Gender War Going the Other Way

                          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 20^th Century, much after Dickens.