Cincinnatus not Ceasar

Cut all benefits to the troops other than base pay and healthcare.

The tradition of American warriors emulating Cincinnatus dates back to America's founding. At the conclusion of the Revolutionary war, George Washington handed over his sword to civil authorities, relinquishing power to them. He emulated Cincinnatus not Caesar. Before we explain how all this relates to modern soldiers, we must first describe the difference between Cincinnatus and Caesar.

Cincinnatus was a patrician farmer who served as temporary dictator during Rome's war with the Sabines. After leading a successful military campaign against the Sabines, Cincinnatus relinquished his power to the Roman Senate, the civil governing body, and returned to being a farmer. This was actually the tradition of the time.

On the other hand, several hundred years later, Julius Caesar chose to retain dictatorial powers, the first step to forever transforming Rome from a Republic to a Dictatorship. Caesar chose to hold on to military power. Today, American schoolchildren are far more likely to know about Julius Caesar than Cincinnatus, much to the detriment of what their concept of the ideal soldier should be.

The example of Caesar holding on to power relates to American soldiers in how they enjoy lifelong freebies and benefits for a service term, even after they retire. The present system of payment in the military does not encourage the spirit of Cincinnatus, ie., someone who fights a necessary battle to defend his country and then retires to civilian life, expecting nothing in return other than a modest salary for the duration of his service and esteem from those he defended.

American soldiers should fight only for such causes they believe in, and not out of desire to be a soldiers of fortune. How might they be soldiers of fortune? If they sign up in order to receive college scholarships, to see the world, acquire wealth and other freebies, or receive a nice pension. The US government should not be allowed to bribe people into becoming soldiers with said things. Men should only become soldiers because they want to fight in combat in defense of America. They should receive no greater benefits from government than civilians do.

The goal is for soldiers to fight only to fulfill a specific need and return to private life, as Cincinnatus did. They should not continue to demand tribute from Americans in spite of their service ending. The primary exception is that combat veterans should receive free healthcare, since combat duty necessarily involves a high rate of injuries, many of which last a lifetime. The free healthcare would serve as sort of preemptive workman's comp. Perhaps pensions could be extended but only to widows of fallen soldiers who have children. Any work-related disabilities would also be covered. Soldiers who never see combat or a war theater would not receive free lifelong healthcare, so that they would not sign up just to get free healthcare without having to risk their live. There is always the worry that "combat" may be so broadly defined that almost any soldier would get lifelong healthcare.

George Washington quelled a potential rebellion by Continental soldiers who were upset about not receiving pay for their services in the Revolutionary War. If not for his allegiance to the concept of Cincinnatan military service, he perhaps would have joined them in rebelling. America would have had a much different history, perhaps never becoming a Republic as Washington became ruler and the soldiers his government. But Washington shamed them into not rebelling and yielding to their state governments. Their only satisfaction was similar to the lyrics of this song:

"I once was a seaman stout and bold,
Ofttimes I've ploughed the ocean:
I've ploughed it all o'er and o'er again,
For honor and promotion.

Aboard of man-of-war and merchantman,
Many be the battles that I've been in;
It was all for the honor of George Washington,
And I'll still be the jolly, jolly soldier."

The solider forever ascends into to an archetypal ideal type: "I'll still be the jolly, jolly soldier." This is his primary reward. Though he may return to civil life and no longer receive any payment from the military, his soul will be that of a jolly solider. Notice also that the soldier fights for honor and promotion, not for a pension or college. In other words, he willingly fights for something he believes in because the fighting itself is noble.

Granted, receiving no pay or health benefits is a harsh thing, like what soldiers experienced in Washington's day. Soldiers should not be in a situation like the Bonus Army protesters were in 1932 either. But it seems that lifelong free healthcare for combat veterans mentioned earlier, a reasonable flat rate of pay for the duration of service, pensions for widowed mothers, and compensation for combat-related disabilities should suffice. Otherwise, they should receive no greater benefits from government than civilians do. No free college, no personal pensions, no other benefits.

However, there is a problem with such a policy. A standing army is necessary for America's defense. Obviously, members of a modern standing army cannot be like Cincinnatus because they would need to stay on active duty for at least 25 years in order to mentor and train their successors. But if the standing army is kept to a skeletal minimum that can be filled in quickly if war breaks out, then the wartime recruits will have the chance to be like Cincinnatus and return to civilian life after service. The problem is that many of them will look to their lifer counterparts and want to keep their military jobs after the war just like the lifers would. They may push politicians to kow-tow to their desire to stay employed with the military. It seems even a semi-Cincinnatan policy is a lot more easily conceived than implemented.

What's more, a totally Cincinnatan policy of payment seems to be impossible in the modern world due to the need for a standing army. But the ideal of Cincinnatan military service should nevertheless be sought after within the confines of strong defense.

Foreign Policy Implications
Although the impetus for wars that are unpopular with the majority of people usually comes from big oil, or unseemly profiteers, these forces cannot commence with wars without manpower, ie., troops, so the soldiers' complicity with such wars is necessary to wage them. But on the margin, Could the policies I recommended earlier reduce the number of soldiers who are willing to fight such wars?

If military recruiters had less collateral with which to entice young people into the military (eg college benefits, etc), then hopefully unpopular theaters of war could not be populated without a draft. The military would have to force people into wars to which they are not naturally drawn. If the people didn't want to fight, the hope is that they would vote out the politicians who permit the draft and thereby stop the unpopular wars.* A draft is more forthright and honest than the incrementalist bait and switch tactics employed by recruiters today. Thus the practice of a Cincinnatan compensation system bereft of tantalizing freebies would be more conducive to a non-interventionist foreign policy because those on the margin who join for benefits or a job would not be lured into joining and would vote out politicians who support a draft.

However, this relies on the assumption that Americans would oppose a draft quickly and cause their representative to oppose one. But would they? It took a little over two years since the inception of the second Iraq war in 2003 for a majority American public opinion to finally turn against it. For much of these two years, the majority of Americans may well have supported a draft too, which would have condemned many objectors to potential death and disfigurement. If involuntary military service is a greater evil than subverting the Cincinnatan ideal of a soldier, then perhaps the freebies would be preferrable to a draft. While everyone must agree that both are undesirable, it is not clear that compulsory service would conflict with emulating Cincinnatus, since we do not know whether he fought willingly or only because he was elected to do so.



Another question is: How many join for the honor and how many join for the benefits? If they all join for honor, then wouldn't foreign policy be potentially just as interventionist if benefits were taken away? But this is not the case because many soldiers admit to signing up just for the freebies, so at least some of them wouldn't join, and thus the foreign policy would have to be that much less interventionist, assuming people don't put up with a draft.



Another problem is that a person may join for both honor and benefits, and this makes things murky. Wars of plunder can involve aspirations of valor and heroism. For example, the Saxons plundered, and they had a high system of honor among themselves. Indeed, Caesar himself probably displayed heroic traits in manoeuvering his troops.

But as in times past, there must be both Caesars and Cincinnati in the present. Perhaps many would-be Caesars could be brought up to be more like Cincinnatus if they were taught about him in school. Regardless, if Cincinnatus could win in battle, so can modern Cincinnati. And if the military is composed of modern Cincinnati, then resources that would have been spent in unnecessary fighting will be put into building up civil society. In such a case, the ultimate winner will be our civil Republic.
______________________________

*Many reading this paper may point out that prohibiting a military draft is a good way of stopping unnecessary wars. This is true but a topic for another article because one could presumably be a Cincinnatan soldier even if drafted into combat as long as he leaves with minimal or no post-combat benefits.

Feminism is Demographically Self-Refuting

Feminism is probably one of the most genocidal influences in the entire world. Wherever feminism is present, there are substantially lower birth rates, which usually cline toward being below replacement rate, leading to eventual extinction. This is true of nearly all of Europe, Japan, and among most peoples of the United States.

Such an argument based on this correlation alone may be called a loose one, because the aforementioned nations are also plagued by materialism. We must concede that acquiring more wealth and leisure time is mutually exclusive with having more children. For example, a significant amount of time one would have spent relaxing would be spent caring for the children; and much extra money spending money would then go to clothe and feed them. Actually, desire for leisure time does not imply materialism but rather falls with materialism under a broader category of selfishness and desire for self-indulgence.

There is, however, a deductive argument that explains the aforementioned correlation of low birth rates as directly caused by feminism, and proves that feminism alone is sufficient to induce such low birthrates.

Feminism's main goal is for women to attain a cultural standing equal to that of men. To do so, women must wield an equivalent level of power. Thus, women must have an equal place in the business world, legal profession, etc. Women must, in essence, become men insofar as men are powerful, while retaining a superior feminine sense of empathy and sensitivity.

But women, of course, are far more involved in childbearing than men. If a husband and wife wish to have children, it will invariably harm the wife's career more than the husband's, because she will need more time off, and will be encumbered physically. Thus, having children interferes with and prevents women's efforts at striving to have equal power with men, the main goal of feminism.

Thus, the highest aims of feminism are necessarily incompatible with having any children at all. The extent to which feminists have children is the extent to which they compromise their feminism.

Now that we have explained external data with the deductive argument that feminism causes too few children to be born, we must ask the question: Is a maladaptive trait within a population a trait worth maintaining? If everyone becomes a feminist, then within a few thousand years or less, humanity will die out along with feminism itself, since there will be nobody left to believe in it. The virus will have run out of hosts. So is a belief that is demographically self-refuting worth having at all?

Aesthetic Proof
A lamentation must be made for the many beautiful women who pursue careers and allow their motherly potential to be unfulfilled and left barren. Indeed, beautiful traits in women often directly correspond to their bodies' ability to nurture life itself into being. While they tromp high heeledly and consume caffeine, cigarettes, and unhealthy food in deference to their demanding career schedule, the flower of their countenance withers and decays fast. They are bound in angular stone-colored garments, as shapeless as a slab. Their beauty is unfulfilled, being expended on acquisition of power or material gain. Some come to their senses later in life, and often struggle to have even one child. But though every woman's beauty is bound to fade, it may be in some way passed on to her children, or perhaps the loss of beauty could be rectified with the knowledge that it bore fruit. Even if one is too old or is infertile for another reason, a woman should encourage other women to have children and fulfill what their body naturally wants to do.

Feminism does not esteem demographic maintenance as a virtue, but if it did, it would allow for its own continuation. If such sacrificial altruism were held above the desire for power or material gain, then perhaps feminism would be more truly feminine... and not self-refuting.
________________________
Addendum
Some may object to this write-up and allege that it should also condemn nuns and vows of chastity. Such an allegation is not applicable because in the modern Catholic church, almost no one becomes a nun, so the small number who do are demographically insignificant. Additionally, the reason most Catholic women do not have a sustainable number of children is primarily due to the the prevailing feminism and the church's responsorial compromise of permitting "natural family planning" aka the rhythm method. But feminism led the way and church went along. The idea that women who have not made vows of chastity should stave off pregnancy originated outside of Catholicism. Catholicism had existed for nearly 2,000 years, with Catholics never dying out and only multiplying. Feminism came around in the 20th century and only since then have Catholics' birthrate begun to decline. Moreover, Catholicism enforces gender roles within the church and has never discouraged motherhood among lay women.

In the pre Vatican II Catholic church, when there were more nuns, women had huge families because the church forbade all birth control, and the popes expressly stated that the primary purpose of marriage was to raise children up in the Catholic faith. In the words of Padre Pio, marriages were to be "beautifully crowned with children," in order to "populate the earth and paradise." If only he could see demographically imploding, secularized Italy today... Anyway, neither the modern nor ancient Catholic paradigm is necessarily demographically self-refuting and the modern one is only to the extent that its adherents are selfish and/or adhere to feminism.