Thursday, 29 February 2024
She lived a double life, as a mother and a serial killer in the next roo...
Wednesday, 28 February 2024
"Centuries of Purgatory" for This? Secrets of the Afterlife
3 inspiring stories to help your prayer life
Tuesday, 27 February 2024
Sunday, 25 February 2024
Jesus cries at the thought we might fail with the New Order
Jesus wants us to succeed with our
Matriarchal Order so much that He cries at the thought of us Failing
Marius-Grandma-moving-Dance show with evil female manager-Man
owner is perplexed & cries
Start with Grandma which usually man the deep unconscious.
Grandma was living by herself & she didn’t speak English
{like my real Grandma.}
She’s depending on myself & others in the familyto
supply her with food for a whole YEAR.
This other person & I {is it my sister?} are now leaving after our
yearly visit & Grandma is complaining.
She says,
“You gave me less than 10 lbs of potatoes!”
I say,
“Next time I come over I’ll give you 100 lbs!”
I survey her predicament.
She doesn’t drive, she doesn’t speak English – like my real GM – old,
grey hair in bun, wearing an outfit kind of like my new paisley dresses, tall
& thin.
MEANING:
*{ME: Wow, this I
don’t have a clue what it means. If
Mother God doesn’t help me, no one will.
MG: It is YOU who is
taking care of yourself, you have no help.
This might be you saying, unconsciously, when this one lady
& I break up there won’t be anyone I can depend on if I need help. It portrays you as being ‘helpless’ or
‘without help’ – without a best friend, mate or someone to rely on.
But you remind yourself, that soon, coming up, you will have
resources that are ten times what you have now – which the Saints have told you
is coming.
Potatoes are a MAINSTAY OF LIFE. You can live on them. The hermit of 70 years in
The hundred potatoes coming up next time is all the Saints are telling you the Life Story will be produced & you will have ‘more money than you know what to do with’ & there will be a ‘stampede’ of media wishing to talk to you. From these resources you won’t be alone it seems.}*
The DANCE outfit we rehearsed fro the dream of
yesterday – I’m back here - not one of
the dancers but an announcer for them.
It’s kind of ‘Goddess’ Show, & we seem to be in gold or yellow
costumes, & I see one that is solid gold sequins like I used to wear. But when I arrive backstage everything is
rather dark at first & I see no one - no dancers. After a minute I see one, then another
female. Only two – none of the other
dancers showed up!
The audience started out as closed in, in a building. But when I go out to start the show – {still
thinking somehow there will be one with the dancers, that they are perhaps late}
I see a large vista like a park, & about a hundred people are sitting out
there in a sort of ‘picnic’ ambiance.
They are enjoying this atmosphere plus will see the show. The setting is casual. Some seem to be wearing sunglasses, it’s
mostly men but there are women, & their seats are facing NOT to the stage
but to the 90 degrees to the right of me facing them from the stage.
OK it’s show time.
The stage is large. I have the microphone,
I go to the front of the stage & begin testing it, speaking. I say this or
that, no reaction—can anyone hear me? I
do this a couple times – nothing. Then I
say louder than before,
“Can you hear me? Is
anyone out there?”
It also seems as I’m speaking there’s a sort of curtain in
front of the stage, long golden fringes that obscure some of my vision {the
curtain has not gone up yet}. At that
point a female voice from the audience answers,
“YES!”
I see her in a seat facing the stage, apart from the others,
her own chair in a light blue outfit, young, thin, maybe 35 yrs old.
I begin to make a sort of preamble speech but now I find out
that the woman from yesterday {the Dance Conflict dream-2-24-24} – who was the
manager of this show - where I labeled the owner as ‘Jesus’ – this woman is an
evil person. She is NOT Mother God or
Holy Mary as I thought.
She’s out there sitting on a raised area with the owner to
her right, watching to see the progress of HER show & she interjects,
“They have come to see the show, not your speech.”
I feel abashed or chastened.
I then change my words & announce,
“We will now present a show based on the Goddess.”
BUT & it’s a big but – there is no show. The women did not arrive – they were 100%
unreliable & insincere!
But two dancers did show up {not from the show} & there
is ME. One f them was taking a shower
before work in this dingy, nasty dressing room, I see a cloth that is light
grey-blue with small blue flowers on it here & there.
The lady manager, who I shall call CASSANDRA, calls the
whole thing off. Cancel the show, she
says, which is a negative act as if all is lost – no hope – can’t adjust or
improvise.
But the owner is now sitting at a picnic table in sort of the
stage area but not the stage - Can’t explain it. His back is to me, he’s a fairly big man,
wearing a grey soft kind of t-shirt with a couple light blue stripes. He is facing toward the table, forlorn that
all is lost. But I encourage him. I even put my hand on his back & arm,
comforting him – his body is soft.
I tell him,
“Look, we have two dancers & there’s me. I can dance also. And there’s a hundred people out there, &
they will buy drinks.” {It’s assumed
that we can’t charge money for the show as the show that was announced cannot
be. And so the ownership makes no
money.}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
He says,
“How can you?”
{Meaning dance.}
I think of the solid gold sequin dress that is here – I can
wear that. And my body is not bad, ditto
my dancing ability. Not sure abut the
shoes, that might be a glitch as you must have high heels on stage & not
anticipating this, I did not bring mine, but I feel hope.
The man begins to cry. He’s crushed - the show meant that much to
him. And it is that bitch of a manager
that is closing the show. I tell him it
doesn’t have to be, he is the owner & has authority over her.
MEANING:
*{Wow, this is a biggie.
Now we have Our Lord CRYING – that’s a disaster! I comfort him! I tell him WE CAN DO IT! The only place in the bible where Jesus cried
– tears of blood – was in the Garden facing his Passion.
Now what is the show?
Two shows – One where 15 women as seen yesterday, were rehearsed &
supposedly could work. But they are
deadbeats. Yesterday they were shown as ‘flat chested’ & the mean evil
manager lady said I made them look bad because of my books being large {means
love} & fired me! So I’m not PART of
this show, nor did I rehearse, but for some reason, I’m the ANNOUNCER of it.
This show is all the women in the world & the internet
PRETENDING to be ‘Goddesses’ who REPRESENT Mother God, but they DON’T. They represent their own egos & self-
centered-ness. And so when the TIME comes to present to the world the idea of
Matriarchy-Mother God they WILL NOT BE THERE!
As the ANNOUNCER I am the PROPHET of this, but the evil
manager {Sounds like Heidi GottNerd—an academic who told me, when I reached out
to her – she would NEVER work with me!} wants me to SHUT UP & just let the
phonies represent Matriarchy
I
was abashed by her attitude but continued my work, did not leave the stage.
When
I call out to ‘is anybody out there’ means I’m asking is there anyone
SUPPORTING ME & the work. One woman
answers. This could be Freyja Derrickson
who did great things or who else – Someone in the future?
Bitch
Heidi is saying no one wants to hear me!
No monologue or speech, just announce THEM & I don’t get mad, I just
keep going.
But
when the TIME COMES & it is NOW in the dream – None f these women she
rehearsed & worked with CAN PERFORM.
They are simply not there – absent!
The
man-owner who I see as Jesus is the owner of the IDEA of Matriarchy. His teachings
are Maternal, like a Mother who loves all her children. Jesus said he would RETURN during the time of
GLOBAL WARMING & we are experiencing that now – it is getting more extreme
year by year.
Now
when the type of women Heidi is CANNOT FUNCTION as Matriarchs on the world
stage or PRODUCE anything of meaning re this social order – she wants the
entire theater or work to SHUT DOWN.
It’s either them or nobody!
Jesus
our Lord is extremely TROUBLED by this possible failure, so much so that HE
CRIES. I comfort him saying look, we can
manage. The two POOR WOMEN who showed up {they are those who have gone to the
School of Suffering as the dingy, nasty dressing room & taking a bath
implies} - & myself CAN DO A SHOW & we can get SUPPORT from the public
by selling drinks {alcoholic beverages are inebriation or spiritual
highs—receiving Grace, we’ll send out Grace.}
The
two poor women might be William Bond & Pete Jackson – my associates – who
are depicted as female for being MATRIARCHS, no negative quality implied.
And
why does Jesus WONDER if I can do this?
Because it is so difficult, so hard, like FACING HIS PASSION & there
are only 3 of us! While out there in the
word there are many PRETENDERS to the Throne – but they are deadbeats who
showed their true colors. They talk the
talk, can’t walk the walk. They can do everything but produce a
Matriarchy! But I am telling Jesus, we 3
can do this!
And
what do I depend on that gives me hope?
That golden dress – it is MY LOVE.
Because ‘love makes all things possible.’
I
think my skills/abilities {body, dancing} will SUFFICE. I’m not bragging to be perfect, mostly
relying ON THAT DRESS which is the GREATNESS of my LOVE. But the HIGH HEELS I’m not sure of. It means CRUCIFIED. I want to succeed, but don’t want to be
murdered in the process, is that OK? Can I do this without experiencing what
Jesus did in His Passion?
Overall this dream is truly great because I comfort Our Lord - & that of itself is a Marvel. This explains that the work we’re doing is His – It means a lot to Him.
IMPORTANT: this NDE video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5_ZvD51jDw&t=79s
Pay
attention to how Jesus ENTERED HER BODY at the end of her stay in Heaven. She asked him if he'd go back with her - he
said yes - & then he entered her body. This is a Jesus Person that can become a
person within us. And so when we dream
of Jesus, it could be this very person inside rather than the HISTORICAL one. We replicate Jesus when we love him totally,
"No longer I live but Christ in me."
I now realize that sometimes when I see Jesus in my dreams- Like this one-
it is the JESUS PERSON within me! {end}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
My sister & I have been somewhere but the time is
over & we are leaving. At first it’s
a normal area but then it changes to the room of Marius Bernotas – my Mom’s
lover which ended it for Dad– which always means separation, usually end of a
relationship.
My sis has got her bags packed tightly, I have one large bag
jammed full also, but there’s one round suitcase I have that I have partially
filled & can’t find what else to put in, I just leave it that way & go
to take off. {At one point sis & I
had some sort of bad conflict & I was ‘in her face’ but this is vague.} Sis
can be one of my own inner personalities or another person.
This suitcase is the one I had when I left B’klyn &
escaped to
MEANING:
*{This worried me quite a bit. But now I’m glad I typed it as I can
understand more clearly, it’s probably a lady who has no respect for me – gets
angry & explodes on me when I bring up the facts of the past. Maybe it’s time for us to end it, this says
it will end. I was going to say to her,
“Hey, when I escaped to CA why did you come after me? Why did Mom?
Why didn’t you guys leave me alone & allow me to live my life away
from you? It was Mom who abused me &
got others to do so & yet – they would not let me live in peace, apart from
them, always had to reach out & bother me & stay in touch, & never
changed from the contempt they had for me.
I was imagining myself telling this lady why didn’t they just forget me
after I went to CA?}*
The lover, friend praying a lot. There’s a man who’s in love with me & I
with him. I seem to be resting at his
place while his friend, another man, hovers about. The lover goes out, I fell asleep, he must
have been gone for an hour but I didn’t even sense the time. I am in bed, that other friend never leaves,
he stands behind me looking on & he’s so innocent I don’t feel invaded even
if he watches lover & I in bed. I
ask the man are we going to make love again.
I don’t know who he is but both the men are wearing black clothes, the
lover’s middle sticks out like he’s overweight as I see him return from
shopping for us. Both these men are kind
& really sincere, I seem to be lollygagging.
MEANING:
*{This sounds like a Soul in Purgatory & I am
TRANSMITTING Grace to him via the idea of ‘making love.’ His friend most likely is a good guy praying
for his soul!
The
biggest hint is they’re both wearing black clothes. And ‘making love’ with a
man I don’t even know is usually a Soul in Purgatory, giving him Light.}* {end}
Latest Article Roundup By Ajax The Great (Pete Jackson)
In a previous article, I had noted that we have little if anything to fear from an aging and eventually shrinking population in the future, while the very real ecological problems of overpopulation and ecological overshoot greatly dwarf any social and economic problems of the former. But I did not get fully into the mechanics of exactly WHY birth rates are falling and have been falling for quite a while now.
I would of course be remiss not to note that the plandemic and especially the jabs (I for one refuse to inaccurately call these novel and experimental gene therapy drugs by their preferred V-word) played a role, but the trend of falling birthrates began LONG before anyone ever even heard of the "novel coronavirus". In fact, it goes back decades.
It's almost like Gaia is trying to tell us something. So read on, and let's answer the "clue phone" ringing louder than ever....
There also physical factors dampening fertility such as endocrine disruptors and other pollutants, which clearly play a role, along with widespread use of both licit and illicit drugs as well, but most of the drop in birthrates is due to more people of both genders choosing (consciously or unconsciously) to have either fewer kids or no kids at all.
The obvious reason? Women are generally no longer forced and coerced as they once were to be serial breeding slaves, at least not in the rich-world countries. So unsurprisingly, they are now having fewer kids, and starting later in life than before. No wonder the reactionaries want so desperately to revoke Women's hard-won reproductive rights. In fact, Women all over the world are increasingly FED UP with patriarchy, especially in traditional societies that have recently modernized. To cite an extreme example, the country with the world's lowest total fertility rate (TFR), South Korea, there is currently even a Lysistrata-like movement called the "4B movement" (a combination of reproductive strike, dating strike, marriage strike, and sex strike against men by primarily the younger generation of Women) that is apparently rapidly catching on over there.
And in parallel with that, a more subtle reason also emerges: as men now have more "skin in the game" legally in regards to children that they sire, compared with just a few generations ago, men also are finding that having too many kids and/or too soon is more burden than benefit for them as well. Furthermore, at least in the rich-world countries, children are generally no longer a source of cheap labor anymore. So it really doesn't make economic sense anymore for men to have lots of kids like in the past either.
Meanwhile, under late-stage capitalism and late-stage patriarchy, the cost of raising children continues to skyrocket along with the extreme inequality and (often planned and artificial) scarcity of resources (especially housing) thanks to the oligarchy and their sycophantic lackeys in government. That impacts both genders, of course. Increased life expectancy, urbanization, technology, and an accelerating pace of life also contribute to reduced birthrates well.
It is also an opportunity cost for Women as well, in that now that Women are now allowed to have (gasp!) education, careers, and stuff like that, and thus attempting the high birthrates of the past would clearly interfere with and put a damper on that. Time and energy are finite resources, after all. Reactionaries of course, at least when they aren't too craven to say the quiet part out loud, would cynically argue that Women thus have "too many choices" now, and that forcibly taking opportunities away from Women (!) would be the only way to restore the high birthrates of the past. Technically, they are not entirely incorrect. That, and/or restoring the very high poverty and death rates (both infant/child and maternal) of the distant past, would indeed be the only way to restore such high birthrates. But I don't think any sane person really wants to do either, nor would it be even remotely ethical.
Nor are the high birthrates of the past really a good idea in an overpopulated world in ecological overshoot, obviously. "Replacement rate," which ultimately results in a long-term stable population number that is neither growing nor shrinking, is a total fertility rate (TFR) of roughly 2.1 children born per Woman. For example, a TFR of, say, 1.5-1.8 or so (where most of the world currently seems to be converging towards, even in many non-rich countries) for a few generations would lead to a gentle and gradual population decline of roughly 10% to 25% per generation once positive momentum ends and then negative momentum sets in. (A TFR of 1.0, around where most of East Asia seems to be converging, would result in an even sooner and faster population drop of about 50% per generation, and so on.) Then, as the world becomes less crowded, and thus the cost of living drops, Women will likely decide to have somewhat more kids and the TFR will eventually settle around replacement rate once again.
All of this dovetails nicely with the Gaia hypothesis per James Lovelock. That is, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing when a grossly overpopulated species wreaks havoc on the Earth as we continually transgress planetary boundaries like there is no tomorrow. In the case of modern humans, we have artificially (and temporarily!) pushed back many of the natural limits that once held our population in check, so now we are, not coincidentally, losing at least some of the previous desire and/or ability to procreate until we ultimately get back into balance with Nature, God willing. So it is unsurprising that all of the overt pronatalism in the world, even literally paying Women to have kids, is NOT really working to raise birthrates more than at the very margins. Even the very generous and progressive Nordic countries are still significantly below replacement rate, albeit still higher than most of their neighbors to the south (except for France, who is also almost as generous as the Nordics).
That's not to say that a generous progressive and pro-humanity agenda (such as Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, paid family leave, flexible work-life balance, free or subsidized childcare, improved education, and stuff like that) would be useless, far from it. I believe that it is simply the right thing to do for it's own sake regardless. It's called ethics, and respecting the inherent dignity of the human person. But, short of literally paying Mothers at least a quarter-million dollars per child* (the approximate low-ball cost of raising ONE child from birth until age 18, excluding higher education) up front, if one is somehow counting on such things merely to stop the population from aging or shrinking, they are most likely barking up the wrong tree. The most it could do in that regard is slow down the rate of aging and decline, so as not to hit too large a "pothole" on the road to sustainability.
(*NOTE: If your jaw just dropped reading that figure, think of it like this: Mothering is literally the most important job in the world, yet it is one that literally pays NEGATIVE "wages". A quarter-million dollars is really just breaking even, basically. Now you see why practically all pronatalist initiatives, monetary or otherwise, don't really move the needle.)
Regardless, we must leave room for Nature, lest Nature ultimately not leave room for us. We ignore that basic maxim at our own peril, not to mention that of the entire planet.
And certainly, we must never, ever, force, coerce, or deceive anyone to have kids against their will, period. That is a very backward, outmoded, illiberal, and all-around toxic thing to do to anyone, and does NOT respect the dignity of the human person. Doing so treats humanity solely as a means to an end, not an end in itself. That should go without saying, of course, but when carrots fail, there will be the temptation to use sticks, as some countries are already doing today.
In a nutshell, an aging and shrinking population is inevitable, baked into the cake for several generations now, and the only thing we can really do is adapt to it. How we will "ride the slide" is ultimately the "make or break" point for our species during the current Anthropocene epoch. And the Earth will ultimately thank us if we get it right (and we absolutely cannot afford to get it wrong, as that is not an option).
Let the planetary healing begin!
P.S. I realized that I had glossed over and neglected to mention the factor of NARCISSISM. Some would argue that a supposed increase in "cultural narcissism" is at least partially responsible for people choosing to have fewer kids or none at all. If that is true, then that is actually a GOOD thing on balance. Narcissists truly make some of the very worst parents as a rule (second only to psychopaths and sociopaths), and narcissists of course tend to beget more narcissists, via nature, nurture, or both. And a culture causing fewer narcissists to procreate as much will cause them to ultimately go largely extinct within a few generations, which would be to everyone's ultimate benefit overall. Once again, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing.
(Mic drop)
SHOULD CHILD SUPPORT LAWS BE PHASED OUT?
(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog)
(NOTE: The following was written primarily with the outside world in mind, rather than Rasa's New Order for Women, as the latter would, sooner or later, make many of the things discussed in this article inherently obsolete regardless of what happens in the outside world. It should be regarded as somewhat complementary, however.)
First, I should note that I do NOT approve of actual deadbeat dads under the current system. They are literally "welchers" of the worst kind, and I cannot stand welchers of any kind. To any fellas reading this, I strongly advise you NOT to have any unprotected PIV intercourse at all unless you either 1) had a vasectomy, and/or 2) can afford to set aside the quarter-million dollars or so per child to raise such children with at least a halfway decent standard of living from birth to age 18 (or an even higher age in some states for child support obligations). And that doesn't even include college or the possibility (nay, probability) of massive medical bills in the USA. Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts. Under the current imperfect system, if you want to play, you may very well have to PAY. And if you don't pay, well, then you get to face the modern-day version of debt peonage or debtor's prison. You can thank the patriarchy for backfiring on you per the law of karma. Also don't forget to thank neoliberalism (including the hypocritical President Slick Willie in the 1990s, one of the biggest rakes and cads in modern history) as well for essentially gutting what passed for a social safety net, and thus for "hunting you down and making you pay" in return.
In other words, fellas, discipline yourself to say, "no glove, no love" as a matter of course, lest you play a risky game of Russian Roulette both physically and financially.
That said, as we make the rocky and often nonlinear transition towards a Matriarchal society, a very vexing question will inevitably come up. What to do about child support laws? Should the very concept be phased out? Many men will reflexively say, "Hell Yeah!", while many Women would say, "Hell NO!", or at the very least, have an abundance of caution about the overall idea. On social media, for example, I have even encountered some Women here and there who say they want to create a world where no one knows or cares who the father is, yet somehow still want to force men to pay for it all. I guess they want a rule of "joint and several liability" or "deep pocket rule", of all of the potential fathers for all children, not unlike what Lenin briefly had in the USSR during their ill-fated first attempt at a "sexual revolution" in the late 1910s and early 1920s, that is, before Stalin did an about-face and abruptly reversed it after the orphanages became (paradoxically) packed to the brim with unwanted children. Yes, that was before modern birth control and paternity testing, of course, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that sort of policy probably would NOT end very well at all under late-stage capitalism today either. That circle simply does NOT square at all.
Meanwhile, many right-wing reactionaries (including so-called "reactionary feminists"), believe that the more obligations people have in general, the better, because reasons. Even if some tacitly believe that Women should have all the rights but men should have all of the obligations, or vice-versa. That circle doesn't really square either.
Yet in actual Matriarchal societies, past and present, such as the Mosuo, we know that men generally have no real liability for their own (putative) children at all. Why? Not only due to the traditional lack of paternity certainty (at least before the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing), but also because the Women do NOT want themselves or their children be tethered to or dependent on the men, for obvious reasons, as that is a major conflict of interest. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and with men's shekels come the shackles. And men, as a rule, in every society patriarchal or Matriarchal or anything in between, have always been the lazier gender overall, and often seem to be congenitally allergic to responsibility. Sure there are exceptions, but those exceptions really only prove the rule. If Women are going to inevitably carry the bulk of the "mental load" regardless, to say nothing of the physical load too, they might as well be fully in charge as well. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and heavy is the head that wears the crown.
In other words, it is understood that with power comes responsibility, and thus men would have both less power and less responsibility relative to Women under Matriarchy, particularly in regards to children. That makes sense, as it's a trade-off. Women would also be the richer gender as well, and children would ultimately be raised (more or less) collectively by the "village". And to paraphrase the philosopher Iris Murdoch (in a different context), one cannot simply go on indefinitely living off of the interest of a capital that one has long since rejected, at least not for very long.
(Perhaps that is one somewhat esoteric reason why, contrary to popular opinion, even Feminists have long been divided on the issue of child support laws and reform. Any Feminist Women who do support reform (despite it being a very hot-button, "third rail" issue), however, generally use equality-based arguments to openly make their case, though.)
And yet, abruptly ending all child support obligations right now (especially in the USA) would be nothing short of catastrophic, leaving millions of Women and children high and dry, while rakish men get to laugh all the way to the bank. So that is clearly a no-go, hands down. Especially in a world where Women's hard-won reproductive rights are currently on the chopping block as we speak.
The fellas can't have it both ways, of course. If Women are to be treated as brood mares, then it logically follows that men would be....WORK HORSES. And we must all say "NEIGH" to both of those "traditional" and dehumanizing gender roles.
Long story short, in the long run, I do support gradually phasing out the child support laws, for children born at some point in the future, but we must be very careful NOT put the cart before the horse. Before we even begin to do so, we must do ALL of the following first, at a minimum:
- Fully codify and guarantee Women's reproductive rights in federal law.
- Birth control and abortion access must be readily available to all on demand.
- Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all, aka Social Security For All, with NO strings attached. Goodbye poverty!
- At the very least, we must have some flavor of UBI for children, similar to what we very briefly had in the USA with the expanded child tax credit. We could even call it "collective child support".
- Universal, single-payer Medicare For All. Goodbye massive medical bills!
- Generous paid family leave for both genders.
- Free or subsidized high-quality childcare for all who want it.
- "Baby bonds" to make every baby a trust-fund baby and build generational wealth.
- Free college and/or trade school for all who want it.
- As long as other social welfare and safety net programs like TANF still exist, remove the perverse requirement for single Mothers to name the father in order to receive benefits (you can thank Slick Willie for that one).
- And so on. In other words, the genuine progressive wish list, funded collectively via progressive taxation, Georgist-style taxation, financial transaction taxes, Pigouvian taxes, vice taxes, and/or money creation.