Why Austerity is a Con-trick

Economics is made to look complex, to prevent people understanding what is really going on.
Economics is made to look complex, to prevent people understanding what is really going on.

How Can Banks Go Broke? When They Have a Licence To Print Money

Governments all over the world are imposing austerity on their people and claiming it's because they've had to bail out bankrupt banks. To pay for the folly of the financial world, governments are slashing public spending, which generally means cutting public services.

However, the executives of failed banks still get million- dollar bonuses, high wages and pensions, and seem to being rewarded for failure. At the same time, the wages of the workers continue to be squeezed, and public services are being slashed, even though they had nothing to do with the banks' financial difficulties.

As many people all over the world are pointing out, the rich seem to benefit from austerity, while it greatly undermines the living standards of ordinary people. But as it is the rich who have more influence over governments than ordinary people, then perhaps it is no wonder that austerity is a government policy

The whole argument for austerity is that governments are billions or even trillions of dollars in debt. But what is not made clear is - to whom do we owe these debts? Who has trillions of dollars of spare money that they can lend to struggling countries? We are told it is the banks, but the crisis was caused by banks going bust, so it seems they don't have this sort of money to lend. Other people have claimed it is the IMF or World Bank, but if that is the case, where did they get all this money from? And if they have so much money, why didn't they bail out the banks, instead of leaving it to governments or the taxpayers?

It seems that, "governments have money for wars but not for the poor". They will tell you they cannot afford money for schools, hospitals and social services, but if they are involved in a war, then trillions of dollars are immediately available to fight it. Where all this money suddenly comes from, is never made clear

So how do we make sense of all this? What exactly is going on? The biggest problem in trying to understand large government debts, is that the public are never told the whole truth by governments or the media, that it is impossible for banks or governments to go broke, simply because they have the licence to print money. Nowadays they don't even have to do that; electronic money is simply created within a computer, by typing in the amount on a keyboard. Ever since money was invented, 2,500 years ago, in the form of coins, governments have always had the ability to make their own money and use it however they like

I am sure many people will dispute this, but if you want proof, you can find it through what happened during the time of the Second World War.

In this conflict Nazi Germany conquered nearly the whole of Europe and it took the might of the British Empire, the USA and the Soviet Union to finally defeat them. The surprising thing is that only a few years earlier Germany was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Germany suffered more in the Great Depression than any other Western country. It was so bad for them, that in 1933 there were over 6 million people in Germany who were unemployed. Yet, six years later, after Hitler gained power, they quickly created the best equipped army and air force in Europe.

Modern military weapons are not cheap. A tank costs far more than the most expensive luxury car and an air force bomber costs about the same as a airliner. Then there's fighter aircraft, field guns, submarines, battle ships and vast quantities of ammunition, shells, torpedoes, bombs and rockets, all of which are extremely expensive. So where did the money come from to pay for all this? The German Nazi government simply printed it.

The same is true of both the USA and Britain. The USA also suffered in the Depression of the 1930s, yet in 1941, when it was attacked by Japan, it quickly created a larger and better equipped army, navy and air force than even Germany and Japan had. Not only that, after the war the USA created the Marshall plan and lent Europe more than 13 Billion dollars to restore its economies. Where all this money came from, was never made clear.

Britain, in spite of the Great Depression, also had the money to fight a war with Germany. It soon produced enough aircraft to mount 1,000 bomber raids on Germany, and kept on replacing the larger numbers being shot down by the German night fighters and anti aircraft guns. It also replaced thousands of merchant and warships that were being sunk by German U boats and aircraft. Then after the war, when Britain was supposed to be bankrupt, it started the welfare state. The Labour government of 1946 created the National Health Service that guaranteed free health and dental care for every person in Britain. There was hardly any mention of where the money came from to pay for this. There was certainly no talk then of cutting public services to pay for the war; in fact, the opposite was true

In Germany it was even worse; many German towns and cities were destroyed by the night and day bombing of the British and US air forces. Yet the money was found to rebuild them. From where?. Austerity was not imposed on the West German people either. The opposite was true. In the 1950s West German people enjoyed a boom period of full employment with well paid jobs

What governments try to tell us is that all these things were paid for by taxation, but is it true? After all, Britain, USA, Japan and Germany had just gone through 4 -6 years of war, during which governments had to pay for all the arms, equipment as well as the pay of millions of military personnel. So who paid the taxes for all this? After all, the vast majority of workers were making munitions in factories or serving in the military, all of which was paid for by the government. It wasn't taxation which paid for the war, it was done by simply printing money. Taxation doesn't pay for anything, though taxation does serve another purpose, which I'll get to later on.

Banks create money by simply typing in the amount in a computer
Banks create money by simply typing in the amount in a computer
The mainstream media is not telling the people the truth.
The mainstream media is not telling the people the truth.

The truth About Taxation

One of the reasons that neither governments nor banks can continue to print money endlessly, is because it will create inflation. The more money they print the more it will go down in value. Harold Wilson, a British Prime Minister explained this when he pointed out, "One man's pay rise is another man's price rise."

The price of every item we buy is created by the wages of everyone who makes, sells and delivers it to us. The higher the wages and the greater number of the people involved, the more expensive the product becomes. So if governments or banks print too much money, and people end up with higher wages, the price of goods goes up by the same amount

As many governments have found in the past, they can't just print money to make themselves or the country rich, because the money becomes devalued through inflation. The only way a country can be rich is through its productivity. The more productive and efficient a country becomes in making goods, the more wealth is created. Nowadays, with modern technology, computers and robotics, goods can be made very cheaply and efficiently, but ordinary people do not enjoy the advantages of this. This is because, by using the tools of austerity and high unemployment, the benefits mostly go to a wealthy elite

At one time, working people were paid such low wages that their income was unlikely to create inflation. Then in the 20th century, with organized unions, the workers were able to demand higher wages. To stop this creating too much inflation, governments began to tax the workers, to take money out of the economy and keep inflation low. The paradox of taxation is that it doesn't make governments rich, because with their ability to print money, they don't need to worry about tax. It exists only to take money out of the economy, to bring inflation under control. It also helps hide the truth, that governments and banks can create money out of thin air. Naturally, governments don't want to tell people that their taxes are only being used to keep inflation under control. Better to say that it is necessary to pay for essential services and leave it at that.

So if governments and banks have the licence to print money, how is it possible for banks to go broke and governments to get into debt? The answer is that the debt is not real but is used to hide another hidden agenda.

Back in the 1930s we had what was called, "The Great Depression". We're told that this was caused by a stock-market crash in the USA in 1929. All over the world there was high unemployment and the living standards of ordinary people decreased. For many years governments seemed to be unable to lift their countries out of this Depression, but one economist showed how it could be done. John Maynard Keynes pointed out that the reason why countries were in a Depression was because of high unemployment. This meant that governments could easily get their countries out of the Depression by artificially creating full employment. The reasoning goes something like this

High Unemployment

When you have low wages and high unemployment, workers will only pay for the bare necessities. As a result, the sales in shops go down, factories have far less demand for their goods and eventually close, causing the whole economy to stagnate.

If, on the other hand, you have full employment and decent wages for workers, they are far more likely to buy goods and services. They will buy more from shops, which in turn creates a demand for goods from factories. Factories will employ more workers to meet this demand and the whole economy will boom. This sounds like a win-win situation that benefits everyone, but it does little for the very rich or what is called nowadays "the 1%". Unfortunately, it is these people who have a far greater say in what governments do than anyone else.

The biggest problem with full employment as far as the rich are concerned is that it gives too much power to the working class. When jobs are easy to obtain, a worker who doesn't like his or her pay or working conditions, is free to go and get another one. Employers have to give in to their employees demands for better pay and working conditions, if they want to keep a full work force. As a result, employers are competing with each other, which gives great power to working people. This is wonderful for the 99% but not for the 1%, and as far as governments are concerned it is the opinion of the wealthy 1% that is far, far more important than that of the rest of us.

Keynesian economics was used in all Western governments from the end of WW2 to the 1970s. In that time all these countries enjoyed year on year growth with the standard of living for working people, increasing all the time. But the gap between rich and poor in those years greatly decreased and for this reason Keynesian economics was abandoned in the 1970s. Since then, governments all over the world have engineered high unemployment to keep the working class powerless.

This is the way it works. If there is high unemployment, it is difficult for working people to get a job. So if workers are not happy with their pay or working conditions they either have the choice of accepting them or being unemployed. This allows employers to drive down wages and impose poor working conditions. It is noticeable that since the 1970s the gap between rich and poor has been growing. Governments are the biggest employers of workers in any country, so it can easily cut down or increase employment by how much it chooses to spend on public services. When a politician says, "we need to cut government spending," what he really means is, "we need to have more people unemployed".

You would think the rich would be happy with this situation, but it seems they are not. For many of them, the gap between rich and poor is not big enough. This is why, in the 21st century, they have engineered a banking collapse. They claim that banks have become bankrupt, but this is impossible while banks have the power to create their own money. What it's really about, is a desire to impose austerity onto the public, push unemployment even higher and cut public services. It seems that in their greed, the rich are willing to force things as far as they can possibly go. They are willing to engineer another banking crisis so they can claim we need more austerity. And if they can get away with this, without any penalty, there is nothing to stop them doing it again and again.

Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn

The end of the Cold War and the end of Keynesian

So what can the people do about this? The first thing to realise is that we do not have a free press. We never did. The ruling elite are very aware of the power of newspapers and TV to indoctrinate the people into what they want them to believe. To actually think they wouldn't use this power for their own ends, is being very naive. All newspapers and TV stations are owned by a handful of very rich men or the Government. And it is these people who control everything that comes from the media

They also control the education system. I saw that clearly when I learned about Keynesian economics at school in the 1950s and 60's. We were taught then that it was the best economic system ever devised. Then in the 1970s it was ditched and suddenly it was like Keynesian economics never existed. All of Keynesian theories were either censored or if they were mentioned it was to criticise and condemn them as a failure. Today, we now have a lot of misinformation about Keynesian economics, claiming that it is something that it is not. For instance, it is said that the tax breaks governments are giving to the rich is Keynesian economics. This is in fact 'trickledown economics' which is something very different. Keynesian economics is about giving wealth to the working people and not the rich.

Fortunately, today we have the Internet, where ordinary people can get information out to the people, even though we know that large organizations like Google and Facebook do attempt to censor the flow. The more people can be educated in what is really going on, the less likely the ruling elite can get away with robbing us.

There was a period from the end of WW2 to the 1970s where we did use Keynesian economics but the reason for this was centred around communism. At the end of WW2 the ruling elite of the West really feared a world wide communist revolution. This is why we had the Cold War, in which the West threatened the USSR, with nuclear weapons, and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. The USA fought the Vietnam war because, at the time, it feared what was called, "the domino effect". It was believed that if Vietnam became communist the surrounding countries like Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia, would also fall to the communists. If that happened, it could even spread further than this, to countries like India, Indonesia and the Philippines. As it turned out, when Vietnam did fall to the Communists, it spread to Cambodia and Laos but not any further

The USSR was encouraging communist revolutions in any country where people were dissatisfied with their government, and it had a big success in the case of Cuba and Angola. So the ruling elites in Western countries had good reason not to upset the public because of their fears of Communism. This is why the USA had the Marshall plan after WW2 and why they were willing to tolerate Keynesian Economics. But in the 1970s it became clear that communism was failing. The USSR was losing the cold war since it lagged behind the USA in weapons technology. The domino effect didn't happen in Southeast Asia in spite of Vietnam and Cambodia turning communist and it was also contained in South America and Africa. It didn't spread further from either Cuba or Angola, probably because communism failed to make life better for the workers than capitalism did at this time. Though this wouldn't be the case today.

What can the people do?

At the end of the 1970s, Keynesian economics was ditched, and later on, when the USSR broke up and the Cold War ended, the ruling elite knew the communist threat had passed. It meant they now had no reason to hold back from robbing ordinary working people. They have the political parties sewn up. If the voters do not like one government and throw it out, they soon find that the policies of the new government are not much different to the last one.

In recent years some people have turned to extreme left wing or right wing parties but many still fear them. They are seen as either communist or fascist. People remember or read about the behaviour of communists or fascist dictators like Stalin and Hitler and avoid extreme Parties This is why they still remain in the minority.

As a result, there are no political systems that people can turn to that they feel will not let them down. Left wing parties in recent times tend to keep unemployment a bit lower than right wing parties by spending a bit more on public services, but that is the only difference. However, things are now changing with the rise of politicians like Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein who are not willing to compromise with the ruling elite and are willing to stand up to them. The only way forward is to support politicians like this, to bring about a more equal society for us all.


Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea

Steve Keen the anti economist

Germaine Greer on the money - outs banks & banksters

Basic Income: An Idea Whose Time Has Come | James Mulvale

© 2013 William Bond

More by this Author


Comments 30 comments

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 3 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal

Many very valid points and thought-provoking questions in this hub, William! I have voted up and shared at Facebook.


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

The main concern I have about your hub is who you blame for the finincial crisis? European countries and the U.S. brought financial ruin upon themselves through entitlement and over spending? In the U.S. it is true the financial institutions went belly up, but it only happened because liberal Democrats forced them to give loans they normaly would not have. It is common news that behind closed doors our Democrats told them not to worry they would bail them out if it came back to haunt them as it did. Entitlement countries in Europe, Greece, Spain, France etc. give away more than they take it and over tax business and the wealthy, rendered them helpless in starting new business or growth.............All of the financial crisis in the world can be traced back to governments.............not banks


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

William, I was with you all the way until we got to the last few paragraphs. Personally I don't believe matriarchy is the answer. I don't think women are more compassionate or more empathetic than men. Just take a look at some of our women leaders: like Margaret Thatcher, for instance, or Madeleine Albright, or Condoleeza Rice, to name but three. The issue isn't matriarchy or patriarchy, but class. Women are family orientated. They are often fiercely loyal to their own families, but dismissive of other people's families, and can be just as ruthless about getting what they want as any man. Think about Lucretia Borgia.

BTW, Patriot Quest, it's odd that government-lead economies from 1945 till 1979 created greater wealth for the population than banking-lead economies since. Explain that.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi CJ, I'm glad you liked my article. Just to say on matriarchy that Thatcher, Rice and Albright do not compare with male leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and many other despotic dictators or even democratic leaders like George Bush. Yes, women are not perfect, but compared with men, they are a hell of a lot better.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

When asked about the sanctions on Iraq, causing the death of 500,000 children, Madeleine Albright said that the price was worth it.

Margaret Thatcher supported Suharto, known to have killed up to a million of his own people, and Pinochet, who killed many hundreds of thousands, and herself, though not directly implicated in murder on this scale (although we should all remember the Belgrano) she nevertheless blighted the lives of millions with her policies.

As for Hitler and Stalin, they both had wives who supported them.

Meanwhile, all of the people you quote favourably in your article are men.

I think your conclusions are too simplistic. It's not matriarchy we need, but awake and aware humans able to make clear, conscious and empathetic decisions about our collective future.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Hi CJ, When women get involved in patriarchal politics they have to act and behave like men to get any respect. Compassionate and caring women are regarded as being too 'weak' to be taken seriously in patriarchal politics. The point that I am making is that it is caring and compassionate people are the type of people we need to have ruling our world. So the only practical way I can see to make this happen, is for women to create their own matriarchal political parties where they do not have to act like ruthless and aggressive men to get any respect or promotion. And if the public are willing to vote a matriarchal political party into power, we may end up with a government of caring and compassionate people.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

I just think you have too much faith in the idea that women are naturally caring and compassionate. I can remember many times seeing a fight between two drunken men, with women standing around urging them on. Women like men to fight over them. This is not a problem of which sex you are, but of how mature you are. We are immature as a species and, if we are to survive, we need to grow up, men and women both.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I'm not saying all women are angels I am just comparing women with men. It you look around the world we find that over 99% of all acts of violence is committed by men. It is men who fight in wars and it is men who are serial killers. Yes, you can find a handful of women who are just as bad but they are the exception.

The fact that women are far less, aggressive, competitive and violent than men, is probably why it is men who rule our world. But the point is do we want our world ruled by violent and aggressive people? If we don't, then, we need to empower women and encourage caring and nurturing women to be leaders of our world.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

William, it's not men who rule the world, it is a set of particular families (oligarchy). The men are just the front for the families, but the women members of those families support the men to do exactly what they are doing. Usually, in fact, while the men are the outward rulers, the women are the inward rulers, that is the rulers of the families. Most families are ruled by women. I agree we need to empower women, but we also need to empower working people as a whole, and we need to remove the power from the oligarchic families (men and women) who currently rule our world.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I am sure wives of male rulers do try to influence their husbands, but I have to say there are not doing a great job in doing this. Just like female politicians, wives of male politicians have to play the patriarchal game to achieve any respect. Our world is ruled by the masculine values of aggression, competition and violence. The feminine values of love, caring and nurturing are clearly not very strong within the ruling elite.

Men have been ruling our world for the whole of recorded history and have totally failed to eliminate war and poverty in our world. Even when we have popular uprisings like the French revolution, things never changed for the better. It must be clear to everyone now that men are totally incapable of solving problems like war, conflict and poverty. So if men cannot do it, why not allow women to have a go?


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

William, the reason the wives of male rulers aren't doing a great job of influencing their husbands (in your terms) is that actually they agree totally with what their husbands are doing. As I said earlier, women are family orientated, and are fiercely, even violently, protective of their families. The ruling families are composed of both men and women, who agree that their principal concern is keeping all the rest of the families in their places. It's not patriarchy we suffer from, it is oligarchy.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

CJ, The reason why women support patriarchy is that they do not know anything else. They are indoctrinated from an early age to believe it is, 'natural' for men to rule the world. That the maternal and nurturing nature of women is a 'weakness'. And men are 'strong' because they are ruthless, competitive and aggressive. As the result many ambitious women try to overcome their maternal instincts and act and think like men, as in our patriarchal world it is the only way they can gain power.

The whole patriarchal society we live in, is biased towards masculine values and the feminine is seen as weak and feeble. While the masculine is seen as strong. Yet it is these strong masculine values that create conflict, wars and poverty. If we want to live in a caring and loving world then we all need to respect feminine values. This is only possible by having matriarchal political parties where women are allowed to be maternal and nurturing, and not have to pretend be men. It is clearly impossible for men to create a loving and caring world, so we need women in matriarchal governments to do this.


Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 3 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal

Chris and William, I don't actually agree that women care about members of their families because in my experience I have known a lot of women who ended up with psychological problems and addictions due to being abused badly by their mothers. In fact in my 20s I thought it was almost 'normal' to have a girlfriend who did not get on with their mothers at all. Chris, you knew Mandy, Becky and Janice and they all had mothers that picked on them all the time. I got banned from Mandy's house for failing to stop Mandy hitting her mother after she had started on her. Janice used to blame her mother for her mental illness. My own mother gave me a lack of self confidence and other problems by telling me she wished she had never had me and that I was no good not like my brother Robin (who was dead). My question is how were these mothers being "caring and nurturing" or "caring about their families"?


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

William, you obviously don't know women all that well. Maternal and nurturing, yes - towards their own children, but not necessarily other people's children, particularly if the "others" are strangers. I don't agree that women support patriarchy because they don't know anything else since what I am describing isn't patriarchy as such: it is a parallel value system of their own, which supports men's aggression for their own particular tribal reasons. I suspect that, if we ever got your matriarchal world, you would be deeply disappointed. I believe it would be just as unjust, just as divided, just as ignorant as our own, but in different ways. It's odd, too, that you are promoting this idea, as if women were unable to speak for themselves. What I would like to see would be a world of equality between the sexes rather than a hierarchy of any kind.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Bard and CJ, You are both talking about damaged women within our patriarchal world. The fact is that without the strong maternal and nurturing instincts of women the human race could not survive. If women did not have a powerful instinct to what to give birth to children and then to look after them until they are adults, very few children would live for very long. We perhaps take the maternal instincts of women for granted and do not respect them in our patriarchal world.

As for women not looking after other people's children, they do it all the time. The caring professions are dominated by women. Women will also adopt children if they cannot have one of their own and even look after animals to satisfy their nurturing instincts.

Yes, many women do get badly damaged by patriarchy. But the difference is that when men get damaged by patriarchy you end up with violent and brutal criminals, but even badly damage women don't end up being serial killers and psychopaths like men do. \

As I have pointed out many times, over 99% of all acts of violence in our world is committed by men. Yes, there are female killers but they are very few in number, compared with men. This is why we stand a far better chance of living in a caring and loving world with women ruling our world than with men ruling it.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

William, I think I'll call it a day after this. My problem with your approach is that it seems naïve to me. You spend 90% of the above article talking about why our economic system doesn't work, and in defence of Keynes, citing a lot of male authors along the way, all of which I agree with, but then make this arbitrary leap into matriarchy. But to me it's pure utopianism and bears an uncanny resemblance to old-style communists talking about "the revolution" in idealistic terms ("come the revolution, comrade, we'll all be free") or Christians talking about "The Kingdom". It's a nice ideal, but just not based in any reality that I can observe. And while I agree with you that most violence is committed by men, as I said in an earlier post, I've observed women egging men on to violence many, many times. Yes, women are more nurturing than men, and men are more violent, but the human race is symbiotic, it consists of both sexes at the same time, and many women really do appear to get a vicarious thrill out of men's aggression, while a lot of male aggression is designed to get female attention. It's all very primitive, in other words. We are an infantile species, and we need to grow up in order to survive.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

I suppose we have to disagree on this one CJ. The only reason I went into matriarchy is because I do not trust left wing politics to deliver a better world for us all. Yes, they will be better than the conservatives but that is all you can say about them. I want a hell of a lot more than the likes of what Blair or Obama can give us.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

So do I william. I want what Keynesianism and the post-war consensus gave us from 1945 till 1979. And maybe a little more.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

We can agree on that CJ.


Atlas Lonestar 3 years ago

Several men like yourself come along and begin criticizing the concept of Matriarchy without even giving it some deep unbiased consideration; you know nothing of Matriarchy other than what you've heard and everything that you've heard, along with any of the biased positions that continue to slander it, usually coming from those whom have never lived within a true Matriarchy have made some rather unprovable assertions and have come to some rather unreasonable conclusions due to the subconscious fear that men have over the idea of women being dominant within human civilization. Your entitled to your opinions and assertions and while you may not think that women are more compassionate or more empathetic then men, I personally beg to differ through my own natural experiences and with history as my witness, I find that since men have practically dominated this world for thousands of years that men are far more ruthless in comparison then women, and continue to prove that this very day. The sexes have never been equal, and the equality that we know of today that is widely promoted is merely patriarchal propaganda to persuade people to serve elite causes, an equality created on false promises; it is a mere game and nothing more. A patriarchy cannot and will never deliver true equality, in order for that to be done it would demand the deconstruction of our current civilization and and restructuring of one that is or would be considered Egalitarian, which will not happen with the current state of politics. Matriarchy is merely the gendered word for an Egalitarian society or civilization; the word Matriarchy has two meanings the most popular meaning that people tend to attack it for is the meaning "Mother Rule, or Rule of the Mothers." Yet even this is a deeply misunderstood definition, due to the fact that we have never lived within a society where "Mothers Rule" we don't know what that experience is truly like, it would not be the same experience as in a Patriarchy "Father Rule" we all know what that is like, we have all lived in such a society and continue to live in one, regardless of what we would like to think; and since we do not know what the true experience of "Mother Rule" is most tend to imagine it as no different then "Father Rule" which is far from the truth; such a society would be radically different, but very few can imagine it therefore, we tend to assume the conclusion of it being a reversal of patriarchy, even though this would not be the case, the only way for this to be made clear is to prove it, which is something we can't do by continuing to support the status quo and argue against it. Another meaning for Matriarchy is "Mother Beginning" which in our day and age and for all ages to come is a more accurate meaning, we all seek a "New Beginning" and we all begin life through "The Mother" and we all return to her when we die "The Return to Mother Earth." This is the original meaning of Matriarchy, and it is what we all mean when we speak of Matriarchy, let that be ever clear to you.

What I notice when most men and some women criticize the subject of Matriarchy is that they mention the examples of patriarchal women who have served patriarchal governments; women like Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice, and Lucretia Borgia etc. Women who are often demonized and villainized and to some degree, considered far worse and deadlier then men in order to further the agenda of women being either even or worse than men and to support the biased views that women are as you put it "no better than men." This to me as I have always known it to be, is "patriarchal propaganda" against the struggle for women's progress and is nothing more than a "double standard" that has been set within a civilization whom has a clear and definite history of degrading and oppressing women, reducing half of the human population to that of slaves while showing favor on a select few. The "double standard" is this, as William briefly mentioned that within patriarchal political systems, women have had to "prove" that they are capable of making difficult decisions, that they are capable of fully functioning within a morally power hungry and corrupt system, that they are able to handle and control the responsibilities that come with patriarchal power, and dominance. Women had to prove to a male supremacist world that they were strong enough for such positions, this having to prove oneself can drive one to the extreme; since women had previously been thought not capable of such things. Such women as you mentioned, proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and now they are villainized to the extent that they are used to argue against women as moral agents in positions of power and against a possible Matriarchy; apparently as women we can't rise above within a patriarchy no matter what we accomplish, we are as they say "damned if we do and damned if we don't.


Atlas Lonestar 3 years ago

You claim that the issue isn't Matriarchy or patriarchy, but class; if you truly think that Matriarchy is merely about the battle of the sexes and nothing more than you've been highly misinformed. Matriarchy goes beyond the sexes, the sexes represent only one aspect of the world's problems there are many others, like the relationship between humanity and Mother Nature, humanity and animalkind, among others; Matriarchy is a state of mind, a perspective, it is a possible life path, and direction, one of harmony while patriarchy is one of destruction, we are witnessing that in the present, patriarchy seeks to lead us into a world of separation from Mother Nature, into a world of artificial genocide and transhumanism at the expense of all life on our Mother Earth, a mechanistic world created from a mechanistic science, that is where we are all heading, and the path of Matriarchy stands against this, for the benefit of all life on Earth not merely for the lives of humankind.

I will tell you the plain truth as to why some women choose to either follow, accept, or agree with the patriarchal institutions put in place along with the patriarchal family; to an extent William is correct, women are nurtured to serve and support the patriarchy because that is how they are raised it becomes a strong environmental influence, along with wealth, security, and status in patriarchal society, in other words it is either one of choice or survival. These kinds of women are known as patriarchal women, women that support patriarchal values, traditions, religions, families, politics, etc. Just like not every woman is going to be a Feminist, not every woman is going to be a Matriarchalist. Most women fear the consequences that will come from rebellion, which are usually far greater consequences for women then for men, these women are capable of losing everything and they would much rather choose patriarchy over Matriarchy, or any other alternative which is to be expected especially from elite women, however, even with these facts in place, the women still do not control, dominate, nor hold the power to either the wealth or the family lineage, this is a patriarchy. It does not matter what political ruling party is involved whether it be Republic, Democracy, or an Oligarchy these are all patriarchal systems of government, and we will all suffer from them either which way, some more than others. There are also several issues dividing women from unifying with one another, the male supremacist and misogynistic attitudes that have existed for thousands of years up to the present day is one of the most powerful and persisting of influential issues, however, there is race, culture, and religion, to name a few and all male supremacist attitudes are in-bedded within every one of them, this becomes a great obstacle; for since we are demonized within the very fabric of society itself and are made "The Other" and are at the same status as the animals and Mother Nature since patriarchal societies are hierarchical, we are therefore, taught to hate the female, to hate women, to subordinate the Mother; and since it is the women who have been degraded and made inferior along with everything men seek to dominate and control, associated with all evils of the flesh as the patriarchs call it, we are then taught to hate ourselves as women. That is why women fight among each other, degrade each other, turn against each other, betray each other, abuse each other, there is no true Sisterhood among us that uplifts us from this atrocity of patriarchal hatred towards the female. Therefore, we have enacted the hatred that society has towards us on ourselves, for if men are seen as the highest expression of humanity within society and women among the lowest, then by us degrading ourselves we come to be closer to that which has been considered the highest and most desirable.


Atlas Lonestar 3 years ago

Patriarchy along with male supremacist throughout the history of the world has brought about the greatest of atrocities against womenkind; as women our wounds are so deep that it is highly unrealistic that any sort of patriarchal political institution will be enough to remedy this or any other evil it has created. To think that all our problems can be solved by some patriarchal gender-neutral, institutionalized, socially manipulated, egalitarian society is pure unrealistic fantasy. We need a unity among ourselves and among all Earth-creatures and Mother Earth, that only a True Matriarchy can deliver, and it needs to be centered on women, for if we cannot unify as a Sisterhood, then no matter what is to come we will never rid ourselves of the evils of patriarchy and it will ultimately destroy us all. It is a fact that patriarchal religions no matter how good intentioned they are cannot fix the evil they have created without agreeing to destroy themselves, because that is exactly what it will take, for their ideology has encouraged the destruction of the world. Patriarchal religions, philosophies, nor ideologies, cannot mend the evils that they have inflicted upon womenkind throughout the centuries that persist to the present day, It will take Matriarchal perspectives to undo this.

What seems arrogant of you to claim is that William does not know women all that well as though you do, and as a woman, I am here to tell you that you don't know a damn thing about women, all that you think you know are nothing more than your own assertions, judgments, and conclusions for through my own personal experience, most men who claim to know women don't truly know us at all, they merely know about us, but they don't know what exists within our hears, our souls, our spirits, our minds, they don't even understand our bodies since centuries of history has made villain the female body and degraded its nature, the very essence of life; though they may know individual women they don't know womenkind as a collective; their blind arrogance throughout the centuries has blinded them of this. You claim that you don't speak of a patriarchy yet I see it everywhere in your statements, the characteristic attributes of it are quite clear, though you merely regard it as a "parallel value system" nevertheless, it is clear that women throughout the centuries have been nurtured and forced by patriarchal society to support the patriarchy, our reproductive functions merely reduced to serve such a system, this is history not opinion for it is well documented.


Atlas Lonestar 3 years ago

I am a Matriarchal woman, I was born and raised a Matriarchal woman within a proud Matriarchal household, the blood pulsing through my veins is Matriarchal, it is my culture and the only only one I know and recognize as belonging to me as a multi-racial, Multi-ethnic lesbian woman, who at an early aged knew that I was different, that for the most part I was alone, that I wanted nothing more than to take the Matriarchy beyond my own personal family and into the open world. Such a goal is a work in progress for me and it was finally good to meet like minded people who supported the Matriarchal vision in that respect. William Bond is not the first to promote the concept of Matriarchy, nor the reality of it, many have come before him; neither does he claim to speak for Matriarchal women but he speaks in support of us like that of a true Matriarchal man.

What I find to be most ironic is that of your claim that "William's conclusions are too simplistic" when the same can easily be said of your conclusions of "awake and aware humans able to make clear, conscious and empathetic decisions about our collective future." Yet what difference has that made thus far, and if it were further enhanced what better difference could it make in comparision to what we have now? Right now as a species we are as awake and as aware in a way never before seen in human history, we have science, technology, knowledge at our fingertips, we are already capable of cloning extinct species and manipulating the human genome; what more "awareness" of our situation must we further need? There are many humans alive that make clear, conscious, and empathetic descisions but it still isn't helping, rather it isn't doing much of anything because in spite of that, they believe in the same religions, the same ideologies, the same politics, support the same institutions, etc that got us all into this mess to begin with. Also, what puts you in the position to determine what exactly it is that we need? Who are you to determine what we need as women? All through history it seems that mainly it has been white men determining what humanity needs, and for the most part they have gotten their way and look where it has lead us, where it has lead the world? Now it is time for a revolutionary change but it will be the one least expected. Therefore, I will consider it your opinion of what you believe we need, just like it is your belief that "The Matriarchy would be just as unjust, just as divided, just as ignorant as our own, but in different ways." That is your belief and you are very well entitled to it, but that doesn't make it fact, that is what you speculate in reflection to the patriarchy, when fact of the matter is Matriarchies do not operate within hierarchies, and in order for there to be any chance of a "true equality" humanity would have to take the Matriarchal path and it's a long road, there's no turning back.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Wow, thank you for your comments Atlas Lonestar.


Atlas Lonestar 3 years ago

Anytime, people need to be more open minded and less judgmental. Matriarchy is my life, I was born from it and naturally I will die for it, I think you know that of me more than anyone else does besides Steve.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

The problem is that people have never been exposed to the arguments for Matriarchy, Atlas. In our patriarchal world, they only know patriarchal propaganda. So it does take a bit of time for them to catch on.


Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 3 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal

Atlas, I support matriarchy as the most logical solution we have and I think you are one of the best voices it has when it comes to explaining what it is all about in detail and having the passion to push this forward!


Sanctuary 3 years ago

Its all just modern day slavery and wealth is only a piece of cheese we are told to chase in a maze they constantly create. Belief in the imaginary system that all we have to do is what we are told in order to be successful becomes the lie around age thirty. We are teaching are children the lie so they are no longer fooled until then. To oppose the system of lies and find a way past them is the best answer. You will never be paid what you our worth, there is no top to achieve, education to work for others is a waste of money, debt will always own you and owning anything is debt. Lets cut your hours and make our stock go up. Lets do charity work and get that tax write off for them and free advertising. Lets help our employees out by having a fund but offer no hours or benefits. Wow the stock you can not own just keeps going up. Better purchase that 401k that they can spend on anything with perfect timing. Every Con-man in prison should be hired but they are doing such a good job with out them.


wabond profile image

wabond 3 years ago from England Author

Yes, I agree Sanctuary, serfdom does seem to be normal throughout our history and things are not any different today. Back in the 1960s when I was a young man we did expect things to get better, in some ways they have, through technology like personal computers and the internet. But years of deregulation and high unemployment, have pushed the working class into a form of serfdom.


Sanxuary 3 years ago

Excellent blog and the complete truth. Anyone with a brain can do the research, follow the money, talk to the last three generations and know that life is a Ponzi-Scheme. The slaves of the World have no future and each generation never gets wise enough to free themselves. Every low bidder in life is giving them money. It doesn't matter if its a 401k or a stock share. Its manipulated to take your money and win or lose, they always win. How can you own the bank and not be an insider trader. To big to fail was the largest bank robbery in history. Like you said however its all imaginary money put on a screen. With such knowledge its hard to kiss butt and the incentives to be a slave is not much of a motivator. Humanity and supporting people like us, is are only hope. The low price on souls these days is getting tiresome.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working