Conscription: The Machiavellian Solution In Search Of A Problem (And Why It Will NOT Help The Youth Rights Movement)

With World War III looking more and more likely on the horizon each day that goes by due to current events, it is only a matter of time before one of the biggest American taboos returns to the forefront.  The specter of bringing back the military draft (conscription) has been raised occasionally since it was last abolished in 1973, but it never seemed to catch on since then for a number of reasons:  1) it was unnecessary and redundant with today's technology, 2) it would mess up and dilute the increasingly professional all-volunteer military, 3) most Americans don't support such a policy.  And that's to say nothing of the collective trauma from the ill-fated Vietnam War that has lingered ever since to one degree or another.  

And there are also the fundamental philosophical-ethical arguments against conscription as well, of course, including Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative:  "Always treat humanity as an end itself, and never solely as a means".  And predictably, Niccolo "ends justify the means" Machiavelli himself, often seen as Kant's philosophical foil, was a huge fan of conscription, as he felt that mercenaries would be untrustworthy in terms of loyalty (gotta love that false binary there with no room for nuance whatsoever).  

But every so often, the old zombie arguments (often in superficial shiny new drag) in favor of bringing back the draft resurface like a bad case of herpes.  They can be grouped into the following:  1) Necessity, 2) Equality/Equity, and 3) Social Engineering.  And here we will not only debunk them, but also debone, slice, dice, julienne, and ultimately lay waste to their scorched remains.

The "necessity" argument is probably the only good and coherent argument strong enough to justify the forcible confiscation of labor services (i.e. slavery, which is what conscription really is) of innocent erstwhile civilians in an otherwise free society worthy of the name.  That is, if the necessity in question is actually true.  Spoiler alert:  for most wars throughout history, to say nothing of peacetime, that was not really true.  That is because a) most wars throughout history were unnecessary wars of choice that could have been avoided, and thus inherently wrong except on the side legitimately defending itself, b) there are almost always alternatives to conscription even if a war is necessary, such as (gasp!) paying our troops more, rather than forcibly doing it on the cheap, and c) a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose.  (And being the world's de facto police force is really NOT a war of necessity, by the way.)  And all of these apply a fortiori with today's technology, which reduces the need for the large numbers of troops in the wars of the more distant past.

(And any fair-weather "allies" halfway around the world who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves without forcing Americans to fight their battles for them, also deserve to lose by the way, a fortiori.)

Of course, to be fair, given a large enough scale AND a long enough duration of a war that really is NOT a war of choice and absolutely can't be pulled out of, the necessity argument CAN perhaps become valid in those select cases.  World War II and the American Civil War are textbook examples of such from history.  (Ditto for, God forbid, World War III, assuming it isn't largely an air and nuclear war, which would supersede this argument, albeit in a bad way).  But these "edge cases" are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Then comes the "equality" or "equity" argument, sometimes called the "poverty draft" or "skin in the game".  That is, poor and working class people (who often join at least partly for economic reasons) are disproportionately overrepresented in the all-volunteer military, and the rich are grossly underrepresented.  That thus makes it easier for our elected leaders and their wealthier supporters to be cavalier about making war in general, knowing that they or their kids won't personally be affected.  Also along with that, it is seen as a gross injustice towards the poor and working class, and especially for racialized minorities, that they do such a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying.  While there is a kernel of truth to both components of this argument, that does NOT change the basic fact that the elites have ALWAYS been able to get themselves out of harm's way, draft or no draft, and practically ALL wars in recorded history have been primarily fought by the poor and working class for the benefit and wealth of the rich.  And the real corrective for that is to simply abolish poverty and the desperation that goes with it with a robust social welfare state including, but not limited to, Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, and free college.  And yes, per the iron laws of supply and demand, we will have to pay our troops significantly more than they are paid now, or more accurately, pay them what they are really worth for once!  And, of course, we have got to knock it off with the imperialistic wars of choice!

As for any supposedly "altruistic" or "humanitarian" wars (in the rare cases when it is not merely a cover for imperialism), hey, if you feel like YOU personally have a duty to risk dying for random people halfway around the world for whatever reason, be my guest.  You can even go start your own "Human Shield Brigade" with like-minded folks.  Just don't force or coerce other people to do it for you to soothe YOUR aching conscience, capisce?  Such "vicarious altruism" with other people's blood and treasure is really not altruism at all, but rather egoism in disguise.

(By the way, the mere presence of a draft does NOT preclude a country's leaders from being cavalier about war or getting stuck in long military quagmires.  See Vietnam, for example.  Or more recently, Israel.)

Regardless, in any case, two wrongs do NOT make a right!

Then there is the perennial "social engineering" or  argument, which is probably the most vexing one of all.  Not because is it particularly hard to debunk (it's really quite easy, as you will quickly see), but because of the way it sticks in people's minds so puzzlingly well even after the first two arguments are revealed to be hollow.  Basically, some people arrogantly seem to think that they somehow know what is best for everyone else at a personal level, and believe that they therefore have the right to force or coerce it upon them if they won't willingly accept it "for their own good" and the supposed "greater good" of society.  Such a thing is utterly patronizing and paternalistic, but we see it in so many other areas of life that few of us hardly even notice it anymore.  So when people claim that bring back a (presumably universal) draft would somehow be a panacea for whatever ails society, there will always be some people who listen and agree.  But regardless of how one feels about that and the limits of social engineering in a free society, it is literally the WORST argument there is for forcing people against their will to do something with as much gravitas (and danger) as military service.  Regardless of what ancillary utilitarian benefits there may be to a draft, it all comes back to Machiavelli versus Kant once again.  If we truly believe that human beings are ends in themselves and not just means to an end, then conscription is automatically a non-starter.

Otherwise, it is a Machiavellian solution in search of a problem, whatever that problem may be.

And all this is before we even get into the issue of age.  As Phil Ochs famously sang in the 1960s, "It's always the old, who lead us to the war, it's always the young who fall".  And that remains true to this day.  If we really want to "share the sacrifice equally" like some modern conscription advocates claim to want, then by that logic, perhaps we should draft people in their 40s and 50s and beyond too.  And of course, the very first to be drafted should be the billionaires, followed by the millionaires, and so on down the pyramid.  After all, they are the ones who benefit from it the most, while being historically the most underrepresented.  Or even fairer still, perhaps we could have "consensual conscription" where all wars are put up to a (non-secret) popular vote, and those who vote yes are drafted as needed, followed by those who abstained, and those who voted no would be exempt from the draft.  But otherwise, there is really no such thing as an equitable draft, since drafts are by their very nature discriminatory.

Finally, there also sometimes is brought up the idea that being back the draft would somehow help the youth rights movement.  It is true that the lowering of the voting age, age of majority, and drinking age from 21 to 18 was partly spurred by the Vietnam draft and the idea that it was wrong for someone to be considered old enough to die for their country but too young to vote, drink, etc.  But guess what?  The existence of a draft was neither necessary nor sufficient to effect such a change.  First, the draft was in effect with a draft age of 18 from 1941-1946 and from 1948 to 1973, and yet it took three decades until 1971 to lower the voting age and until 1973 to lower the drinking age and age of majority in most states to 18.  And meanwhile, Canada and the UK didn't have any draft since 1945 and 1960, respectively, and yet they still managed to lower the age for full adult rights to 18 by the early 1970s, which then became an international consensus.  And no Western country, draft or no draft, raised its drinking age from 18 back to 21 except the USA in the 1980s and Lithuania in 2018, the latter country doing so after they brought back the draft in 2016.  And in general, countries that currently have significant conscription don't seem to be more youth-rights friendly than those who don't.

It's more likely that demographics were the biggest factor:  in 1968, fully half of the American population was under 18, and a vast majority was under 25.  The same was true in many other countries well.  Thus they had a strength in numbers that we wouldn't see in today's ageing population.  Bringing back the draft would almost certainly backfire on the youth rights movement today, even if it may invigorate the anti-war movement all the same.

So let's put this zombie idea to rest once and for all.  If WWIII happens, then all bets are off of course, but in any case, it is NOT a net benefit to the youth rights movement.

And to those who still think we should bring back the draft, we say, "YOU FIRST!" Go on.  (crickets)

(Mic drop)

No War With Iran!

The legendary Senator Bernie Sanders once again hits the nail right on the head:

The TSAP does not take a position on whether or not Iran "deserved" the attack.  And granted, Israel as a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself from existential threats in general.  That said, launching a preemptive strike on Iran while the U.S.-Iran negotiations were still in progress was NOT a wise move, and is at best a very risky strategy.  And it is really, really reaching at best to claim "self-defense" for a preemptive strike in the absence of truly imminent danger.  The case for that is about as strong as the case for claiming "self-defense" in a bar fight turned deadly that one had clearly provoked.  Which is to say, not very strong.

And it has escalated from there since, of course.

And make no mistake, we unequivocally believe that regardless, this is NOT America's war, and we should NOT be dragged into it.  Period.  Inflaming it any further can VERY easily turn it into WWIII.  America absolutely needs to engage diplomatically with both countries to help reach a peace deal quickly before this escalates any further still.

CEASEFIRE NOW.

You KNOW things are bad when The Notorious MTG suddenly starts to sound like the voice of reason!

(Mic drop)

Happy No Kings Day! (Part Deux)

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Happy No Kings Day!

Happy No Kings Day! 

Trump Could End This All Yesterday, If He Wanted To

Make no mistake, the riots in Los Angeles had started out as peaceful protests against ICE arbitrarily rounding up perceived undocumented migrants without due process, in schools, workplaces, and even day laborers in front of Home Depot.  That was before ICE agents got violent with the protestors, and then Trump further inflamed the situation by federalizing the National Guard and even sending in the Marines.  This is what dictators do, not democracies!

Trump could end all of this yesterday by ordering ICE and any troops to stand down immediately, and halting the raids and deportations at once.  But he won't unless his hand is forced by either the courts (unlikely since they are in his pocket) or, more likely, the court of public opinion, particularly from his own base.  That is literally the primary purpose of protest, after all--to sway enough people, ultimately including those in power and their enforcers, to join the right side of history.

To any police, agents, or troops reading this, now is the time to ask yourselves:  which side are you on?  The United States of America, or the Benighted Snakes of Amerikkka?  Then choose wisely.  History will NOT be kind to those on the wrong side of it!

This Is NOT Normal!

Make no mistake:  Trump federalizing the California National Guard to quash mostly peaceful protests in Los Angeles is NOT normal!  This is NOT something one would even remotely expect to see in an established democratic nation at all.  Rather this is the stuff of totalitarian and authoritarian states and banana republics.  Especially since the protests are against ICE carrying out raids and mass deportations, rounding people up without any semblance of due process.  Again, this is NOT normal and NOT acceptable!

The Bromance Is Over

Well, well, well....it looks like the Musk-Trump Bromance is now over, and MAGA is becoming a circular firing squad as we speak.  Get your popcorn 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 😁 😁 😁 😁 😁 

All while Putin laughs all the way to the bank.  But truly Zelenskyy, the new de facto leader of the free world, will have the last laugh.

(Mic drop)

The "Big, Beautiful Bill" (NOT) Is MUCH Worse Than We Thought

Read this and weep.  Then call and email your senators, yesterday!  And the senators of other states as well.  It's still not too late to stop this from becoming the new law of the land, but that window is closing very, very fast!

Here is an example of a letter and talking points:

Dear Senator, 

The "Big, Beautiful Bill" touted by President Trump and MAGA is MUCH worse than we thought. The fact that it cuts Medicaid, SNAP, and other vital programs to essentially rob from the poor and give to the ultra-rich is already bad enough. But buried deep in the bill is some even scarier stuff that allows Trump to cancel elections at will, ignore Supreme Court rulings for a year or more, criminalize protests, fire government workers for "disloyalty", invade everyone's privacy, and essentially assume arbitrary dictatorial powers. This bill cannot be allowed to pass. I have faith that you will vote a HARD NO on this abomination of a bill, and hope that you will convince other Senators on both sides of the aisle to reject it as well.

Thank you very much,

Your Name

JUNE UPDATE:  Apparently Musk hates this bill so much, it caused him to have a falling out with Trump.  The Bromance is effectively over now, and MAGA is becoming a circular firing squad.  Get your popcorn, this will get interesting....

Eliminate Income Taxes Without Debt Or Inflation? Easy-Peasy.

The ever-insightful Ellen Brown has an excellent article about how to eliminate the income tax (at least on the non-rich) without exploding debt and inflation, and without cutting any services.  But unlike Trump's plan which will replace the lost revenue with questionable tariffs like McKinley did, she proposes something like Abraham Lincoln did instead.  That is, just print the money via the Treasury, no FERAL Reserve needed.  That's similar to what Dr. Joseph M. Firestone calls "Overton Congressional Financing" and what Rodger Malcolm Mitchell calls "Monetary Sovereignty".  It is an idea that is LONG overdue!

Not only could we eliminate the debt and non-rich income tax, but we could also finance so many things like fixing and upgrading our crumbling and outdated infrastructure, world-class education for all, state of the art technology, single-payer Medicare For All, and Universal Basic Income.

What better time than now?

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You!

Seriously.

(Mic drop)

Happy Easter!

  

Happy Easter!  Fuzzy Kitty and Fuzzy Bunny!

The Trump Crash And Recession (Or Depression Perhaps) Has Begun

Well, it happened.  The stock market had its worst day since....March 2020 when the pandemic began in earnest.  Today will go down in his as the beginning of the Trump Crash and Recession (or Depression perhaps), which is already baked into the cake now.  Between the Trump Tariffs and the Musk/DOGE firings and chaos manufacture, and let's not forget all of the mass deportations thus far, the economy is taking a major hit, and it's just getting started.  

So brace yourselves.  Don't say we didn't warn you!

To anyone who was foolish enough to actually vote for Trump the second time, how's that 401(k) of yours doing?  I hate to say, "I told you so", but.....I TOLD YOU SO!

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  The following day, April 4, 2025, the stock market again saw an even bigger drop. In fact, the eight worst days for the Dow Jones ever have all occurred under Trump.  Six of them occurred during the pandemic, and the other two were the past two days in a row.  Res ipsa loquitur.

Chesterton's Fence Revisited

One very important philosophical principle is that of Chesterton's Fence, by author G.K. Chesterton.  

Per Wikipedia:

"Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, in the chapter, "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

In other words, before you remove or destroy a fence (or policy), make sure you know why it was put up in the first place.  That's just common sense.

(Hey DOGE, are you listening?  Seriously!)

Of course, the apocryphal "Five Monkeys Experiment" is a good foil to counterbalance that principle.  That is, sometimes various policies really have outlived their usefulness, were rotten from the start, and/or do far more harm than good.  And wisdom is to know the difference between the two cases.

(The latter pitfall is sometimes called "status quo bias".)

Today's "conservatives", especially Trump, Musk, and MAGA Republicans, are really not conservatives at all, since they really aren't conserving anything.  Rather, they are reactionaries and regressives who want to "turn back the clock" to a bygone golden age that never really existed, and are essentially the mirror image of radicals, as they seek to make truly drastic changes.  The rash, arbitrary, and wholesale gutting of long-standing government agencies and programs by DOGE under Musk and Trump is but one of many glaring examples of such regressive radicalism, and is thus a willingness to tear down every fence in Chesterton just to manufacture chaos.  Or "move fast and break things", as Zuckerberg would call it.  And it needs to stop.  NOW.

Seriously, Elon, lay off the ketamine and SLOW DOWN!  Better yet, STEP DOWN, as NO ONE ever elected you.

Where are the real conservatives when you need them?  Because we know THEY would respect Chesterton's Fence.

Why Trade Wars Are A Dumb Idea

One, two, three, four, let's start a trade war!

Or, how about we DON'T!  Seriously.  Imposing punitive or even so-called "protective" tariffs on goods imported from other countries, which then provokes them into imposing retaliatory tariffs on goods exported from our own country, is a negative-sum game.  In other words, it's a lose-lose proposition all around, shrinking GDP on all sides.  And who actually pays for it all?  Ultimately, we all do, as the higher costs inevitably get passed onto consumers.

A few seconds of Googling "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act" should be enough to make even the numbest of numbskulls reconsider their appetite for tariffs and similar beggar-thy-neighbor policies.  If this trade war continues, the best we can hope for is a bad case of stagflation, and it goes downhill from there.  All the way down to full-blown depression.

Just like a few seconds of Googling "Recession of 1937" should be enough to make even the numbest of numbskulls reconsider whether fiscal austerity (*cough* DOGE *cough*) or monetary tightening from the FERAL Reserve is really such a wise idea.  Spoiler alert:  it really isn't.

No wonder Trump's two harshest critics lately have been......Chuck Dow and Edward Jones.  And that's just a leading indicator.

P.S.  It is entirely possible to have protectionism without tariffs or any other trade barriers, by the way.

Stranger Than Fiction

It is truly stranger than fiction what has happened to our country.  Mass deportations, mass firings, chaos manufacturing, tariffs and trade wars, alienating our allies, selling Ukraine down the river to Putin, and so on.  And so many Americans are still apparently cool with it, cheering it on, or are callously indifferent to it.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?  Even President Ronald Reagan is likely spinning in his grave right now.

Memes for President's Day!

Today is President's Day, and today we would like to "honor" (to use the term VERY loosely), our two new Co-Presidents:  Elon Musk and Vladimir Putin, along with their orange lapdog puppet that they thoroughly own now:

"Roman" Hands:

Russian Fingers:

1971: The Year That Changed Everything (But Probably Not For The Reason You Think)

NOTE:  It's almost certainly NOT what you think!

On August 15, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon (who was actually to the left of both Bill/Hillary Clinton and Obama on most issues) ended the Gold Standard for all practical purposes.  First temporarily, then permanently by 1973, and all remaining tenuous links between the dollar and gold were severed completely by 1975.  Some pundits point to this as the main reason why America has gone downhill ever since, and as they say, the rest is history.

But that's not really accurate, though.  You see, the so-called "Gold Standard" hasn't been true gold since 1933, when FDR first suspended it.  And for very good reason:  all of the objective evidence showed that the Gold Standard created artificial scarcity of money, and thus made the Great Depression worse.  Only after it was suspended was the economy able to heal.  And when it was reinstated after WWII with the Bretton Woods System, it contained a massive loophole that basically allowed central banks like the FERAL Reserve to do as they pleased regardless, provided that the system of fixed currency exchange rates remained intact.  And not every country toed the line, inflation happened anyway with the very expensive Vietnam War followed by the exogenous 1973 oil crisis, and eventually by the early 1970s the system had collapsed, so Nixon essentially had to put it down like a rabid dog.

The world indeed changed in 1971, and could have changed for the better.  Without the old Gold Standard to tie its hands, the federal government now had full Monetary Sovereignty as the sole issuer of its own currency, and but for the arcane and archaic rules left over from the Gold Standard, would have been able to fund a better than Nordic style social welfare state with less than Florida or Alaska taxes, simply by creating the money on an ad-hoc basis.  There indeed was increasing appetite among We the People for that which reads like Bernie Sanders' wish list.  Things like Universal Basic Income (UBI), Job Guarantee, single-payer Medicare For All, paid family leave, free or subsidized childcare, free college, and stuff like that were all being considered back then.  And the futurists' almost unanimous predictions of a radically shorter workweek by now could have been realized as well.  

So what happened?  Why aren't we living in a free, post-capitalist utopia (or at least protopia) by now?

Enter the infamous Powell Manifesto in 1971.  From FDR's New Deal up until then, the oligarchs were kept on a very tight leash with things like high taxes on the very rich, regulation of Wall Street and big business in general, social welfare programs, and a strong organized labor (union) movement.  But that Powell Manifesto, and what it advocated, was the beginning of the end for that, which ultimately paved the way for the "Reagan Revolution" of neoliberalism, inspired by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School:  deregulation of Wall Street and big business, tax cuts for the rich, gutting the social safety net, union-busting, offshoring/outsourcing, and stuff like that.  That agenda was ultimately continued by every administration since then to one degree or another.  Inequality exploded and poverty began to worsen again after plummeting for decades, and all manner of social ills related to those increased as well.

Productivity has increased dramatically since 1971, and yet wages have failed to keep up.  Why?  Because the oligarchs took nearly all of the gains since then, that's why.  And their sycophantic lackeys in government have enabled them.

America, and the world, ultimately learned the hard way why the Powell Manifesto was dead wrong, and that letting the oligarchs off of their leash completely was NOT such a good idea after all.  That is, only to repeatedly and thick-headedly forget such a lesson over and over again since then.  The parable of Chesterton's Fence comes to mind.  

Some argue that power doesn't really corrupt, it reveals.  Regardless, though, it is still just as dangerous to concentrate so much wealth and power in the hands of so few people.  A bad person on a leash is still a bad person, of course, but truly they are far more dangerous without the leash.

Also, let's not forget to thank the social conservatives, traditionalists, and reactionaries of both duopoly parties as well.  From the arguably misguided Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way to Phyllis Schlafly and her demonic ilk, they railed hard against any programs or policies that in their eyes threatened "the family" (code for patriarchy, of course), and they successfully rallied their increasingly disaffected base.  Kinda like the reactionaries today, in fact.  But the fact remains that, both then and now, the reactionaries would not have gotten far had the Democrats not all but abandoned their economic progressivism first.

And as they say, the rest is history.  History may not always repeat itself, but it sure as hell does rhyme!

P.S.  For those who claim that increasing the number of women in the workforce was the cause of this problem of wages lagging behind not only productivity but also the cost of living, keep in mind that nearly doubling the workforce should have resulted in shortening the workweek across the board, as "many hands make light work".  Passing a Dutch-style law that gives workers the right to the same hourly wage rate regardless of number of hours, and the right to choose one's hours, would have largely done the trick without violating the iron laws of supply and demand, as would lowering the the legal threshold for overtime pay from 40 hours/week to 32 or less (it almost was set at 30 in 1938, by the way).  Closing the "exempt" loophole for salaried employees would also be wise.  But the oligarchs had other plans, and as they say, the rest is history....

The Real Reason Why The Broligarchs Want Higher Birthrates So Much (And Desperately Fear Low Birthrates Like The Plague)

The Broligarchs (Musk, Trump, Vance, and their entourage), and the oligarchs in general, seem to be panicking now about birthrates being too low for their liking.  Trump himself may not be harping on it so much, but the others are.  And they, along with the rest of the GOP are apparently more than willing to revoke women's hard-won reproductive rights in their zeal to raise the numbers.

But what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population?  Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are essentially overblown.  In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population.  Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.  Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks.  And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare, since the issuer of its own currency by definition has infinite money.

Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the "elephant in the Volkswagen"--OVERPOPULATION.  Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life.  While technology (and Monetary Sovereignty) can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation.  And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so.  And the TFR is now below that in the USA, around 1.6 to 1.7.  The recent drop in birthrates is thus actually GOOD news on balance.

But wait, isn't the conspiracy narrative that the oligarchs in general want depopulation?  Well, that may have been true in the past, but now that seems to be more of a "Scooby Doo" narrative (that is, the one that they want us all to "discover").  And in any case, Musk has long called for "more babies", and the Rethuglicans (both MAGA and otherwise) have long been on a self-righteous crusade of sorts to trample and revoke women's reproductive rights.  There seem to be multiple agendas here, but in 2025, they all seem to be coalescing into one overarching agenda:  to prop up the current Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme that is neoliberal late capitalist patriarchy, by any means necessary.

Enter the iron laws of supply and demand, particularly how they apply to labor.  Low birthrates now, by definition, portend labor shortages in the future, all else being equal.  And we know what happened in the decades following the Black Death:  the period from 1350-1500 was known as the "Golden Age of the European Proletariat" per Sylvia Federici.  Why?  Because after the population plummeted following the plague, there was a massive labor shortage, and the working class had a LOT of bargaining power.  Wages went way up, working hours went down, and working conditions improved as well.  And it sounded the death knell for feudalism.  Of course, the ruling class then did two things in response:  1) the Burning Times (witch trials), which killed off many revolutionaries, as Federici notes in her book Caliban and the Witch, and 2) the enclosures of the commons, thoroughly dispossessing and immiserating the working class.  Both of which combined to pave the way for capitalism, and then imperialism, colonialism, and all that jazz, and as they say, the rest is history.  Jason Hickel discusses the latter in depth in his book, Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.

Cue the predictable cries of "nobody wants to work anymore!" from the chattering classes.  Sound familiar?  It's really more like, no one wants to be exploited anymore.  And the oligarchs fear that like, well, the plague.  Kings need peasants, after all.

Long story short, the ruling class fears a labor shortage, because that would upend their power, faster than they can automate the "problem" away.  So why are they engaging in mass deportations now, which would cause a labor shortage in the short to medium term?  Well, racism and white nationalism, for starters.  And it also serves as a form of "chaos manufacture", that is, deliberately creating unnecessary chaos in a "shock and awe" campaign to mess with everyone's heads so as to seize more power.

In other words, it's all about power and control to these psychopaths, sociopaths, and malignant narcissists.  The kinds of people that are not even bound by logical consistency, let alone ethics and morals.

All the more reason NOT to give the Broligarchs, and the oligarchs in general, what they want.  Fie upon them!

UPDATE:  Antonio Melonio notably wrote a great article called "The Childfree Are Ungovernable", noting how the capitalist oligarchs have another, related major reason why they want the common people to have as many kids as possible ASAP:  to make us all easier to control as good little serfs.  And that dovetails well with another good article of his:  "Declining Birth Rates Are A Good Thing, Actually".

P.S.  Notice also how they want people, especially women, to start having kids as early in life as possible, particularly before beginning any form of higher education.  Thus, when they start early, then it becomes the path of least resistance to keep having one baby after another, kneecapping women's careers and getting women stuck in a quagmire.  That's a feature, not a bug, of their plan to keep women tied down and tethered to men.  And of course, the Broligarchs/oligarchs are also no friend to the vast majority of men either, as clearly working-class men will be financially on the hook for it all if the oligarchs get their way and then gut all social welfare programs.  Much like Adam's punishment in Genesis, "You will work for every crumb", fellas!  If women are to be brood mares, then men will thus have to be...WORK HORSES.  Patriarchy has a rather nasty habit of backfiring on men as well.

Again, all the more reason NOT to give them what they want.  Run, it's a trap!

(Mic drop)

It's Official. America's New Dark Age Has Now Begun In Earnest.

Well, it's finally official.  America's new dark age has begun.  President Muskrat and his orange puppet and their cronies have taken over, and they basically hold all of the cards now that all three branches of the federal government are doing their bidding.  The ONE thing they lack is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, having less than 60 seats, but that is not much consolation.  Especially given how utterly obsequious practically everyone even remotely in Trump's orbit has been lately.  I mean, in the previous several months, Congress couldn't even manage to get the No Kings Act passed, which would have limited Trump's power.

Trump wasted no time with his executive pen on Days 1 and 2 of his second term.  From pardoning January 6th insurrectionists to cracking down at the border (and attempting mass deportations) to unconstitutionally attempting to end birthright citizenship (!) to pulling out of the Paris climate accords and pulling out of the WHO to rescinding many of Biden's executive orders, to so many other things.  Some of the things he is doing are already facing pushback and/or legal challenges which can tie things up for a while, while other things can have near-immediate impacts, mostly negative and often very negative indeed.  And other things are just plain silly, like him renaming the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America", for example.

And they're just getting warmed up!

Oh, and by the way, did you see Muskrat giving...wait for it...what looked suspiciously like a Nazi salute (sorry, "Roman" salute), not once, but twice in a row to the innauseation crowd?  If it quacks like a duck....

(Remember, the road to fascism is invariably paved with, "Calm down, you're overreacting!", followed by, "Meh, I wasn't really using my civil rights anyway".)

January 20, 2025 will very likely go down in history as "the day that democracy died".  But to be brutally honest, it has been on life support for quite a while now, and now the plug has finally been pulled.  America has long been an oligarchy, and is now a full-blown plutocracy and kleptocracy without any semblance of shame or any attempt to disguise it any longer.  And with increasingly neo-fascist leanings too.

This is, sadly, to be expected in a society that has become so desensitized that it has clearly forgotten how to shudder.

One can only hope that it's always darkest before the dawn.  But after seeing so many false dawns in the past, that outlook has gotten rather, well, darker lately.

Winter is coming, in more ways than one.  The winter of our discontent, that is.  And actually, it's already here now. 

State Of The Planet Address 2025

It is now 2025, and this year the TSAP will not waste any time giving our annual State of the Planet Address as we do every year.  Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least.  So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:

Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now.  We face several serious long term problems:  climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds.  Polar ice caps are melting.  Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute.  Numerous species are going extinct every year.  Soil is eroding rapidly.  Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years.  Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change.  We have had numerous and often record-breaking wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past several years.  And it is only getting worse every year.  In fact, 2024 is now officially the hottest year on record.  Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past 20 years:  Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and then Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record), followed by Irma and Maria which devastated Puerto Rico, for a taste of the not-too-distant future.  And that was before Hurricane Michael devastated a rather large chunk of Florida.  And the wild weather continues to this very day, with Hurricane Helene having recently ravaged Appalachia (which is typically spared hurricanes), and with the truly horrible and unprecedented Los Angeles wildfires still raging now being essentially a microcosm of what is to come to the world as a whole if we continue on this path of wanton planetary destruction.

None of this is an accident of course.  These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans.  We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future.  Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end.  Yesterday.

While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude.  In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach.  With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP.  And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing rapidly every year.

Given the ominous IPCC report, which is truly nothing short of horrifying, the general consensus among climate scientists was that we had only at most 12 years left (now more like five) to act radically before truly catastrophic climate change is a foregone conclusion.  And 2030 will be here before we know it.  

Now THAT is a national emergency!  And a global one, in fact.  Thus, a full-steam-ahead, Green New Deal 2.0 is LONG overdue.  We have already squandered over a whole decade since Copenhagen, and we cannot afford to squander even one more day, let alone another decade.

Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy.  However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.  Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox).  The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.

The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax.  (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.)  Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term).  Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better version of the Kyoto treaty.   It is worth noting that Canada has implemented a carbon tax similar to what Stoft advocated since 2019.

In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all.  While our Great American Phase-Out plan would have phased out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation, we unfortunately now see that as too ambitious in light of the disastrous "Net Zero" rollouts in the UK and Germany recently.  Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources. 

(We are now very behind schedule, so perhaps the best we could hope for is a phaseout by 2050, which may be too late.)

Of course, it is not enough to stop emitting carbon dioxide, we also need to remove the current excess levels of it from the atmosphere as well, as that stuff can otherwise linger for centuries and continue wreaking havoc on the climate.  We support ending net deforestation completely, planting a LOT more trees, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta.  It also helps preserve biodiversity.  Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.  And we will most likely also need to employ higher-tech methods of sucking carbon out of the air as well.

We've said this before, and we'll say it again.  Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2050, and as close as possible to that by 2030-2040, but we need to hedge our bets.  We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly.  Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is.  So let's not get rid of it prematurely.  

LENR (low energy nuclear reactors) and fusion power are also worth considering.

But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation.  It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We, globally, need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used).  We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less.  In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment.

Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to a record low of about 1.6-1.7 with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term.  And with the massive social and economic fallout from the pandemic and especially the lockdowns, the TFR may even drop further.  But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so.  Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell,  is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had.  We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well.  And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday.  Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.  We have been warned, decades ago in fact.  Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.

(NOTE:  Though the mainstream "fact-checkers" strongly deny it, of course, the novel experimental gene therapy jabs may very well be at least partly behind the drop in birthrates from 2021 to 2022, and if that is not reversible, is NOT really good news.  Time will tell.)

Yesterday is the time to jettison the Twin Big Lies that "everybody must work for a living" and "everybody must procreate".  Because doing so is the sine qua non of any realist plan to avert ecological catastrophe.

Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown.  We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace.  We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up.  Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now.  We ignore it at our own peril.  And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless.  With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil, Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.

Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke?  Peak Oil.  Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it.  While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change.  Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!

So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on.  Hindsight is 2020, and we have a planet to save.  So let's roll!

P.S.:  We never thought we would ever have to say this, but the TSAP does NOT support a "climate lockdown" or any other type of lockdown for that matter.  It is at best a category error, and would do far more harm than good in the long run.  And of course it flies in the face of the basic principles of anything remotely resembling a free society.  So take that off the table now!  Same goes for forced economic degrowth, which will most likely get us permanently stuck in a bad place and still end up destroying the Earth regardless (albeit somewhat more slowly and in somewhat better taste, aka "flattening the Seneca curve").

It should also go without saying, but we at the TSAP DO NOT support the WEF "Great Reset", social credit scoring, or a cashless society (aka CBDC) either.  Those are a totalitarian's dream come true, and our worst nightmare come true for the rest of us.  We believe that the answer is MORE liberty and democracy, not less.

Let the planetary healing begin!