you like to buy me a drink?”

After all, I’m the star, advertised in the paper, having a drink with me at your side should be an honor. But the gent stares at me zombie like & shakes his head no. Like the nerve of me even asking!

A short time later I see Barbie & 3 female staff going up to the same guys, getting into their laps & pawing them, stroking their hair, laughing, smiling, all bullcrap {I see the same shit going on at the Mail Order Bride socials.} And the guys are buying drinks – they have the bread, the bread they wouldn’t part with for me as I didn’t con them.

This goes on for 15 minutes, then alas, all their hard earned bucks are gone. Half a week’s salary in 15 minutes for getting pawed & lap sat. The females walk away like ‘nothing more to do here.’

Just wondering now – those socials. The females get free drinks or champagne to start up – saw that at an ‘Anastasia’ social.’ What’s all the smiling about? Do they get a cut from guys buying them drinks? It can’t be ALL NIGHT sitting with uglies, chatting them up, in the far-fetched dream you’ll be married to them or even if you want them for marriage.

{One guys sat with an interpreter – the candidate female asks what kind of music he likes. Fatty {75 lbs over at least} says he likes rap & heavy metal – he recently went to see a Motley Crew revival. Interpreter says he likes fast music & recently sang in some kind of festival. Candidate asks does he play any instrument besides sing? There is ends, lol}

They must be getting something for all this oozing charm. I mean really, the women I know since I was 10 – they don’t do anything for nothing - I’m the only fool who did that, me & a couple other saints, - it was US that got used! But face it, most women are too cagey.

Then another doozey. There’s this guy fairly young – a farmer who milks hundreds of cows a day – they show it. But he ain’t got no skill with women, he’s alone & lonely – not fat thin in fact, in shape as he’s no more than 40 - just kind of average. Some of them aren’t bad, they just don’t have time, skill or good luck. So this guy is not fat, not old. Is he attractive? Maybe a 5 out of 10, not repulsive. Most guys on the hunt are below 5 to my appraisal.

So I had high hopes for him, maybe he’ll score. Obviously can’t be rich as he’s just a farm hand not a banker like this Asian they showed who had accolades on his wall like ‘China’s Banker of the Year’ & played classical guitar – elite status. But being fairly young, thin, sweet personality – might have a chance.

So I see him there at the gatherings & he gets a female, pretty good looking. She sings to him in Russian, they dance; make out, days on end. I am encouraged, so is he.

He returns home, the chats begin – chat you pay for that fatso spent over 10 grand on, like I said. She loves him he says, it’s all going well, he buys her a pricey diamond ring, he’s going back to the Ukraine to solidify this.

They show 2 other guys, after continued chatting, buying beautiful rings {if they’re real they cost thousands, if not, zircons, OK, might be smart to start with that!} they show us proudly going there to get the mate.

So farmer returns & he’s at Hotel Odessa going to meet lady love. Someone comes to the door.

Yee gads it’s a Russian cop & another guy. They tell him they are about to arrest lady love because she’s borrowed 4 thousand from this guy & won’t pay back & unless someone pays, they are on their way to put her in jail. Can he fork up the money to prevent this?

Bewildered, he says he ain’t got 4k on him – just $200 bucks is all – they say, ‘OK, we’ll take that & won’t haul her to jail. Thanks very much.’

He then says - & this shook my sails with laughter,

‘I decided not to pursue the engagement as it sounded too fishy.’

Yeah, it did & how about if I sell you a bridge?

I could go on & on about exaples, mostly bad, mostly pitiful. But the bottom line is my proposal for how it shoud be done, by the agencies.

First off face it, this is buying & selling. You have losers looking for winners, they gotta’ pay, so no guess work, price the material.

Get all types women to apply, not just perfect babes in their 20’s – all kinds, of all ages, shapes, looks, divorced, widowed, with kids,– all kinds women for all kinds men. Put prices according to what the agency judges plus conferring what the female demands. Some women who are not perfect will want perfect money {some are deluded like the men, some have great self confidence or arrogance like the men} – put it down – if anyone takes, so be it.

OK, rate the women from 1 to 10. This is according to what these old farts look for. When filling out the forms, what do you seek, one man said this & I’m not making it up. He’s 55. He says,

“I’m 55 now in 20 years, will be 75. I can’t be with a young girl now & when I get that age she’ll still be young. So I will look at females age 35 to 45.”

He said this with a straight face, I’m not pulling your leg.

The woman rates ‘TEN’

So according to what they look for – put beautiful, perfect women in their 20’s as 10’s & put their price like so:

$10,000. for the initial engagement. This is up front.

10k a year in cash, after marriage, every year. The contract is up in 5 years. By then she should have 50k in the bank if she saved it. This is besides normal upkeep – you pay the bills, her clothing, food. What does she give?

You cannot say SEX as that is illegal I most countries, certainly in America. You put in the contract companionship, keeping up with the home front – manage the huse & yard if any. She gets one day a week free to do as she wishes go where she wants, she is not your house slave.

If she has children for you, each child you have to give her 10k in cash & this is not in support for the child, this is on top of that, a ‘gift.’

Look what it costs to have a woman bear a baby for you:

“The exact cost of having a baby via surrogacy will vary among families, depending on several factors including insurance coverage, the surrogate and parents' location and the success of in vitro fertilization. Experts say the total cost can range from $100,000 to $225,000.”

If at the end of 5 years, she wants to leave you & go back to her country, you cannot hold her back, you must let her go & take the children, unless she wishes to leave the kids with you – it’s her choice.

Important: Any woman, of any level, including those who charge nothing extra – if they are English speaking they get 10 grand for it! The ability to communicate is as important as anything – beauty or child bearing!

Second choice, which the men will NOT usually put, the woman rates NINE:

She is 30 to 40 years of age MAYBE not as perfect as the ten’s in beauty, maybe she is, but not all of them as thin as their 20’s - but very good looking – might have children, she gets,

$7,000. for the initial engagement & $7k a year thereafter for 5 years – you have to renegotiate at that time – if she wants to return to her country & take any children you have had, her choice.

She gets $10,000. for any child she has for you. This is where you take a risk – even though she begets a child or more for you, you cannot own all rights over them, but if she leaves you, you might still be able to spend time with them or not – as she wishes. A child should not be separated from its Mother, certainly not at a young age – before six – never. After that, maybe, let the child decide. The child in some cases prefers the Dad.

Next case: Women who are rated EIGHT. Here the borders open more widely, it isn’t just AGE. These are women of any age who are not especially beautiful or perfect, but attractive. They could be in their 20’s but OBESE. They could have scars on their face from an accident but otherwise, attractive. Let’s say their figure is thin but not great, skinny, flat chested, but not bad. And so based on LOOKS ALONE they get

$5,000. for the initial engagement 5k a year thereafter for 5 years then renegotiation. These renegotiations can be done through the agency or by themselves. If she’s still affiliated with the agency, they go 50/50 if she re-enters the market. That works from the start – the initial engagement fee is spit 50/50 agency & candidate, after that, it’s all hers.

Any child begotten for him, the usual price of 10k unless she negotiates for more – never less. If the female does NOT want to bear a child for the man, he must use a method of birth control – get a vasectomy, use condoms or she gets a simple operation where a tube is cut – a non invasive surgery – I know women who did it. They do NOT have to go inside her, it’s done like from the abdomen area – one female showed me.

Men when they get brides think it’s all for him, she takes the risks – the risks of whether she gets any viable support out of it, the risks of having a child or children, the risk of being left as a barefoot, pregnant, bed to kitchen slave – the risk of having no friends or supporters, family around her in a foreign place - The risk of his wrath or violence, the risk of his cheating, drinking or going astray. And in a Patriarchal nuclear family, it’s a hotbed of abuse – he has the Aces, he’s bigger, stronger, more intimidating. What has she got - away from all that she knows?

Indeed, he might refuse to pay her yearly Gift & what can she do? Nothing but leave him. And that is why she should stay in touch with her agency, they should be with her family her support system if it goes wrong. Say he reneges on the money & she has none but wants to leave? The agency should front her the bread, she can go back & put herself on the market again. In some extreme cases she might have to leave her/his children behind – {never her own by another man} & that might be one hard Cross she’ll have to bear.

Women below EIGHT – whatever it may be. These women, based on their decision in conjunction with the agency, decide not to charge any up-front or yearly fees to the man. They come free. These are NOT the women the glad-boys will seek as they are not the 10’s or 8 or 9’s, they MIGHT be below, although they could be perfect in many ways BESIDES LOOKS. But AS WE KNOW men only look skin deep initially so their chances of hooking up are less than the ‘babe dolls.’

There are all kinds of men – fat – ugly – old – repulsive – lacking charm – lacking social graces – living an average or above average but not well off lifestyle – have some sort of defect, whatever it may be – yet all these men are looking for TENS!

Let the agency help them look in the mirror, then flip further down the pages to women who charge less, maybe no charge, be realistic, face reality.

Below, the first image is Klimt's 'the Kiss' & he has painted himself with the woman he loved. Except he never looked like this, he re-painted an improved version, lol. This is how guys {some of them} look at themselves as they seek women. They blot out their own faults & think the woman will see inside them, how good they are, but in the woman, they only seek her body, face, appearence, although they claim otherwise--they are liars. I speak not only from these videos but experience.

Granted, if you are wealthy you might afford a TEN – no guarantee of happiness! Indeed, eye candy is sweet from the beginning but it wears off if you can’t get along & for one thing, COMMUNICATE! The mask she has one toward you might slip off & suddenly, you realize she is turned off– then life ain’t sweet. She might be cheating on you soon like surfing the internet as you once did.

Here we come to another important phase of VALUE. For any woman who knows ENGLISH well that is worth another $10,000! Not jiving, for couples that can’t speak each other’s language, it will be impossible to communicate unless one of you learns the others. It took years in Denmark for the Thai women to learn English & the men Thai – in this community featured there were about 750 Thai citizens, & they had a community – it brought great comfort to the new arrivals, it encouraged others not to fear coming over.

For this reason, women who want to be brides might take an entire year to learn & drill themselves in English, & you dumb fart, that is worth money! So tag that on to the initial price of whatever level of woman you choose – if she’s English speaking, you have to fork up 10 grand, even if she charges no engagement fee!

And that’s all I have to say right now, comments welcomed.

Rasa Von Werder