This was the title of one of my favorite essays by Lenin. The title itself is a powerful comment on the human condition. I can imagine early humans taking two steps forward as they left the canopy of the never-ending forest to see the clear blue sky overhead. Then they took one step back because the unfamiliar is frightening. Then they took two more steps forward. Then another step backwards. Eventually the bolder amongst them took three steps forward and one step back. Then four steps forward as the more timid fell behind. Soon the tribe broke up as the bolder went on to explore the savanna and the rest returned to the familiar gloom of the forests.
The more things change the more they stay the same. To this day we still have the explorers and the chickens. The explorers go forward into uncharted territory while the chickens huddle in the familiar as they are determined to fight change at any cost. The problem is that change is the only guarantee in life. The more the chickens fight change and huddle together for warmth and security, the more change happens. Back in the old days, the tribe that stayed in the forest was forced backwards as the forest receded to changing climate. The tribe that went forward founded the modern civilizations. The tribes who stayed in the forests tried to keep civilizations from happening.
Of course this is an oversimplification. Dynamics are rarely black and white. Absolutes do not occur in nature, but two steps forward and one step back describes life as we know it. Take Christianity for instance. I know Christians who are very progressive, yet Christianity as a whole is regressive institution. While Dr. King was leading the civil rights movement, Christianity as an institution was doing everything it could to hold him back. White preachers condemned him outright, or begged him to hold off until society was “ready” to accept African Americans as equals. There were many African American preachers who condemned him as a dangerous radical.
Today there are Christians who welcome gays into their congregations. There are Christians who will support a “separate but equal” condition for gays (“why do they have to call it marriage?”), and Christians who actively discriminate against gays. There are even Christians who will murder gays. Yet there are Christians who deny that there is any correlation between gay rights and Dr. King’s civil rights movement. Oh, how I remember the Southern Crackers who trotted out the Bible to tell us why civil rights were a sin! Gays are facing the same religious resistance today.
The few exceptions do not justify the whole. The fact that there are a few progressive Christians does not justify Christians resenting being classed together with other Christians. Very few progressive Christians do anything to protect their good names from being lumped together with Fred Phelps. Most progressive Christians are not doing anything to stop discrimination in the name of Christ. There are no Christians suing Pat Robertson for hate speech. At the very least I will say that progressive Christians are not active abusers. A very few are making a token attempt to improve their own ranks. The remainder are enablers who are allowing abuse to happen by trusting God to stop it rather than changing their lifestyles and stopping it itself.
Just so Christians don’t feel as if I am picking on them exclusively, I can toss in other religions as well. Walk through San Francisco’s Chinatown and you will see Buddhist Temples as ridiculous and bigoted as anything Pat Robertson could think up. The Islamic countries are famous for their discrimination against people outside of the tribe. Over the last twenty five years I have watched the Pagan movement become more and more like the Christians to the point where the Goddess looks like Jesus in drag (except in one notable instance where she was Joseph Smith in drag, but that’s another story.) My attempts to talk CAW into acknowledging the rapes and sexual assaults that happened amongst them have fallen on deaf ears. That’s the thing about religions, they think they can get away with anything because some make-believe higher power loves them.
I think that Starhawk made a huge mistake when she tried to graft anarchism onto religion. What she created was the social equivalent of a nuclear reactor. What is a nuke plant but a giant steam engine powered by the most unstable energy source on Earth? Religion is as reactionary as a steam engine, and anarchism is certainly a very unstable political system. The two have been in the middle of a meltdown where many branches of Paganism are taking on the most unsavory aspects of mainline religion: arrogance, intolerance, and the Protestant Work Ethic. Any religious movement, no matter how well meaning, eventually becomes a social anchor, and limits the believers to events that happened in the past rather than that which is to come. Be it Paganism or Christianity, religion is the force that makes us take one step backwards for every step forward.
I was not expecting to make any friends when I posted my series on libertarianism. I expected to make some enemies when I posted my opinions on libertarianism and the occult. The last thing that I expected was to find myself in an actual dialog with members of the Church of All Worlds. I spent this morning on the telephone with CAW’s communications officer. What can I say? The man is very good at his job. He managed to change some of my opinions of Church of All Worlds.
I am not going to retract my opinion of CAW as a political entity. I still believe that Church of All Worlds is part of the reactionary wave that hit the nation during the Reagan years and looks to seek answers in a past that never happened. This goes along with my opinion that religion and the concept of god/dess is a reactionary belief. I think the world would be a much better place without the concept of divinity. I would also be more receptive to the entire CAW concept if they would just cut the religious aspect out of it.
The founder of CAW sent me an email which denied that CAW was a libertarian church. The founder says one thing and followers say another. This is a basic problem with religion in America. The followers always take the ideas of the founders and “Americanize” them. The CAW I was introduced to was a bastion of American concepts like the Protestant Work Ethic, sin, and libertarianism.
I am not going to change my stand on polyamory. I feel strongly that HIV and STDs make polyamory a dangerous idea. I also think that polyamory is extremely sexist. It puts the weight of the risks on the women. The closest I will come to an agreement on polyamory is to agree to disagree.
I spent this morning speaking to the CAW Inc. communications officer. He explained that there is no copyright on the name Church of All Worlds. There are other entities calling themselves Church of All Worlds. From what I understand, they may be splinter groups of the original CAW. These splinter groups even share the same meeting grounds as CAW Traditions. There may even be a CAW or two which have nothing to do with the original CAW. The original CAW went out of existence some years ago. It is returning under the name CAW Inc. The original founders and many of the original members are involved in CAW Inc.
In my blog entry about Libertarianism and the Occult, I mentioned that I was in contact with people who had been sexually assaulted by members of CAW and on CAW meeting grounds. I have been assured by The information officer from CAW Inc. says that such behavior was never condoned by the original CAW. Such behavior will not be tolerated by by the board of directors of CAW Traditions Inc. He also stated that CAW Traditions Inc. will do their utmost to to prevent sexual abuse and to prosecute abusers if caught.
CAWInc. is in the process of recreating the CAW concept and correcting past mistakes. While some of the people I had bad experiences with were indeed members of the old CAW, they are not members of CAW Inc. The information officer doubts that they will ever become members of CAW Inc. The spokesman was very enthusiastic about how CAW Traditions Inc. is dedicated to creating a safe environment for everybody. I am happy that they are receptive to the idea of creating structures to protect people from abuse.
I hope that we can keep the lines of communications open. There are more things I would like to discuss with CAW Inc. We never touched on the subject of victim’s rights and the difficulty of intervening in child abuse. However, for the time being, I am willing to believe that the members and board of CAW Traditions Inc are innocent of sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation. My experiences with some of the past members of CAW were pretty ugly, and left a very bad taste in my mouth. I think that this colored my post about libertarianism and the occult.
I have taken my blog post about Libertarianism and the occult offline. I will be rewriting it soon. I also invite a representative of CAW Inc. to write an article on Positive Sexuality and to post it on my blog. I want them to include contact information so that interested parties will get in touch with the CAW Traditions Inc. I may not agree with CAW Traditions Inc. and all it stands for, but if people are going to get involved in polyamory, I would rather they get in touch with them instead some other people I could think of. There are many things that CAW and I are going to have to agree to disagree on, but fair is fair. After all the drama we went through, it is only right that I give CAW a chance to tell their side on my space.
Ariel Monserat asked me a specific question in my blog regarding Libertarianism and the occult. This was regarding a case of extreme child abuse concerning members of Church of All Worlds. Since Ms. Monseratt asked this publicly I will answer it publicly. The question was;
<Secondly, did you report these events to the authorities? If so, surely there is a record of it so that we can investigate. If you didn’t report it, why not? >
Ms. Monserat, I can take this question one of two ways. I can either assume that you are deliberately protecting the abusers or that you are charmingly naive about child abuse. I am going to assume that you are charmingly naive. The answer to the question is yes, we did report it. Other people reported it as well. The case I am speaking of was a spectacular debacle that spanned three counties. It involved child welfare workers in two counties, and no less than four police departments. Now, if you want to find the records of this, I sincerely wish you luck. Since a minor was involved, the records are sealed. Were you able to get hold of the records you would either be the greatest witch since Sybil Leek or the greatest hacker since Bruno Tataglia. Either way my hat would go off to you. I admire competence in any field.
Being a nasty and suspicious old fart, my first instinct is to accuse you of trying to kill my credibility by asking for the impossible. However, I have been assured by people that I trust that you simply don’t know. I have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of anybody being ignorant of this basic fact. However, not everybody has had as much experience as my wife and I in pulling kids out of bad situations. So I am going to make a leap of faith and explain the difficulty and challenges of reporting child abuse.
Remember the first axiom of reporting child abuse. This is the prime directive. The child comes first. Punishing the abuser comes second. It comes a far second. Social workers and clergy are required by federal regulations to report all instances of child abuse. Reporting child abuse and prosecuting the abusers are two different things. Most of the time it is enough simply to get the kid away from the abuser. My wife and I had a case about a decade ago where it was easier to get the kid out of the situation by not reporting the abuse. The child’s lawyer said that the judge might not believe the allegations (denial) and force her to live with her abuser. Rather than risk the child’s safety, we followed her lawyer’s advice and got her placed in a safe home. Judicial denial is a common occurrence. Back in 1992 I witnessed an 85 year old judge in Pennsylvania throw an incest case out of court because he refused to believe the crime was possible.
The good news is that things have improved since 1992. Thanks to the work done by RAINN, Darkness into Light, and my own darling wife, child abuse and molestation have come into public light. It is no longer a forbidden topic. It is openly discussed and there are even state-approved courses where you can learn how to spot it and what to do about it. The bad news is that we still face the wall of denial. Thousands of child rape cases from the Catholic Church seems to have taught you nothing, because you and your fellows at CAW are acting just like the Catholics. You blame me for outing the problem, because you don’t want to to face that the problem exists. You accuse me of libel without stopping to consider that I may be telling the truth. You demand that I tell you how to get legally sealed records; will you call me a liar because I cannot provide them? Why not ask me for the pretty moon while you are at it?
It seems to me that like the Catholic Church, you are too involved in preserving the illusion of your infallibility to look to the safety of your own children. You claim to be the new editor of Green Egg. May I suggest that you look at the last print issue of the old Green Egg? That was the one that was put out by the kids. Read the comments by the girls who were tired of being ogled by their parents’ adult friends. Perhaps the Catholics were simply as naive as you are. Personally I do not think we can afford that sort of naiveté anymore. Your Primate was too busy telling me what he stands for to seriously address the issue. It seems like CAW’s denial comes from above; just like the Catholic Church’s. As above so below? From where I stand you are no different from the Methodists or the Assembly of God.
And I am not giving out any details until I am face to face with a representative of CAW who agrees to go to the authorities with me.
No doubt about it, we are a religion crazy country. Even our Communists worship at the altar of St. Karl. We scare gay politicians into the closet and then blame them for being in the closet when they get caught. Americans just can’t make up their minds. That is why we need a state religion. Our state religion must stress Jesus and Moses with a passing nod to Mohammad. Our clergy must fully embrace the Protestant Work Ethic and People Magazine can be our holy book. Our high priest can be an ex-president and our high priestess can be Oprah. After all, rich people are morally superior to all of us. Put that all together and we will have a religion we can all unite against. Maybe then we will come to our senses as a nation.
Paris Hilton does not work as a virgin priestess, which is why she had to go to jail. Britney Spears can be forgiven for being bipolar. This is why her father leaked her private psychiatric information to the press. It’s one thing to get drunk and dance around without your panties before you have kids. It’s another to do it after you have given birth twice. Moral America was about to put its collective foot down. That would have ended her record sales. Now that we all know that poor Britney is bipolar, Moral America can pity her. No doubt that saved her career and her cash value to her family. Public figures give up their privacy in return for publicity and suffer under the judgment of Moral America. Both celebrities and politicians are treated equally under the scrutiny of Moral America. I heard one old codger say he was voting for McCain because “Sarah Palin is hot.” There seems to be a major confusion between world leaders and band leaders in the United States.
Morality is always ordained by God and is therefore part and parcel of the Protestant Work Ethic. If you are God’s chosen you can do whatever you want; it’s moral. A woman can be raped at a Church of All Worlds event and it’s all her fault for being sexually repressed. (That is the greatest sin for CAW members.) Another part of the Protestant Work Ethic is that the holy writings are beyond question. If you are one of the elect, you never question the holy writings, and those who wrote them have to be prophets. This is why Libertarians revere Jefferson like Christians revere Jesus, and why there are American Marxists who treat Herr Karl like he walked on water and returned from death. It’s all part of the American Religion.
I learned about the American religion from Dr. Perry Troutman at Lebanon Valley College. His Religion in America course stayed with me all my life, and the most important thing I took out of it was the concept of the American religion. American Religion takes on certain characteristics which are as immutable as Confucianism in China. The first characteristic is that American religions are obsessed by morality. The second is that America has never grown out of the Puritan Work Ethic. We still somehow think that rich people are morally superior to the rest of us. The third is that we look at public figures as if they are somehow clergy. Especially, God save us all, the President.
I will never forget the time a Church of All Worlds priestess jumped up and down screaming, “monogamy is immoral!” I mention this to demonstrate that even the alternative religions in the United States have the same obsession with morality. This is why we have Libertarians and Communists at each other’s throats instead of sitting down and working things out. Of course each and every group in America, religious or otherwise, has different standards of morality. The sorriest thing is that so few of them incorporate “live and let live.” The Democrats are immoral because Bill Clinton had sex in the Oval Office or the Republicans are immoral because some of their members were forced out of the closet. Nobody ever stops to think that it is morality itself which is the problem. If America was not so morality happy, sex in the oval office would have remained the nonevent of the century. vIf the United States was not so obsessed with morality, the closeted gay Republicans would never get as far as they have by pandering to American morality.
It seems that the boundaries between church and state lack definition. America confuses religion with its politics as well as its entertainment. We find ourselves judging our fellow human beings by superhuman standards. So what if Bill Clinton fell of the fidelity wagon? So what if poor, crazy little Britney drank a little too much? When push comes to shove, it’s none of our business. I really don’t want to hear about what Larry Craig does in strange bathrooms. The fact of the matter is that politicians are human beings and they are going to do human things. The same with entertainers. There is something really creepy about Britney’s father telling the world that his little girl has a brain chemistry dysfunction. There is something really petty about making Paris Hilton stay in jail simply because she is a celebrity. Not only does America confuse religion in everything, but it brings the worst out of us.
Of all the ridiculous fads that passed through this ridiculous country, there is no fad so ridiculous as the New Age. Hula hoops, poodle skirts, and Elvis sightings pale in comparison. If a nation reflects the mental state of its leaders, then all of America caught Reagan’s Alzheimer’s. That’s the only way I can explain it. It was like the entire country had fallen for the world’s biggest séance scam. There were hundreds of ghosts, ghoulies, and things that go bump in the night coming back to tell we, the carnate, how to live our lives. I often wonder how Deepak Chopra survived all the competition. Should I outlive Dr. Chopra, I might decide to “channel” him just to see how many rubes fall for it.
America is a religion-happy country anyway. Without any structures to hold it at bay, religion has multiplied like rabbits in Australia. Religion has done as much to undermine American society as rabbits have undermined the Australian environment. Like rabbits in Australia, religion has no natural predators in the U.S. There are no laws or taxes to keep it under control. Religion can do what it wants, say what it wants, defame who it wants, and there is nothing we can do about it. Preachers can go up on the pulpit and tell their brainwashed minions who to vote for, but there is no way a bureaucrat can tell a religion what to believe. There is something very unfair about that. Religion has us surrounded. We are out-gunned and outnumbered. They can see the whites of our eyes, yet we do not have anything to shoot back with.
Like all uniquely American religious movements, the New Age was based on predestination. Americans seem to be terrified of free will and happenstance. This is why Americans revere Albert Einstein and ignore Niels Bohr. Einstein promised a unified field theory that would reduce, while Bohr and his Quantum Mechanics deny that a Unified Field Theory is even possible. Based on random motion and statistics, Quantum Mechanics is the basis of modern physics. Einstein never delivered on his unified field theory. Yet, despite the evidence, Americans insist that they have a make-believe friend that controls every aspect of their lives.
The New Age takes predestination and gives it a nasty twist. In classical predestination, God decides who is saved and who is damned by blessing or cursing people on Earth. Wealth is considered a sign of God’s salvation while poverty is a sign of damnation. The New Age took this belief and brought it to new heights of idiocy. According to the New Age, you decide everything that is going to happen to you while you are between lives. To the New Agers it is not God who curses you with sickness, poverty, and terrible acne. To the New Agers, you do it to yourself. I had one New Ager tell me that she did not understand why people were so upset about the African famines. The victims wanted to starve to death. That’s why they decided to reincarnate as poor Black children.
If this is true, why don’t we all keep coming back as rich hedonists? After we die, do we all go into our focus groups and decide who gets to be rich this time around? Who gets to be poor? Who gets to be the sex slave? Do we argue over who gets to be monarch of England? Who mediates when two disincorporated souls both want to come back as Emperor of the United States and Defender of Mexico? Do we draw lots to see who has to come back as a Somalian or a San Francisco street person?
What comes around goes around. I suspect that is the only spiritual law that has any real validity. Back in the Reagan years, people ignored the poor. After all, if they didn’t want to be poor they would have decided to come back rich. The streets filled with homeless, and the more fortunate congratulated each other for being spiritually advanced. Today the more fortunate have watched their investments turn to toilet paper. Their IRAs are worth less today than when they first started saving. Many of them are waiting for the sheriff to evict them from their homes.
Do they ever look back at the 80s, and remember how warm and fuzzy they felt when George Bush the elder called them “A Thousand Points of Light”? Do they ever stop and think about how spiritual they felt when they paid over a hundred dollars for a piece of quartz that might have cost the retailer a nickel? I bet the thousand points of light are feeling like a bunch of dim bulbs today. They bought into a load of shit. It never occurred to them that all religious movements are a con. Be it the Assembly of God or Church of all Worlds, religion and religious movements are means to remove money from fools. The only thing that made the New Age different was its size and scope.
In any con there are always two criminals. The conman and the victim. The victim falls for the con because he wants something for nothing. In the case of the New Age, the victims wanted wealth without responsibility and selfishness without consequences. The results were that minorities were the ones who suffered the consequences. At least until the real estate meltdown began the slow slide into fiscal disaster. The question now is have the victims learned their lessons? Somehow I doubt it.
Belief in the occult is neither fascist nor Libertarian. My purpose here is to not place disbelief on anybody’s religious or spiritual beliefs, but to bring into question many of the political beliefs expressed by some occult groups. Quite often belief in the occult goes hand in hand with oppression. The Treaty of Versailles triggered a renewed nationalism in the German people. German Rosicrucians reexamined the ancient German myths and ancient runic alphabets to create a revived Teutonic religion that celebrated German history and culture. Many Nazis came out of these alternative religions, but the religions themselves were not fascist.
The Sixties gave rise to a pagan renaissance in the United States, now called Neo-Paganism. The mainline and Pentecostal churches’ open support for the Vietnam war and the Nixon Administration gave rise to a matriarchal paganism that was imported from England. Neo-Paganism became a direct challenge to established religion when a psychotherapist calling herself Starhawk published a book called The Spiral Dance. Starhawk introduced a consensus-driven religion without dogma or hierarchy. This idea proved so popular copycat books were picked up by mainstream publishers. Starhawk’s Wicca took the country by storm.
Without structure or form, Wicca became another victim of the American religion. As independent Wiccan covens popped up across the country, people imposed the familiar structures of the American Religion upon it. Not able to understand the lack of hierarchy, “High Priestesses” become absolute dictators. Not being able to understand a religion without sin or enforced morality, both concepts are replaced with “The Three Fold Law.” The High Priestess is the absolute judge as to what is and what is not a violation of the “Three Fold Law.” Starhawk’s Wicca has as great a potential of being a tool of oppression as it does of being a means of liberation.
It only makes sense that Libertarianism would find suitable mates amongst the Neo-Pagans. Libertarians claim to be about Liberty, but actually protect and defend corporate oppression. Many Neo-Pagan groups claim to be about liberation actually reinforce the American Religion. These Libertarian Neo-Pagan groups include rigid conformity and morality, the absolute belief in a mythic history, and a rigid hierarchy. They pretty much reduce their mother goddess to Jesus Christ in drag.
One such Neo-Pagan group which I have had a chance to observe first hand is Church of all Worlds. CAW predates Starhawk by a good ten years. It began around the time that Buckland and Sanders were introducing the idea of Paganism. It was based on the book Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein. Starting out as just another sex, drugs, and rock and roll cult of the Sixties, CAW jumped on the Neo-Pagan band wagon after The Spiral Dance. In the late Seventies they joined in with Karl Hess’s New Left, and now call themselves a “Libertarian Pagan Church”.
Rather than adopt the anarchist consensus-based structure proposed by Starhawk, CAW has a very rigid Freemason-like hierarchy. They have a rigid morality based on polyamory and group sex. Unfortunately, it is a morality based on patriarchal male dominance. Bisexuality is encouraged amongst the female members, but not the males. Women having sex together is a turn on for many men. Women also do not have the same rights to turn down sex as men do. I know several women, some underage, who had been sexually assaulted at CAW events, and it was the CAW women who were most active in protecting the perpetrators. That is certainly rigid conformity in morality. CAW insist on the literal truth of their matriarchal mythical history, and apply the Three Fold Law as another incarnation of the Protestant Work Ethic. In other words if something bad happens to you, it was because you disobeyed the High Priestess or did something to piss off the group.
What I find the most interesting about CAW is their insistence that the rest of the world hates them. They treat the rest of the world as Evangelical Christianoids simply because we are not interested in their version of the true faith. The fact of the matter is that most of us don’t give a fiddler’s damn who they pray to or who they screw. Rather than to stand up for their legal rights, CAW members prefer to consider society “evil” and the government the “black empire” and drop out of society.
This dovetails nicely with Libertarian thought, which also sees the government as evil. Neither Libertarians or CAW members feel any responsibility towards their fellow citizens or the government that is supposed to be representing them. They see any sort of structure as a threat to their freedoms. It never occurs to them that they can work to change these structures. We will go into this in more detail as we examine the protection of corporate power in the next post.
The world is changing and not even the Born Again Christians have been able to stem the tide of changing sex roles. The steady decline in the standard of living have made the two salary household a necessity. As Born Again Churches have to bow to this necessity, so does the Libertarian movement. This does not mean that Libertarians have abandoned sexism. Sexism is alive and well and living in the Libertarian movement today. Only it is a sexism more in tune with today’s world than the ancient sexism in the Nazi Party… or is it?
Fascism has an element of hypocrisy which cannot be disguised. While pretending to be progressive, fascism promotes reactionary principles. Mussolini’s Corporationism pretended women’s suffrage while pandering to the Catholic Church and its misogynistic teachings. German fascism outright admitted that women were for producing more soldiers. Libertarians have to be a lot more subtle.
Libertarian sexism can be found in the works of Robert A. Heinlein. The late Heinlein was a political reactionary of the Goldwater school. This gave him much in common with Karl Hess. Hess was a professional Pubic Relations agent who had been Barry Goldwater’s speech writer. Hess was one of the fathers of the Libertarian Movement. Heinlein’s stories dovetailed perfectly with Hess’s “New Left” which rehabilitated Heinlein from a dangerous reactionary to a shining progressive.
Heinlein’s characterizations defined Libertarian sex roles. His men were tall, strong, shot straight, and never asked the government for anything. In his earlier works, his women all wanted to have babies. Then, in the early 1960s, Heinlein complicated his female characterization with Stranger in a Strange Land. In that book, women could have multiple sex partners, but did so to satisfy a Martian cult leader. Later works removed the religious angle but maintained the basic sexism. Homosexuality was mentioned but rarely portrayed. Women ran their own businesses, but only to maintain their true role as baby machines.
Confusing political progressivism with sexual progressivism is the hallmark of Libertarian sexism. It is also the hallmark of Libertarian class distinctions. It is perfectly acceptable to screw like mad minks if you can afford to raise the babies. If you cannot, then reproduction and sex itself is closed to you. Wealth becomes an important part of the Libertarian sexual identity. The main difference between European fascism and Libertarianism is the outright classism. You are not fully a man or a woman unless you are wealthy.
Gays and Lesbians are granted equal rights with the same lack of interest that Libertarians give junkies. Libertarians do not accept gays and lesbians as true equals, and place them within the same lower class as poor people who cannot afford to raise children according to Libertarian standards, or drug addicts. This is not to say that there are no gay or lesbian libertarians, but that gays and lesbians are not welcome into Libertarian society as full members. Traditional ideas of sexual morality are maintained in Libertarian society. The difference is that straight men have even more rights than anyone else.
An excellent example of this would be The Church of All Worlds. CAW identifies itself as a Libertarian church based on the works of Robert A. Heinlein. CAW encourages promiscuity amongst its members. Indeed, they discriminate against members who prefer to maintain an exclusive relationship. Homosexuality amongst male CAW members simply does not happen. I have only heard of one male CAW member who identified as bisexual. Bisexuality amongst females is encouraged as it is a turn on for the men. Men certainly do not put on little sex shows for the women. Full lesbians are not welcome amongst CAW. After all, men have no power over lesbians. I will be mentioning CAW again in the section about religion and fascism.
So that pretty much describes sex roles amongst Libertarians. Men are straight-jacketed into traditional stereotypes, while women are now the mutual property of the men, and their sexual freedoms stop where the male sex fantasies end. When you stop and think of it, Libertarians have a lot in common with Joseph Smith’s Mormon movement in the 19th Century. Women are still seen as baby machines for the state. The main difference is that now women have to earn half the salaries and remain second class citizens and sex objects.