William Bond, Rasa Von Werder & Pete Jackson Discussion
Letter to a woman-run organization from Rasa—First, what I
received from them:
We offer some women's-only
classes, and some coed, but you may have noticed that we don't offer programs
just for men. Why not? Well, we're a women-run business and men's work isn't
in our realm.
Fortunately,
we have some wonderful friends and allies here in the Asheville area at New Moon Brotherhood who
are showing up to create spaces for men to gather, connect, be supported by
each other and the land, and to grow together.
They're offering a Men's Retreat coming up on November 11-12 that we're guessing many of you would love to attend. Here's
more from them:
The "lone wolf" is a cultural narrative that
keeps men unwell. The hurt it causes in the inner and outer worlds is
unfathomable. It's time we men face ourselves and lead each other into our
potential to serve ourselves and our communities. Our retreat: Tending
Your Inner Fire, is a coming home to the fire of the heart, an igniting of
purpose and clarity, and the writing of a new story of brotherhood. Our
communities will feel the warmth of our healing. This is our celebration. We’ve
got work to do.
From Rasa:
Men already have too many privileges, which were won by
discriminating against women, holding them down - victimizing them &
children. We are talking about the gender war, where they did war against
women, the rightful leaders of the family & the world. They brought
war, chaos & hatred into the world. They are the gateway for
evil. Satan rules the world & he works through men.
In our New Religion & Order, men will be 90% excluded.
They will not be allowed to enter the Temple of Mother God or the convent, or any of the safe spaces
for women. They can be members but only inhabit certain places, like the
Community where they are mated with women, other places only by our invitation.
You bring up a sensitive issue here & it should be discussed,
but men DO NOT PERMIT IT TO BE EVEN BROUGHT UP OR PUT ON THE TABLE IN THIS
MALE-RUN SOCIETY. It is because of men we have WARS, unjust laws, slavery,
prejudice, discrimination, anti-sex 'morals' with double standards, the super
rich against the super poor. Men caused all this as they are not designed by
God/biology to be leaders. The female has the brain, the heart, to lead
the family & the world - the man has only to work & obey her. But
they rebelled against women & Mother God as they became more & more
aggressive due to women breeding with aggressive men - they eventually turned
against their leader. This is exemplified in the Myth of Lucifer into
Satan & Durga/Kali against Maharashtri.
My work is to found this new Order where we will go back to the
Power of the female & that includes the love of nature & animals {which
men do not support}. Enough said.
Rasa Von Werder ' "Woman, Thou Art God"
To William:
We have a serious problem that must be addressed.
Men form brotherhoods fairly EASILY. Why? We must analyze &
understand why women fail to bond. I have given reasons. William
goes back to ancient days & suggests agriculture made the change.
Why? Dr. Bryan Sykes says things changed during agriculture when women
were able to make cereal to feed babies. Prior to that, without this, an
infant had to be breast fed for several years - the immune system is not fully
formed in a child until six years, he said, & for this, breast feeding is
the solution.........And with the feeding of formula or cereal, women were free
to have serial pregnancies, which men wanted......Not because they love
children but they want to use children for work & conflicts. {Later,
canon fodder} We must delve into this, & how can we undo what has
been done? Rasa
William Says:
I suppose in the end it is
all about sisterhood, Rasa. Female chimpanzees are helpless because they don't
support each other while female bonobos are powerful because they do support
each other. And it seems the same for humans as well, female humans have
allowed men to rule the world because they also failed to support each other.
As we see in the feminist movement women do want to be empowered and have
achieved a lot, but if women want to rule the world then they have to come
together in a powerful sisterhood. So I suppose this has to be the message we
have to try and get out there.
Yes, all we can do it keep on
writing on the internet and hope others may read what we are saying and do
something.
The bonobo is more like humans than chimpanzees in many
different ways. The chimpanzee like most animals can only breed when the female
is in season. Whereas both the bonobos and human unlike nearly all other
animals can breed and have sex any time of the year. As you mentioned only the
bonobo and human can have sex face to face. Both humans and bonobos are the
weakest of the great apes, all other apes are far stronger. This might be to do
with the fact that male chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans fight each
other for access to females, so only the strongest males gets to mate.
It also has been discovered that the skeleton of an early human
called australopithecine, is very similar to the skeleton of a modern bonobo.
This all suggests that early humans and bonobos were once every much alike and
perhaps early humans likewise had a powerful sisterhood. As Marija Gimbutas has
pointed out, nearly all stone-age statuettes ever found are of women, very few
are of men. Perhaps showing us the higher status of women during the stone-age.
Somehow, the sisterhood broke up when we had farming.
My personal theory is that it might have happened when men began
to make weapons like spears and clubs in which to hunt animals. These weapons
then were used to intimate and kill other men and women to gain power. This
finally led to warfare and patriarchy.
But if women were able to create a powerful sisterhood back in
the stone-age then there is no reason why they cannot do the same again.
Perhaps all is needed is of women to learn more about the bonobo and the
knowledge that a powerful sisterhood is possible. William
Rasa says: Yes I agree re
the femdom men.
The rest of them or I should say, most of them, are
repulsed by female authority & fear losing all their rights. They do
have all kinds of rights by way of culture, law & so on. They want to
hang onto that. And they fear they will get less sex when women are in
charge. They are so anxious to get sex they feel they must dominate to
get it.
The truth is that when women are in charge they might get more
sex, lol. Rasa
Agreed Rasa, if we learn from the bonobo ape then men will get a lot more sex if women
take over. More so, if women learn they can use sex to dominate men. I think
what frightens men about female authority is backing the losing side, because
they don't believe women can rule the world. William
From Pete Jackson: That
is correct, Rasa and William.
Their fears are nearly 100% irrational fears, especially
the part about sex. With Women in charge, men on average and on balance
overall would indeed be likely to get more sex, not less, as Women's natural
sexuality would no longer be artificially suppressed by either gender.
And even the fear about supposedly losing rights is quite irrational as well,
as Matriarchy is in fact the best pathway to genuinely achieve liberty and
justice for all. On balance, most men will actually come out ahead in
terms of genuine civil and human rights compared to the often abysmal status
quo ante. As for the self-fulfilling prophecy fear of backing the losing
side, well, that is only true until the day that it isn't anymore, which is
likely far sooner than most men think it is. Best wishes, Pete
Rasa says:
very good answers. I'm keeping it for publication & future
books. I'm on page 222 right now before I upload the next article - when
I hit page 300 that will be the book so it won't be long. And then I will
put together one on Matriarchy which you guys will be in. I can't wait to
do these books, they give me great satisfaction. And I don't care if I
sell very few, the important thing for me is production. If I stop
producing to promote, it will kill time for production. And when I am
dead, I cannot produce more. I am counting on the books being popular AFTER
I die, where they will live forever.
We have more influence in the worlds we leave behind than in the
views or sales we have today. Look at Charles Dickens. In his
lifetime he did not save orphans, he only wrote about their plight & the
plight of the poor. There were 2 men I can name {there were others} who
at the same era did WONDERS for orphans & poor people - George Muller &
Rev. Spurgeon. But the books of Charles Dickens LIVE ON, influencing
people against mistreatment of the poor. But the work of the two guys
mentioned is GONE--not COMPLETELY--but partially gone.
In the same way, instead of promoting now
or even doing face-to-face ministry as I started this year - if I write down
everything I know & can imagine, & conceive, of the doctrine as well as
how to have a Matriarchal Sisterhood / Community, I feel I & we will do
more good. Our words will live on forever, influencing people just as
Charles Dickens is doing. Rasa
William says: Yes, I
agree, Rasa,
there are many instances
in history of people only becoming successful only after they died. This is
more true if someone comes up with a radical idea. The classic example is of
Nicolaus Copernicus who worked out mathematically that the Earth must go around
the Sun. But he knew he would be heavily criticized for saying this and kept
quiet and his papers where only revealed after he died. Another was a Hungarian
doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis who first proposed that doctors wash their hands
before operating. He was ridiculed because of this and died a failure, his
ideas only caught on after he had died.
Even Mary Wollstonecraft in her book, “A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman”, wasn’t a success in her own lifetime but it was this book
that started feminism. Unfortunately her ideas are way out of date today, but
have become a dogma for many modern feminists. So that Mary Wollstonecraft’s
idea that men and women are the same, has become a road block to further female
empowerment.
In the end just putting out our ideas is the only thing we can
do. I personally think that matriarchy will appeal to both women and men. Men
never liked feminism as it talked about sexual equality whereas men are into
concepts like hierarchy, as well as dominance and submission. So ideas of women
ruling the world and dominating men makes more sense to them, than men and
women being equal. And if we have a lot of men calling for matriarchy then
women won’t be so frightened of this concept. William
Rasa says:
I didn't know Ms W & her book started feminism. I thought
it was Pankhurst. So now I must etch this onto my mind, & take a look
at her work.
You said: So that Mary Wollstonecraft’s
idea that men and women are the same, has become a road block to further female
empowerment.
{Did you mean road BLOCK or something else?} Are you saying
her book blocked female empowerment today or was an origin of feminism?
On another note, I have noticed that promotion is promotion in the
world. Being in the world disturbs my mental abilities, dissipates my
mind. Then I cannot function spiritually & write what I must, get the
ideas I need from God. It's worse than apples & oranges, it's like
Satan vs God, the world being intermingled with so much evil & sin, it gets
in the way of contemplation. For the time being I want to be in the state
of contemplation, the world disturbs my mind. Jesus did say it is 'the
better part.' Rasa
William says:
Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her book,
“A
Vindication of the Rights of Woman” at the end of the 18th century when men at
the time were saying things like, women are too stupid and emotional to be
trusted in any position of power. Mary Wollstonecraft refuted these claims and
said that women were just as intelligent, capable and emotionally stable as
what men were. Her book was greatly influential throughout the 19th and 20th
centuries but her idea that men and women are the same, came a dogma that
feminist still say today. That is why they reject matriarchy because matriarchy
suggests women would do a better job of ruling the world than men. Which you
cannot have if men and women are basically the same. So feminists today still
follow what Mary Wollstonecraft wrote over 200 years ago. William
from Rasa:
Oh I see what you mean.
Backward, aren't they? Never read
the Natural Superiority of Women which I was aware of at age 14, lol.
Just goes to show you the Power of Words! That's why we must keep writing
& publishing, making sure our words do not disappear.
Woman turns tables of domination against husband. Dickens
describes it well, there's a few minutes of good explanation here - how he
browbeat her, she tried crying but he saw it as weakness. Then as he goes
for the door, feeling he's won, she physically attacks him & it turns out
he's a coward. Minutes later he enters the workhouse & tries to
dominate the paupers. The wife appears & tell him off. Dickens
explains it's one or the other - either he dominates you or you him, etc, &
the woman knew she had to go for it or forever be dominated.
The beating starts around 9:35 but see a bit before that
& after for more on this...Dickens explains well how people in authority
are terrific for beating on the poor & weak, but inside they are COWARDS,
& this man proves it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvGhX6FIIf4&t=8819s
William says:
The cowardly bully is what my
wife’s first husband was like. From what my wife and her children tells me he
would verbally abuse them all and use insults to undermine my wife’s confidence
in herself. Then he left my wife to go and live with another woman but it turns
out this woman wouldn’t put up with his insults and ended up completely
dominating him. So it seems he was domineering bully if people gave into him,
but quickly backed down when someone stood up to him. (None of my wife’s
children like him and one of his sons once punched him).
My parents would tell me and
my brother what life was like in before WW2 and in the times when women were
only housewives and men were the ‘breadwinner’. Some men when they got their
wages would go to the pub and spend most of their wages on drink and gambling.
Leaving their wives and family very little to live on. But some women to
prevent this happening would stand at the factory gates when the workers got
paid and grab their husbands as they came out of the gate and take their wages
from them, before the man could spend any of it. So again these men would back
down when a woman stood up to them. William
Rasa says:
Wow, what
you said about the man being the 'breadwinner,' taking all his salary &
pissing it away on alcohol, gambling & such indeed is a common theme
running through many cultures. In the Mexican/Latin culture {some African
& other cultures as well} there are entire towns & villages which will
not permit men to handle money or do the business of the family when they are
at the market, because of this reason.
This underscores the selfish & therefore weak
NATURE of men in general. They are lacking in EMPATHY & give in to
their lower nature. I have seen where men take food out of their
children's mouth so they can be with a Sex Therapist.
What does alcohol do for a person? It makes
them FEEL GOOD. What does gambling do? It gives them false hope, a
temporary belief they will be solvent or even RICH - which makes them feel
good. What does a Sex Therapist give? Once again, feel good
therapy. Males are NEEDY compared to women, needy to be taken care of,
made to feel good, given consolation & lower nature gratification.
Their lower nature, in general, controls them - some
call it the 'little head' ruling the big one.
What makes women different? Their BRAIN &
heart contain EMPATHY & they will sacrifice for children or men, old folks,
the needy, or animals. At the very least they will SHARE with the needy,
not deprive them of necessities. Men will take from the poorest of the
poor to feed their lower needs & for LUXURIES not needed. I always
speak in general re men & women as there are always exceptions - virtuous men
& psychotic women.
And that is why men cannot rule the family & the
world as we all agree, women must do so.
Rasa
And the PS to that
is that the good men should take over.
The problem is good men, like Jesus types – William Bond, Pete Jackson,
would say, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
The good men are
about doing God’s work, which is Salvation, a different dimension.
Add to that the men
who are basically GOOD but cannot overpower the evil as the wicked will use
every criminal, demonic means to do what they do, & the good guys are
afraid. The evil have a SYSTEM which
includes law on their side TO PUT GOOD people away – those who PROTEST. Some regular guys even go along with the
wicked for the benefits of society saying they are SUPERIOR TO WOMEN & have more prerogatives,
lol.
Bottom line, women plus good men must
slowly but surely invade the culture/system of the wicked & change it. Rasa
Pete Jackson:
I would also like to add that what you said about men and money made me think
of how the flip side of that is that men also become more dangerous (especially
to Women) when they are desperate for money, creating a no-win situation for
Women under the status quo. As I have been advocating for nearly a decade
now, a genuine Universal Basic Income (UBI) would solve so many problems in
that regard, provided that it is truly "no strings attached"
(unconditional and universal). Women would become far less dependent on
men as breadwinners or otherwise (if at all), men would become far less
desperate (if at all), poverty would be eradicated, and the working class would
have far more bargaining power in relation to the oligarchs. And it would lack
the perverse incentives and discrimination that the current patchwork quilt of
social welfare programs have. Is it perfect? Of course not, but
perfect solutions do not realistically exist, at least not in the near
term. UBI transcends the left-right political spectrum, and the greedy
oligarchs and their sycophantic lackeys generally hate the idea, as does the
patriarchy in general, as it would ultimately be their undoing. They
would only support conditional and non-universal programs that they can rig and
control.
Rasa says:
It is interesting to think about Pete....If everyone had a basic low income,
what would happen? It would have to be better than what we have now as
since Patriarchy there has been nothing but exploitation & cruelty to the
poor, extreme cruelty now that I'm reading Dickens. In the 1850's they
were hanging people for non violent crimes, even small crimes. It was
unbelievable.
Was it that way all over Europe? I don't know. Was England the cruelest place on earth toward the
poor?
If we eliminate poverty we will remove much of the street crimes
& crimes of desperation, I am certain. Guaranteed Survival would
change many things.
Pete Jackson says:
As
for England being the cruelest in Europe back then towards the poor, I think
several other countries were quite bad as well (France in particular, which of
course led to their famous revolution in 1789), which was to some degree
"normal" by old-school patriarchal standards, but England was still
likely at or near the top of the European league tables for cruelty.
Rasa: Let me add that Jack London wrote
VIVIDLY re the fate of the poor & homeless in England, the destitute. He actually lived with them in their
miserable neighborhood in London, worked in the work
houses & explained all the horrific cruelties to the poor. It’s even more vivid than what Dickens
portrayed, as he was right in it with them.
And this was the turn of the 20th Century, much after
Dickens.
%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
