Rasa Von Werder: January 2014

Sunday, 26 January 2014

NEW TEACHING I WILL LIVE OUT AS AN EXAMPLE TO MATURE WOMEN OF THE FUTURE

Rasa Von Werder seeks the most beautiful males in the world for promotion & paid modeling. If you look like the models featured on these pages contact her – RasaVonWerder@Yahoo.com The new website, “Embodiment of God” will preach through words & images that Creation is Sacred, & all creation is God & of God – there is no Creation that should be abused, exploited, disregarded or disrespected. The earth & sky are God, the oceans are God, animals are God & the human species is God, but they are not to exploit other Creatures. There will be an old but new version of religion, putting God back into sex, sex back into religion. In the Shakti religion men worship the female as a gateway to God, they gain Enlightenment by giving her body pleasure. There will be instructions on this, as males taught by other males are in the dark.

---------------------------------------------------

NEW TEACHING I WILL LIVE OUT AS AN EXAMPLE TO MATURE WOMEN OF THE FUTURE
Harems of men for women! Women living for their own pleasure, not forever sacrificing themselves to others!

What I outline now is my future, & this future will be lived as an example to women everywhere. As I have always EMBODIED a thing which I did, that taught others by example, I will now embody a lifestyle that is considered taboo by the standards of Patriarchy. We will once again disturb the assumptions of culture & shake up a lot of people to the core.

I will live TO BE HAPPY. I mean to be happy FOR MYSELF, not constantly sacrificing, mortifying & giving away, but using my own God-given money MYSELF as a creature & a woman.

I am fairly wealthy now, & going to be wealthier, & with this money I will buy a mansion in California, & in this mansion I will continue taking pictures of beautiful males & having fun with them. That’s it in a nutshell, but there are details.

I will dress in beautiful clothes, feeling attractive & desirable & acting that way. I will do whatever it takes to present beauty in my appearance.

It looks like there will be several new sources of income for me in the future. I predict the movie of my life will finally be produced. This would center on the past, most notably, “Stripping for God.” But today I am building a website that reveals my present activities - a Reality TV show will be offered me to document this. So there are two additional sources of income, the movie & TV show. Not saying this will all happen THIS YEAR. It will be 2017-18 before all these factors gel.

Now if I were the typical woman my age, I would center around family affairs, gardening, knitting, charitable giving, all the things rich old women do. Nothing of the sort. I will break the mold & create a new identity, beyond Auntie Mame, like her but more extreme. (Not saying I will be a Scrooge, charity will not be forgotten. I might add that what I do here is not "hedonism," or "selfishness" in the NEGATIVE sense. In the positive sense, I am doing what God wants for myself & others. I have lived a long life of suffering, poverty, renunciation & giving. This is my reward. Many deserve such a reward. It is given to Great Saints to "die" once, then the Resurrection. We do not stay on the Cross forever. At some point, we reach Heaven, & this can begin on Earth. God is not a mean God, She wants us, through our trials, to eventually gain total happiness.)

As usual, women are supposed to be self-sacrificers – why are they not allowed to live, to be happy for themselves? All the relatives stand around with the needs she is supposed to supply – that’s all she’s good for – money! The assumption here is HER LIFE IS OVER, she is washed up, out to pasture, not good for anyone or anything, certainly NO MAN WANTS HER! She, most notably, is not supposed to have a SEX DRIVE. God forbid, how perverted, how sickening, a woman over sixty who wants to have sex, & sex not with Viagra propped old men, but young men who can’t keep it down! This is unheard of, this is wrong, this is an aberration, how dare woman you want this?!

But what about Hugh Hefner? Why do people smile at the idea of the rich, powerful, now old man of 85, who dates only the young? Have you seen the Playboy spreads that feature “mature” women, “WOMEN OVER 31?” And Hugh admits he has to take Viagra to “satisfy” his woman – women need no Viagra to have sex!

Let’s face it, since the onset of Patriarchy, it’s all about the women – get the women – control the women – sex the women. Without the women wealth & power, what do they mean? This is accurately explained by the renowned geneticist Dr. Bryan Sykes of Oxford University – the man who told the world that human males are going extinct.

Bryan Sykes explains how in the beginning of Patriarchy it was all about women – conquest for women – war for women. Males amassed harems of from 300 for the Pharaohs to 16,000 by the warlord Genghis Khan. (There is also a contingent that want men of course. Wherever there are homosexuals there are harems of boys, from the altar boys of the Catholic to boys choirs, to Boy Scouts, to male models, to military men – wherever there are boys, young men, they are amassed in “harems” for men who want them. These men naturally either have money or authority over the young males.)

The idea of a female having a harem is unheard of, because harems go along with wealth & power. But more than that, harems for women are denounced & forbidden by Patriarchal religion & culture. So as I said, even the women who in Patriarchy, have lots of money, this money is not spent for harems of young males!

For what I am about to do publicly, is forbidden to women. No woman (in the mainstream culture) is allowed to have multiple males. If they do they are denounced as “immoral” – while males for the most part are forgiven (the double standard of morality, & this applies not only to sex but crime—women are given far harsher punishment for a crime than are men). Of course, this concept is breaking up with the advent of Matriarchy & the descent of Patriarchy, but my activities will hurry this along.

In about 3-4 years, at my age of 72 or thereabouts, you will see my mansion in Hollywood or Beverly Hills, elevated with spectacular pools, an indoor-outdoor house great for photography. You will see me in person cavorting with the young males I meet & hire – taking images of them & having fun. I will espouse my theories on life – all this will be documented on television.

I will be in demand once again on TV talk shows & documentaries, radio, & public appearances. This present lifestyle coupled with the movie “I Strip for God” will blow the demand for me sky high. I will go on TV shows with one or more models, they will pose, I will explain the philosophy. It’s Female Empowerment once again! It’s table turning, it’s role reversal, it’s freeing up of women to have fun, to live, & to live life abundantly, to be free including the freedom for old women to have fun with multiple young men!

------------------------------------------------------

To reiterate: Older women will be encouraged to follow in my footsteps, they will see the idiocy that women over fifty are finished, over the hill. It’s possible that young males want us, especially if we have resources. Courage, self confidence, & seeing the truth is what happens here. Some of them will take up cameras & become photographers like me, others will pursue different venues by which they can meet young males – all for good – to gain their own happiness & influence males toward a positive culture.. As I said, I lifted weights, then other women lifted weights. The idea of fitness for women became mainstream. I preached Female Supremacy through domination, the domination theme went mainstream. I preached “Woman, Thou Art God,” now women are accepting their divinity. This is another leg on the body of Female Empowerment, I light the way, they follow.

PS I welcome a forum on this. I would especially like my confrere William Bond to comment. Friends, please share this on your timelines & allow discussions. This is the big future project that will catapult Matriarchy further up the road.
As I said, I have always embodied what I preached. I brought forth Female Body Building, Stripping for God, & Female Domination into the mainstream, I have brought out, with William Bond, the principles of Matriarchy to a world audience. Now this. Discussion will ferment the cycle of liberating minds, forming ideas & concepts.

From Guru Rasa Von Werder, 12 28 13
..................................................................................

-------------------------------------------------------------

DO TEARS TRIGGER ERECTION?

William Bond
Historically, powerful women do tend to have a strong sex drive. Before the Roman invasion of Britain the Celtic Queens who rule Britain and Ireland were famed for having sex with many men at the same time. Cleopatra was also known to have a strong sex-drive. Then we have Catherine the Great who had sex with many young men. In more modem times we have Mae West who used her fame and wealth to have a harem of young body-builders. Perhaps the reason why powerful women have a strong sex-drive is that they can have sex in the way they want it, which is satisfying to them. Which means having sex with men who do as they are told and are willing to please.

VoiceofmotherGod RasavonWerder thanks William. I knew two of Mae West's lovers in that harem - Reg Lewis, who was 19 @ the time he with with her, & Micky Hargitay, who became my lover & asked me to marry.......Reg was married when I met him, but Mickey was the greatest lover that I ever had. So maybe Mae taught him. He told me the story, it was whimsical. At first, when she got him into her room, she told him to make love to her. But he could not do it, as she looked so old. Then, he said, she started to cry. After that, he could do it. Lol. I need to learn how to cry - I can't....Maybe it triggers a hardon?
.............................................................................................

Elizabeth SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

it is a HUGE lie that women lose their sex drive as they age. during menopause, some womens' libido goes into hibernation for a little while as their hormones decrease, and they go thru a period of adjustment. i thought my sex drive was DEAD, as most times, a cup of coffee, a piece of cake and good conversation was preferable to a carnal encounter! also at that time, i wasn't interested in anyone, so actually, it worked out well! believe me, when someone came along, that switch flipped and i was raring to go!! it hadn't died at all!! so women have to STOP BELIEVING PATRIARCHAL DOCTORS, ETC...typical that they would tell us we were all dried up and sexless, therefore, allowing 'males to go after younger women.

...................................................................................................................

---------------------------------------------------------

Why We Need Female Leadership by William Bond

http://www.bubblews.com/news/950712-why-we-need-female-leadership

William Shakespeare wrote, "Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them." The reason why greatness has to be thrust upon some people is because they fail to recognize their true worth. This is certainly the case with most women, who generally have little ambition to be leaders, thereby creating a power vacuum that is almost always filled by aggressive and competitive men.

Many people have pointed out that what we call history is often just a long list of wars and conflicts. Unfortunately, this is as true today as it ever was; there always seems to be a war in some part of the world. Another familiar theme in history is poverty and oppression. This is hardly improving today, despite our material achievements. In many parts of the world, the gap between rich and poor is growing all the time, causing social instability and violence which leads to government oppression to maintain control.

Great men have seen these problems throughout history and attempted to find solutions to them. They have invented many political systems, like monarchy, theocracy, plutocracy, fascism, communism, socialism and democracy, in an effort to create a more peaceful and fairer world. The common factor in all these systems is that to a lesser or greater degree, they have all failed. For this reason most people seem to have given up on finding any political system that might make our world a better place. But there is one that has not been tried and that is matriarchy.

When we look back into recorded history we not only find war and poverty, we also see that it has always been men who have ruled our world. According to Steven Goldberg, there is a good reason for this. In his book, "The Inevitability of Patriarchy", he makes a strong argument as to why men have always ruled the world and always will. His reasoning is to do with testosterone. This hormone makes men more aggressive and more competitive than women and it's why men will always work harder to gain wealth and power. It's true that some women can be as competitive as the average man and get to the top in many professions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. If we look at history and the world today we can see that Goldberg is right. The vast majority of the world's wealth and power is in the hands of men.

If we accept Goldberg's argument, it means men will always rule our world. The trouble is that if only the most forceful and belligerent people can claw their way to the top to achieve wealth and power, we will always live in a world of warfare, injustice and poverty. We may not see this as a problem of course, but if we want to live in a world of peace and stability, we have to realise it is not a good idea to have only the most aggressive people in charge. It would be better if loving and caring people did the job instead. So how do we achieve this? It can be done if people are willing to support matriarchy.

As Goldberg points out, women have less testosterone in their bodies and so are far less competitive and violent than men. If our governments consisted only of women they would be far less likely to settle differences between countries through warfare. Matriarchal governments are more likely to do what Winston Churchill once suggested, "Jaw – jaw is always better than war – war".

----------------------------------------------------------------

Female governments are also far more likely to create fairer societies. In the same way men are driven by a competitive instinct, women are driven by a maternal instinct. It is this that makes women want to give birth to children and then care for them until they are fully mature. Without this powerful instinct, the human race would quickly go extinct. It is also true of most animals, where the nurturing instinct of mothers ensures that the young stay alive until adulthood. It's the most important factor in the survival of many species.

In a female-dominated government, the main priority will not be the drive to compete against others for wealth and power, as in all patriarchal governments, it will be the welfare of everyone, particularly children. No matriarchal government will want to see the children of the country they rule live in poverty or ignorance. The desire to ensure that all children have equal education, health-care and opportunities in life will make for a much fairer society.

Many women claim that a matriarchal government would not copy the hierarchical system we find in all patriarchal societies. We know that men operate best when there is a clear pecking order of power, but it's disputed whether this is true of women. Generally, women are less aggressive than men and have better social and communication skills. They are far more able to co-operate with each other without needing a strong leader to tell everyone what to do.

Even if we had a very assertive and dominating woman becoming the leader of a matriarchal government, she would find it difficult to ignore the maternal concerns of the rest of her government. It would be far harder for her to lead the country into war unnecessarily or promote policies that foster inequality than if she was the leader of a patriarchal government. The majority of women in her government would oppose any decision to engage in conflict, even if the men supported it.

I'm sure that people like Steven Goldberg will ask the obvious question at this point. How do women, who are less assertive and competitive than men, get into positions of power? Why would they be even interested? Will they have to learn to act like men, or even take steroids to bump up their testosterone levels? It would be a waste of time if they did this, because as women like the British leader Margaret Thatcher have shown, their behaviour when in power may be exactly the same as any man. If this is the case, and it does seem to be, how can a government of caring and nurturing women be created?

To answer this, we have to look at the forms of government we have tried. Although every type of patriarchal government has failed to bring about a more peaceful and equal world, there has been one kind that has worked better than others; democracy. It allows the people of a country to get rid of an unpopular government without having a bloody revolution. It can also allow a matriarchal government to be voted into power if it receives enough popular support.

At present, if a woman has any political ambition she has to join a patriarchal political party and behave like an ambitious man, if she is to be taken seriously. But if a matriarchal party was created, women would be free to be themselves. They wouldn't have to work in a stressful testosterone- driven environment but in a more co-operative one, with similar-minded women.

Another big advantage of a matriarchal political party is that women will not have to support patriarchy any more, which they do at the moment because there is no apparent alternative. It will leave them free to point out just how badly men rule our world. The excuses men give for going to war or maintaining inequality in our societies will be laid bare and criticised, as they should be.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Patriarchal rule and war always seem to go to together. Patriarchal historians have problems in explaining why on earth this happens. The 1914-18 world war caused the deaths of over 16 million people with 20 million wounded, yet it was apparently brought about by the assassination of one just one man. Underlying stresses started a chain-reaction which caused most countries in Europe to take sides and begin hostilities. Even today, historians find it hard to find a sensible explanation of how and why this chain-reaction led to such a destructive conflict. It seems that testosterone-driven governments often find it very hard to stop themselves going to war, despite the misery and carnage that results.

We had an even more dangerous situation in the Cold War of 1947 to 1991 between the USSR and NATO. Both sides deployed enough nuclear weapons against each other to destroy human civilization many times over. It was a miracle that these patriarchal governments didn't start a nuclear war and it was only the economic collapse of the USSR that brought about an end to the conflict. The threat of nuclear war hasn't yet gone away, either, because it is very difficult to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and there is always going to be a madman somewhere who might be crazy enough to use them.

Patriarchal governments have shown themselves to be incompetent in dealing with other worldwide catastrophes, like over- population, pollution and global-warming. The biggest problem in finding a solution usually turns out to be the self-interest of powerful groups. This is true of patriarchal religions like the Roman Catholic Church or Islam who try to block sensible measures to overcome over-population. It also applies to large industries, like those involved in oil, coal or car manufacturing, who sabotage any attempts to tackle pollution and global warming. The selfish men who control all these powerful interest groups are more than willing to put their own interests before the welfare of the planet.

The same is true when we look at the large gap between rich and poor which has always existed in patriarchal societies. It is very difficult for testosterone-driven men to solve problems like poverty, because in a competitive, patriarchal world the game is all about winners and losers. Poor people are just losers and deserve no sympathy or help. To justify this position, 'winners' bring in evolutionary theory and claim it's all about, "the survival of the fittest". This in spite of the fact that the survival of any species of animal is far, far more dependant on the maternal instincts of the mother in giving birth and caring for her young, than the aggressive instincts of the male. To be frank, the survival of the human species would be much better served, if it was in the hands of caring and nurturing women, rather than competitive men.

If given the chance, any matriarchal political party could use all these powerful arguments to explain to voters what appalling job men do in ruling the world. We might then see matriarchy voted into power.

Patriarchy will naturally try counter-arguments, such as claiming that a matriarchal government will consist of wishy-washy pacifists and will therefore leave countries open to attack by other patriarchal governments. It's not true. Women are by nature far more security- minded than men. They have to be, to survive in a patriarchal world where they are routinely oppressed, robbed, raped or murdered by men. Women are even more aware of the dangers of patriarchy than men and will see the need for a strong defence.

Another claim will be that we need highly competitive men to make capitalism work, and capitalism is what brings us our wealth. But capitalism, when unchecked, leads to serious problems. Ruthless men gamble with our money and sometimes lose, big firms deliberately choke off competition in order to monopolise the market and the welfare of consumers comes a very poor second to the god of profit. We've seen the results of this very clearly in recent years. Governments have had to bail out "too big to fail" inefficient banks and large corporations, then impose austerity onto the taxpayers to pay for their mistakes.

If we tried to play a sport without rules and a referee to enforce them, the result would be a chaotic mess. The same is true in the game of capitalism, which desperately needs fair- minded politicians to manage it properly and avoid costly failures as well as unfair or uncaring business practices. Patriarchal governments have manifestly failed to do this, as we see all too clearly from the recent world-wide financial collapse. Matriarchal female politicians are far more likely to referee capitalism fairly. They will not be so caught up in its competitive games and its 'profit at any cost' side and can have a more dispassionate view.

--------------------------------------------------------

This is why greatness needs to be thrust upon women. Men, if they are not born with the advantages of wealth and power, seek them out and believe they deserve them. Most women have very little interest in competing against men and even less interest in climbing the greasy pole to the top in politics. Because of their lack of aggression, they're likely to fail anyway. Really, their only way to succeed in a patriarchal political party is to be a substitute male. What they need instead is to belong to a matriarchal political party, which values their inclusiveness, ability to co-operate and desire to work for the good of everyone, not just vested interests. Then it's up to the voters whether they see them as a credible alternative to the tired old parties we already have.

Most people complain about politics and hate the fact that we still have wars, poverty and injustice. They can see that governments are deeply flawed at best and at worst, instruments of oppression, greed and intolerance. However, they still accept patriarchy because as far as they are aware, there is no other choice. Men have always ruled us and women see little chance of changing that, even if they had the will to do it. What we need is the kind of attitude change and fighting spirit which brought votes for women and led to the Feminist movement in the last half of the twentieth century. If the spirit of those times came back, we could have matriarchal political parties in no time, and voters would have real choice for once.

In the world as we know it now, women's maternal instinct can be a big disadvantage to them. They feel they have to choose between a career and motherhood, or exhaust themselves juggling both. Men generally have no such difficulties and can dedicate themselves to the advancement of their careers without hindrance. In truth, men are glad that women care about children so much. It leaves the field clear for them to climb the ladder of success while women agonise about the harm they might be doing to their children by working. Maternal feelings are still seen as a weakness, like most 'feminine' qualities, when they should be respected as the only way we manage to survive as a species. The same is true of the nurturing qualities many women exhibit when they take care of the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable. Their incredibly valuable work is viewed through the lens of the patriarchy, seen as unimportant and paid accordingly. Only the creation of wealth or the acquisition of power is applauded in a patriarchal society because it is men who decide what is important and what they value is achieving status through these things.

We need to change this male- dominated value system if we want to find solutions to war, poverty, oppression, pollution and global warming. Great religious figures have urged us for millennia to see others as ourselves and to put aside selfishness, intolerance and greed. We may have listened politely, but we haven't done much else. Now we have to realise that our difficulties can only be solved by a sea-change in what we hold dear. We need caring and loving people to rule our world, which, to be blunt, means women. If women are not willing to come forward to do this, because they lack the competitive instinct or feel they are not competent or worthy, then they should be told just how wonderful they are, and how much we need their skills, over and over, till they believe it. Greatness will have to be thrust upon them. Only when we do this will we have a chance of a better world in which nurturing, kindness and service are valued above conflict, aggression and competition. We should start now.
........................................................................................................................

How Women can take control of men

--------------------------------------------------------

How Women can take control of men.
By WILLIAM BOND

In the power relationship between men and women, men seem to have all the advantages. This is because the average man is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than the average women. Not only that, in our patriarchal culture, men are told that they are the 'natural' dominant sex and that any men who allows a women to tell him what to do, is a 'wimp' and a 'sissy'. They even claim that men have always been the dominant sex, though some feminist scholars and archaeologists dispute this.

It has been a fact that men have rule our world throughout recorded history but unfortunately, men do a terrible job in doing this. They have created a world of conflict, war, genocide and poverty. We can see all over the world, where men completely dominate women, we also see human rights abuses, not only against women, but also children and men. So allowing men to become the dominant sex has not been a good idea. It would be far more sensible for women to rule our world instead, because women overall, have shown themselves to be far more caring and loving people than what men are.

To make it worse, with advances in modern technology men now have the power to destroy our world either through nuclear warfare, which nearly happened in the cold-war between NATO and USSR or nowadays through global warming. So we are coming to a situation where it is urgent for women to take over, before men destroy our world.

For this reason, women have to see men as worse than dangerous wild animals. After all men kill far more people and animals than any other species of animal you can think off and for this reason, he needs to be controlled. So how can women do this? Obviously, the average woman cannot use force or aggression to get her own way, like what men do. Instead she has to be clever in how she can learn to dominate a man. There are many techniques that women can use to control men, but they have to learn about the psychology of indoctrination, brainwashing and mind control. These methods are not a secret and have been used by patriarchal leaders to control people, for thousands of years. The only way women have attempted to control men has been through nagging, which many women claim is totally ineffective. But if used correctly, nagging can be a powerful indoctrination method, because it is about repetition, which is the foundation of all types of brainwashing.

The reason why advertising is so effective in getting people to buy what the advertising wants them to buy, is that it repeats the same message, over and over again. The same is true of religious and political indoctrination and the training methods of soldiers. It is all about keeping on repeating the same idea hundreds of times to brainwash people into believing this idea. So why is repetition so effective in brainwashing people?

The famous psychologist Sigmund Freud in the early 20th century put forward the concept of the unconscious mind, where he claimed; that the unconscious mind is the cause of most psychological problems. So what exactly is the unconscious mind? We can see how this mind works when we learn to drive a car. At first, we will consciously turn the steering wheel, change gears, push our foot on the brake and all the other things we need to do, to drive a car. Then after we have done this a number of times, we will start to do these things automatically, without consciously thinking of what we are doing.

The reason why we can do these things without thinking is that our unconscious mind has learnt to drive the car. This then allows a car driver to think of other things while his or her unconscious mind has taken over the role of driving. The conscious mind will only then take back control in a situation that is different to what the unconscious mind has learnt. This is true of all routine tasks than we do repeatedly, the unconscious mind takes over these tasks. But the unconscious mind can also take over our thinking as well. If we repeatedly think the same thoughts too often, then the unconscious mind also takes over these thoughts. As the result, if we have too many habitual thoughts, the unconscious mind can end up dominating our thinking.

In theory, the unconscious mind is the conscious mind's servant, doing the tasks the conscious mind no longer wants to do. Unfortunately, for many people the servant can become the master, as the unconscious mind can take control of the conscious mind. This is what advertisers, the military, political parties and religions rely on, to brainwash people. Religion's talk a lot about faith and belief but all this is, is habitual thought. For example, if we have been indoctrinated from time we were a child to believe that, "the Bible is the word of God" and told this repeatedly. Then the unconscious mind learns this. As the result, every time we think about the Bible then the unconscious mind reminds us that, "the Bible is the word of God". So it becomes hard not to think of the Bible in any other way. Religions will then tell us that this is our faith or belief, but in reality, all it is, is a habitual thought created by the unconscious mind

The power of indoctrination and brainwashing is what keeps patriarchy going. It should be very obvious that men to a incredibly bad job in ruling our world, but few people question patriarchal rule, because they have been indoctrinated by patriarchal propaganda. As the result few people even know what matriarchy is and are shocked by any suggestion about women ruling the world. So patriarchy can continue to fight wars, inflict poverty onto the people and destroy our environment and get away with it, because so few people are aware there is any alternative to patriarchy.

Advertisement is another form of mind control. If we have seen on TV an advert a large number of times with an eye-catching label with a catchy tune and then see the same product in a supermarket. Then we may buy it because the product seems so familiar to us. But that familiarity only came about because we have seen it so often on TV. It is what advertisers call, 'brand recognition', which is very important in selling any product. We are more comfortable in buying brands we recognize than brands we never seen before.

So if repetition is so effective, why is it that some women have claimed they have nagged their husbands for more than twenty years and it hasn't made any difference? The reason for this, is that nagging has to be done the right way for it to work. If a woman uses nagging to always point out a man's faults and shortcomings, then all she is doing is reinforcing them. So her nagging can have the complete opposite effect to what she is intending. To understand the power of nagging we need to understand how indoctrination and brainwashing works. Nagging works exactly the same way as advertising, religious and political indoctrination, the way the military trains their troops, how animals are trained and the way some people practise positive thinking.

So if a women keeps on repeating the same message to her partner over and over again, his unconscious mind learns it. Therefore, without being aware of it, he will begin to automatically respond to whatever the woman has programmed into his unconscious mind. Unfortunately, if the nagging woman makes the mistake of being negative about their partner, the result will be the opposite to what she wants. So if a woman keeps on telling her partner he is lazy and never does anything around the house, she is unwittingly programming him to be lazy! If she tells him all the time; he is not romantic and never buys her flowers and always forgets her birthday, she will again have programmed him never to be romantic and to forget her birthdays! She can even program him into not loving her anymore, if she keeps on telling him this.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So although nagging is a very powerful tool for any women in gaining control over her male partner, she has to know what she is doing. This means, to use it successfully, women have to learn how to praise men. Now, women have been using this method for centuries. Women in strongly patriarchal societies have found they can get what they want from men, by praising them and pandering to their egos. For this reason, many women do feel it is beneath them to use such methods, because they see it as the tactics of submissive women. However, positive nagging is not stoking up a man’s ego, it is what animal trainers call 'positive reinforcement'. It's a method of programming his unconscious mind in much the same way modern animal trainers, train animals

In the past animals were trained using masculine methods of force and punishment. As the result animals were trained by frequent beatings. Although these methods work, they also made animals vicious and dangerous. As the result, in more recent times, it has been discovered that feminine methods of rewarding an animals is far more effective than punishment.

You obviously cannot talk to animal and explain to it what you want it to do. You have to communicate to it through your actions. What many successful animal trainers do, is to simply observe the animal and when it does something the trainer wants it to do, she or he praises the animal and give it a food treat. As the result, the animal is encouraged to do the same thing again to get the praise and a treat. Therefore, with patients and keen observation, trainers can get animals to do whatever they want, through rewarding any actions and behaviour they want the animal to do. This is clearly explained by the animal trainer Victoria Stilwell on her web-site http://positively.com.

The strongest relationships between dogs and humans are based on cooperation and kindness rather than a human dominance/animal submission methodology, which is central to outdated traditional training methods. Positive training helps to establish and maintain a connection that increases trust and therefore creates a stronger bond between dog and owner, because if your dog feels good about you, he will be a happier, more confident and better-behaved dog. Ultimately, positive training results in a dog who follows an owner because it wants to rather than following out of fear, while traditional training uses punitive methods to force a dog to behave, often resulting in a ‘quick fix’ that never truly identifies the root cause of the misbehavior while promoting insecurity and negative behavior.

As you begin the process of modifying your dog’s behavior, BE PATIENT – positive training relies on consistency, repetition…

What Victoria Stilwell says about training dogs can be used to train men. These methods have been discussed in the controversial BBC TV show, "Bring Your Husband to Heel", (which was banned because of viewer's complaints.) Also in the books, “How To Train A Man”, by Nancy Winters.

So nagging can be effective if it is used as positive reinforcement. That is to say when a husband does something his wife wants him to do, she praise him. She also keeps on reminding him the times he did exactly what she wanted. The more she repeats this, the more it is learnt by his unconscious mind, which then becomes part of his habitual thoughts.

The effect of this can be even more powerful if a woman is naturally bossy. The military trains their soldiers by continually giving them pointless orders. When men join the army, navy or air force they are taught to march on a parade ground. They will be trained to march up and down by a sergeant major, who will be shouting out orders to them all the time, like, “attention, quick march, left, right, left right, squad turn right, squad turn left, squad halt," etc. The reason is that by continually having to obey orders, it will program the men’s unconscious mind to obey orders without question. This type of programming is so successful, that troop will automatically obey orders in battles, like being ordered to come out of trenches, knowing they will be mowed down by enemy machine gun fire. The Japanese took this a step further in WW2 and ordered their pilots to make suicide attacks on enemy warships, which they obeyed.

Likewise a bossy woman can teach a man to be totally obedient if she makes a point of giving him a large number of orders. Like in the military, he will became so used to obeying her that it will become automatic for him to do so. But she can undo what she has achieved if she makes an issue of any time he is not as obedient. If the man starts to rebel, and she tells him every time he is disobedient, that he is being disobedient, she can programming him to be even more insubordinate. So it is better to ignore any attempt by him to rebel. It is far more effective if the women, instead, ignores him and leaves him alone when he is rebellious. She should instead see his rebellion as a sign that she has been lax in her training and she needs to step it up more.

So when he has got over his rebellious mood and he is more receptive, she then needs to become even more bossy by giving him even more orders. If she feels unsure of his obedience, then she should start again with orders he most commonly obeys. She can support this by praising him every time he is obedient, and tell him wonderfully obedient he is to her, all the time. This will keep on reinforcing what his unconscious mind has learnt, as it will keep on faithfully remind him to be obedient every time she tells him to do something. When she has got him back under control she can also give him suggestions like, "I now have total control over you," and "I am she who must be obeyed," to reinforce her control over him.

For many women all this is all very elementary, as women have instinctively done this to men and their children for thousands of years. The problem is that many women don’t always program men or their children for their own benefit. Women themselves have been brainwashed to believe that it is ‘wrong’ for them to dominate men and that it is ‘natural’ for men to be the dominant sex. Also, if she loves her husband and sons she may feel she doesn’t want to programme them into becoming ‘wimps’, she wants them to be strong and macho so they can stand up for themselves in our brutal patriarchal world.

It means that women have the power and even know how to use this power, but have been successful brainwashed into not using it. The problem is that if women don’t use their power to program men, then other men in positions of power will use these methods to program men and exploit them. As previously pointed out, men are programmed to die on a battlefield or blow themselves up in a suicide attack. This is how uncaring alpha men are, in the way they treat other men, by using them as 'cannon-fodder", serfs and slaves. Obviously, no woman would be interested in programming any man to be a suicide bomber, but it demonstrates what is achievable. This then means that a woman can by using brainwashing methods, can program a man to be whatever she wants him to be. And men will be far better off being brainwashed by caring women than brutal uncaring alpha men.

--------------------------------------------------------

A woman can even use these techniques on herself. Sports and business people read positive thinking books, simply because they know they work. In many positive thinking books they talk about affirmations. An affirmation is a thought or saying that a person repeats over and over again. The idea is that instead of allowing advertisers, religions or political parties to brainwash us into believing what they want, we take control and brainwash ourselves to believe what we want to believe. Though to do this we first have to acknowledge that many of the beliefs we have about ourselves, have been programmed into us as a child, by our patriarchal society in our schools, watching TV and unwittingly by our parents. Therefore, we have to look at our beliefs and see which ones do not serve us.

Sportsmen us affirmations like, "I am a winner," or "I am a champion," while businessmen will use affirmations like, "I am very rich and wealthy." Most ordinary people we baulk at using affirmations like this but this is why they are not rich or are not winners. We have to understand the reason why most people are poor and powerless is because they have been brainwashed to think that way.

The idea is to create positive ideas and keep on repeating them to ourselves. So if we don't feel we have been successful in our lives we may start to use the affirmation like, "I am a success." We will get immediate resistance from our unconscious mind when we first start to do this, which will keep on reminding us that we are a failure and even bring to us memories of when we failed in the past. This causes many people to give up such an affirmation, as it will bring up too many painful memories. So we can either give up and try another affirmation that doesn't give us so much resistance, or just keep persisting. If we persist, the resistance from the unconscious mind will slowly change as it begins to learn the affirmation. Once it has done this, it will then become our friend as it starts to remind us that, "I am a success," boosting our confidence and well-being, and giving us a new uplifting belief about ourselves.

As previously explained, a belief is only a habitual thought, so we can create in ourselves whatever belief we want to have through affirmations. Yes, we will get strong opposition from the unconscious mind, at first, if our affirmation contradicts something that has already been programmed in our minds. But through persistence the unconscious mind will learn the new programming and then this will become our new habitual thought or belief.

So it means that men's greater size, strength and aggression doesn't have to be a barrier for women in learning how to take control of men, provided the women learns the basic psychology of how the mind works. Then they can use on men, all the basic brainwashing, indoctrination and mind control methods patriarchy has used on the general population for thousand of years. It is also important that women take control over their own lives and programme into their own minds what beliefs they want and not allow patriarchy to do this to them.

It is essential that women do this because if is obvious that men do a really terrible job in ruling our world creating a world of conflict, violence, war and poverty. We have to realise that men are by far the most dangerous animal on this planet and with the advances of modern technology, could one day destroy our world. It makes far more sense to have caring and nurturing women rule our world than to have brutal men do it. So it will benefit everyone, both men and women, if women take control of men.

.....................................................................................................

-----------------------------------------------------------

MEN R DOMINATED BY MEN – WILLIAM BOND WAS THE FIRST ONE TO BRING FORTH THIS THESIS, CREDIT HIM!

Elizabeth:
and the NEED domination in all ways. i mean look WHO traditionally
succeeds in making 'men do what they should. THE MILITARY, (brutal boot camps), ATHLETES, (coaches instilling fear and working them to exhaustion), and women should pay attention to this. THEY CRAVE AND NEED DISCIPLINE. ever see a 'man talk about his service years or his playing sports times...they get this loving glazed over look, as they talk about the best time of their lives...they want to be trained. and we should do that.

VoiceofmotherGod RasavonWerder
Good words Elizabeth
but please let us give credit to where it is due: William Bond was the first one that brought out this thesis - Including for me - I never thought about it this way until William pointed it out - this fact is a great weapon in our hands. William Bond is not just another man, he is a man of Mother God, Her Spirit works through him.
...................................................................................................................

Rasa says:
Steve Andrews is one of the few men who understands & sees the situation accurately - he is not blinded by his own gender. What is wrong is that few men rise above their instincts....their instincts - when not in check - become bad, very bad, demonic. Steve and other men rise out of their instincts, & see things objectively. Steve Andrews, William Bond, other good men are not like the rest. Most men cannot rise above their testosterone, their violence, left brain thinking, & all the ills of men. They stay within the confines of their body. They are an offshoot of women, a truncated woman, without the ability to reproduce, with no compassion. Few men rise out of this physical condition to soar to the Heavens. There was Buddha, Jesus, all the saints, the few men I mentioned, the rest are mostly different shades of evil. They are either aggressively evil, the perpetrators, or passively evil, the ones who like the big bullies ruling so they can also get privileges, or else, they just don't care. Maybe ten percent or one out of ten is a good person. Women care because of their Maternal instinct, men have none.
............................................................................................

Rasa says:
Karen, almost all women have been raped. Half of all girls raped by their fathers as children, then factor in other men, probably I was one of the few females who was never, that I know of, sexually molested as a child. But as an adult I was raped seven times, beaten up twice, threatened by men, intimidated, dozens of times, seriously. Gotten many death threats, including threats on the internet from hysterical men. All females have been abused in all types of degrees. How many males have been raped as many times as females? Much fewer, although 25 % of boys have been raped by their Dads, it seems to me, males have been raped a lot less than females. And beatings, intimidation? Not sure about that, as males do get into a lot of violence with each other. Now look on this thread. They are trying SO HARD TO BEAT US UP, INTIMIDATE US, BROWBEAT US. If they were in a room with us, they would intimidate us with the threat of beatings or rape - they OFTEN do that. This guy already talked to you about getting into bed with him, like he has to rape you. You showed no interest in him, but he has to talk that way & if he raped you he would say you encouraged him.
................................................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------

Rasa says:
SEX WORKERS ARE THERAPISTS....THEY DO THE SAME AS MASSAGE THERAPISTS, COUNSELORS, PSYCHIATRIC THERAPISTS, NURSES...BECAUSE SEX IS INVOLVED DOES NOT MAKE IT SINFUL, EVIL OR DISRESPECTFUL, (BECAUSE SEX IS NOT SO) & CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT TO BE CRIMINALIZED. THIS IS PART OF THE DISEMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN--TO CRIMINALIZE "SELLING" SEX THERAPY--BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE EASIEST JOBS TO OBTAIN & GIVE WOMEN MATERIAL SUSTENANCE...MEN DO NOT WANT WOMEN TO HAVE MONEY, RESOURCES, THESE THINGS EMPOWER US. DO YOU SEE THE LOGIC OF THIS? AND ALSO IT IS LIKE A WITCH HUNT. ONCE THEY ARRESTED THE WITCH SHE HAD TO PAY ALL THE EXPENSES OF THE COURT COSTS & HER TORTURE, THEY TOOK IT OUT OF HER ESTATE. AND SEX TRADE WORKERS ARE GIVEN FINES FOR THEIR WORK, SO THEY ARE PAYING POLICE OFFICERS, THE COURT & THE JUDGE. AFTER ALL THESE FINES THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE STREETS, THE BROTHEL OR APT. TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE ONCE AGAIN - IT'S A REVOLVING DOOR. IF YOU LEFT THEM ALONE, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAVE MONEY & DO SOMETHING ELSE.....PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT MAKING PROSTITUTION LEGAL MEANS IDENTIFYING, TAGGING & CONTROLLING THE WORKERS, IT IS DECRIMINALIZATION THAT IS NEEDED. CONSIDER ALSO THE CRIMES AGAINST SEX THERAPISTS. POLICE HELP THEM BUT LITTLE, THEY ARE INTENT UPON PUTTING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS RATHER THAN HELPING THEM AGAINST VIOLENCE. AREN'T PROSTITUTES PEOPLE? DON'T THEY DESERVE RIGHTS?......PATRIARCHY WANTS TO DEMEAN SEX THERAPISTS & THAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DISREGARD THEIR RIGHTS, THEIR FEELINGS, THEIR NEEDS. IT ALSO JUSTIFIES CRIMINALS HURTING THEM. LIKE IF YOU ARE A SEX THERAPISTS, YOU DESERVE WHATEVER YOU GET - YOU ARE DIRTY. THIS IS HOW PATRIARCHY FRAMEWORKS IT.
............................................................................

Reprinted from Whores and Other Feminists, Jill Nagle, ed., New York: Routledge, 1997.

It's Different for Boys
by J. Marlowe

Female prostitution takes on new meanings when analyzed alongside male prostitution. Within the gay male world, prostitution is, for the most part, regarded with indifference. This is probably because many gay men have learned not only to accept but also to take pride in sexual deviance.

The arguments against female prostitution are familiar: prostitutes are victims, have no self-esteem, degrade all women, and need to be forcefully removed from their circumstances. However, when one applies these arguments to male prostitutes, and if one treats men and women as intellectual equals, then the arguments contradict the very essence of feminism; instead, they propagate patriarchal and antifeminist values.

My first argument centers on the notion of victimhood. The stereotypical Hollywood female hooker is regarded as helpless and pathetic, waiting to be rescued by a man (Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, for example), whereas a stereotypical male hooker is regarded as tough and invulnerable, turning tricks just to be deviant (Keanu Reeves in My Own Private Idaho). The sugar daddy of a former acquaintance of mine once admitted that he used to get a rush from picking up hustlers on his lunch break due to the sheer element of danger: the person he picked could conceivably beat him to a pulp.

Whenever concern is expressed in the media for male prostitution, it's inevitably in the context of a child prostitution ring. The use of the word "child" is intended to portray innocence, when in fact male prostitutes are usually adolescents above the age of consent. In contrast, women of any age are treated as childlike victims, even if they entered prostitution well into adulthood. It would appear that age confers maturity and autonomy upon male, but not female prostitutes, who are rarely represented as anything but exploited.

"Exploitation" evokes a zero-sum game: one person gains at the expense of the other. However, prostitution -- and especially male prostitution -- is almost always a commercial transaction in which both parties agree on a price beforehand. The exploitation argument seems to rest on the spurious claim that women find sex inherently unpleasant, and that any woman who engages in it for reasons other than love is having something taken from her, no matter what fee she commands. In comparison, consider the same transaction between two men. Who is exploiting whom? Is it the client, who has the financial ability to buy sex from a younger man with (presumably) less financial freedom, or is it the conventionally attractive hustler, who cashes in on the fact that he's younger and more desirable than his client? Whose erect penis represents the "weaker sex"?

Looking at a commercial sex transaction between two men thus highlights the ambiguity of traditional feminist notions of exploiter and exploited. While there is exploitation in the sex industry -- pimps who take a hooker's entire earnings, clients who refuse to pay, men who secretly videotape encounters and then sell them -- there is nothing inherently exploitive about two adults engaging in consensual paid sex. It is only when the prostitute is female and the client is male -- or when the prostitute is a minor and the client isn't -- that the issue of exploitation arises at all. Perhaps it's time we ask ourselves why women and children are regarded as a homogenous group in this regard, while men are subject to an entirely different set of rules.

My second argument has to do with the presumption that prostitutes have low self-esteem. Adolescents learn that "good girls" abstain from sex while "bad girls" don't, and that good boys and bad boys alike strive to have sex as often as possible. Because of this conditioning, we believe that young women who engage in casual sex must necessarily be bad girls and, moreover, that they themselves must agree with society's assessment of their bad girl status. Only a handful of feminists have bothered to suggest that good girls can enjoy sex for its own sake. In contrast, boys who engage in casual sex are considered to have a normal and healthy sex drive.

-----------------------------------------------------

For better or for worse, gay men have mastered the art of the one-night stand. As such, prostitution is merely a variation on a well-established theme within gay circles, namely the anonymous, no-strings-attached fling. Many of my own clients have confided that they seek the services of a professional simply as a matter of convenience -- they'd rather not waste their time playing mind games in the bars, they know exactly how much it's going to cost them at the end of the evening, they know exactly how far they're going to get, and they don't have to worry about any romantic expectations on the part of their partners.

Concern for the mental health of female sex workers rests on a normative view of female sexuality as connected to love and relationship, reflected in the stereotype that female prostitutes must not value themselves as anything more than receptive sex organs. Yet, among gay men, hustlers are not stigmatized in this way -- more likely, they are envied. Why would a man have low self-esteem if he's being sought out and given money for his body? In gay male culture, knowing that one is attractive enough to command payment raises, rather than lowers, one's self-esteem. It is only if one believes that the ability to have sex without love is damaging that this aspect of prostitution appears to be "unhealthy" or a reflection of low self-esteem. In fact, the required linkage of sex with love (or the injunction to be "good girls") has historically functioned to keep women under the control of one loved man -- their husband, who may or may not demonstrate equal monogamy and devotion.

Unlike the link between female prostitution and roles and perception of women in general, male prostitution is quite separate from the roles and perception of men in general, both within the gay world and without: few would argue that the presence of street hustlers in any way influences how society perceives men in general. This dichotomy arises from the different ways in which we perceive and treat women and men in society, rather than anything inherent in the sex trade. If prostitution were patently destructive, then presumably male whores would find themselves as stigmatized as their female counterparts.

Measures to abolish street prostitution are typically geared toward women. In many cities, "schools" for johns are popping up, in which men arrested for soliciting an undercover female officer can circumvent a police record by paying a $500 fee and sitting through a lecture telling them how they have degraded all women through their actions. The ex-prostitutes who inform these men of their evil ways claim to be speaking on behalf of all prostitutes, which is yet another example of women having their opinions decided and voiced for them on their behalf; just because in this instance they are being eclipsed by other women doesn't make it any less condescending. Further, these programs rarely if ever target the clients of male sex workers, perhaps because proponents realize that a man standing at the front of a room trying to convince johns that their actions degraded all men would be regarded as comical at best. While these programs are purported to "help" victimized women, their effect is to erode the client base for all female prostitutes -- essentially to abolish one of the only professions in which women typically earn more than men.

In debates about prostitution, it is often women -- the same women who correctly argue that women and intelligent and independent beings -- who selectively invoke antiquated notions of helpless victimhood when trying to abolish the profession. If one truly believes that men and women are equal (or at least should be regarded as equal), then it should be clear that prostitutes require neither pity nor salvation on the basis of their profession alone. All of the arguments against prostitution break down when sex roles are held constant. Men can engage in commercial sex without being regarded as victims of exploitive men or as propagators of demeaning attitudes. Any prostitute (or anyone else) may be victim of circumstances beyond his or her control, and measures should be in place to help those who wish to get out of oppressive circumstances. However, to suggest that prostitutes who do not see themselves as victims just don't know any better is patronizing and contradicts the very essence of feminism -- the freedom to make one's own choices.

The juxtaposition of male-female and male-male prostitution helps to highlight a fundamental flaw in the arguments of antiprostitution feminists: the objection relates not to the actual transaction (which is fairly mundane when all is said and done) but rather to preconstructed sex roles that attempt to stigmatize women for being anything other than the traditional passive partner. Rather than advocating a manifestly patriarchal view of female sexuality, perhaps feminist energy would be better spent trying to eradicate the whole good girl/bad girl paradigm altogether.

.................................................................

----------------------------------------------------

PATRIARCHY’S CULTURE IS THE CAUSE OF CRIME & VIOLENCE.....WHY ARE WE NOT SURPRISED?

http://wabond.hubpages.com/hub/Practical-methods-in-overcoming-violence

William Bond, a brilliant man of Matriarchy, brings forth this:
Dr. James Gilligan - Youth And Violence: The Role of Education inspiring Solutions

Dr. James Gilligan has discovered that the macho culture is a major cause of violence.

Talk By Dr James Gilligan On The Root Causes of Violence

Dr. James Gilligan is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and for most of his career, has worked in prisons studying violent criminals. He had a great interest in trying to find out why these violent criminals behaved the way they did, and interview as many as he could. When he asked them why they had committed their crimes he always got the same answer; that they felt they were being "disrespected".

It seems that the only way these criminal could gain self respect was to use violence. As a number of criminals told Dr Gilligan, "I never got so much respect in my life, as when I pointed a gun in a dude's face."

It seems that all these criminals had horrendous childhoods. They were subjected to child abuse or were bullied and humiliated either by their parents or at school, until they felt, "dead inside" and no longer had any feelings. The criminals would even call themselves zombies or robots. Self harm was a commonplace with these criminals, as they would cut or hurt themselves to try and connect to their feelings. In not being able to feel, these criminals would have little feelings for others and no feelings of guilt or remorse for the people, they have hurt or killed.

Another aspect of most of these criminals is they had little education and were unable to find work. He makes a point, that by far the best program in prisons that prevent criminals from re-offending, after that got out of prison, was education. Prisoners that were given an education in prison were far less likely to go back to prison. This was because with an education, they were far more likely to get a job and people with education get far more respect in our society. Also an educated person is far more able to gain self respect for themselves than a uneducated one. Though he also makes the point, that schools were also the places where children were most likely to be bullied and humiliated, so schools can also create violent criminals.

He gives one horrendous account of one schoolboy spree killer who was continuously being bullied and humiliated by being called names like "pussy", "gay", "faggot", "geek" and "nerd". He was actually told that he wasn't a real man because he wasn't mean enough. So he decided the only way to make this stop, was to bring guns to school. He then went on a killing spree and when he was later put into juvenile detention he said he was now a lot happier in prison than at school. This was because in detention he was now known as a convicted killer and because of this, had gained the respect of his fellow prisoners as he was now seen as a "real man."

Dr Gilligan makes the point that punishment doesn't help these criminals at all, it only makes them worse. He also makes the same point about capital punishment, that being killed is no deterrent to violence criminals, as many feel so bad about their lives that they don't care if they live or die. He points out that this is also the psychology of suicide bombers, whom likewise, have lived lives of such terrible humiliation, they no longer cared if they live any-more.

Most criminals learn crime and violence as children.

-------------------------------------------------------

Man Alive Program

He started a prison program called, "man alive" where he attempted to de-construct the male role in our society. He would have discussions with groups of prisoners about how they saw the world and how these ideas brought about their criminal behaviour.

In these long discussions these criminals began to realise how they had been brainwashed by the patriarchal society they lived in, to act out the role of a macho man. They then slowly began to realise just how stupid this role was, and how it was the cause of all the unhappiness of their lives.

Half of the prisoners he talked to were in jail for domestic violence and had said they had assaulted their girlfriends or wives because they felt she had "disrespected" them. They then realised how crazy this was, and in following this macho ethos, they had driven away the person they loved. (We see the same attitude in Islamic countries, where women are assaulted or murdered if they "dishonour" a man.)

This program had a powerful effect on the prisons where it was carried out, as these prisoners would talk about what they discovered to other prisoners, the result was the amount of violence in the prisons greatly decreased. These prisoners also educated the new prisoners coming into the prison and the prison guards, to this new way of thinking, of the stupidity of machismo.

Dr Gilligan makes a few other interesting points, like, that the USA has by far the highest violent crime rate in all developed countries. (5-7 times more than any other developed country). He puts this down to the very macho culture of the USA and the large gap between rich and poor. He then points out that violence is even greater in third world countries because of the macho culture is even stronger and the gap between rich and poor, is even greater

Another point he makes, is that violent crime in USA in the 20 and 21st centuries has decreased under Democrat presidents and increased under Republicans. The reason is that Republicans tend to follow economic policies of high unemployment, which increases the gap between rich and poor, while Democrats attempt to try and decrease unemployment. So it seems that another big cause of crime is high unemployment. Also, Republican politicians are more likely to cancel programs like education for prisoners, than Democrat politicians, as well as introducing programs to punish prisoners, which only make them more violent. He makes the point that the USA states where the death penalty was re-introduced and carried out, the murder rate increased. This is because men who are driven to murder, have little interest in whether they live or die.

To sum it up. It puts the blame for violent on the strong machismo culture. This is made worse if there is a large gap between rich and poor. If we look around the world where women treated like slaves, we also see a great increase in poverty and violence. Where women have more power and respect, the rate of poverty and violence also decreases. So the more power women have, the more equal, and peaceful society becomes. As I have explained in some of my other articles. This is another reason, why we need women ruling our world.

-----------------------------------------------------------

A New Approach to Violence Treatment: An Interview with Dr. James Gilligan | Psychalive

Dr. James Gilligan is a renowned violence expert, and has contributed years of research to the treatment of some of California's most violent prisoners. Additionally, he served as an expert witness in the litigation that was subject of the Supreme Court

BBC News - Why is violent crime so rare in Iceland?

Violent crime is rare in Iceland. Andrew Clark investigates the mystery behind this peaceful nation.

Throwing children in prison turns out to be a really bad idea