Part 3 Positions on Matriarchy-Pete-Rasa-William
Rasa’s Remarks apply to her New Religion / Order
Pete Jackson to Rasa: Thanks for your
response again, Rasa. I have seen many true crime documentaries on both
TV and websites myself over the years, so yes, I am well aware of the evil that
is out there. I have no doubt about that. I have also seen
documentaries of what houses of horrors many American prisons can be as
well. Lots of rapes, murders, and suicides happen there. (Programs
like "Scared Straight" even make that seem like a feature rather
than a bug.) So I could see how at least some convicts, when given a
choice, would choose death instead, especially since they known the other
inmates generally won't take too kindly to people like them. But back to
the nuanced ethical issues surrounding the death penalty, I would say I have
had mixed feelings about it overall due to its historical baggage, and over the
years I have gone back and forth about it. Even if some people do indeed
truly deserve it IMHO.
On the issue of democracy, I'm afraid I really
cannot refute all of your points entirely, Rasa. What I do know is that,
for all of its many flaws and vulnerabilities, democracy is still on balance at
least somewhat better than the various oligarchies, tyrannies, dictatorships,
juntas, monarchies, theocracies, empires, etc. throughout history, even if that
is of course a pitifully low bar to clear. And the way things stand now,
the
Rasa ads:
Just one thing, I don’t know what jails are as brutal today as you
describe. Could be some foreign country, but I have seen no reports like
this. Those who are on ‘suicide watch’
are usually people can’t face the consequences of what they have done – like
the guy who lived near me – I met him & bought my Rottweiller from his Mom. He killed his Mom with a baseball bat to the
back of her head. He was on suicide
watch. I thought so what? Let him do it. Man guilty-as-Hell people go
on ‘suicide watch’.
William Bond steps in:
Hi Everyone
I suppose if we are going to have a
Matriarchy then it has to be a apartheid system. The way to justify it is to
use patriarchal history. Which is a history of warfare, genocide a huge gap
between rich and poor. I think the people will accept only female rule if women
can rule the world without wars and genocide and not push the common people
into poverty. There is also the continuous threat of nuclear war. Do we really
want weapons of mass destruction in the hands of testosterone driven men?
Men have had their chance of ruling the
world and screwed it up. So we now have to have women rule instead and if they
can do a better job then it’s important not to allow men rule again. It is also
important not to try and have both men and women rule equally. This is because
men are more competitive and aggressive than women and in a highly competitive
world, women’s more caring and loving instincts will be seen as a weakness. So
women will either be forced out or be forced to be as competitive and ruthless
as men. That’s is why we need women only governments where they can freely
express their maternal and nurturing instincts. William
Pete again:
William, I do see your
point and it makes great sense, though I don't think "apartheid"
(which implies very rigid segregation, as opposed to integration, at both the
macro and micro levels of daily life, not just in government) is really the
right word to describe your vision here. Granted, as I noted before, men
should be barred from all positions of power and all elected offices higher
than dogcatcher, no argument from me there. In appointed government
bureaucracies, men should be no higher than low-level functionaries. For
both the police and military, men should be barred from any rank above sergeant
(if even that). And men should also be barred from running any large or
multinational corporations (their board of directors needs to be 100% Female),
though small to medium sized businesses would be fine by me IMHO. But men
could still otherwise have their civil and human rights at the same time.
The Dutch proverb, "when you permit, you control" comes to mind here.
(Again, I am talking entirely about the secular outside world
here, which would most likely and ideally still remain co-ed, and not the
Order, of course.)
An article I wrote years ago comes to mind:
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_5.html
Best wishes, Pete
Rasa responds: The word ‘apartheid’ has become a dirty word,
but what it does I would like to see done to men as I agree with what William
says.
Pete, I checked
your link & what it says sounds good to me – men cannot run for offices
higher than ‘deputy?’ What does deputy
mean? And women have to occupy 50% of al
seats. OK. But you admit this has no chance of getting
passed & I agree, unless women were 90% of government.
What William says
is correct. But the question is, how do
we get men out of the way with their competitiveness, aggression, anger,
revenge, brutality & like such that goes with their nature, & how do we
get women with their maternal, caring, honest & fair to all nature into
office?
Frankly, there
isn’t any way except that thousands of years of males going slowly extinct – or
else - women not becoming EVIL like men but nevertheless, becoming zealous, aggressive
for the cause of humanity, & taking back the family & the world from
them. THEY MUST BECOME AGGRESSIVE &
WARLIKE AGAINST MEN, but not against humanity!
Here is my theory
on how males became as they are & females becoming incompetent &
incapable of stopping them.
Long ago William
said women gave up their position/authority to men. I got angry at that. But now I agree with it but in a different
way, that they did it involuntarily, unconsciously, through their behavior,
which they didn’t realize, would end up like this.
Once upon a time
women were far different than they are now.
They contained within themselves both the masculine as well as feminine
traits. Not saying they were bull-dykes
with short haircuts & wanting to be men – no. they were powerful creatures who ruled the
family & the world & their brain had all the good features of a woman –
which we know about: frontal lobes which
concern the civilized part of ourselves awake - the part that controls
impulses, awake {whereas in men asleep} & the corpus collasum that connects
both sides of the brain without thousands of antennas functioning {in men very
few antennas} etc.
And so the
MASCULINITY WITHIN WOMEN was there, but it was not OUT OF CONTROL as it is in
some men TODAY.
Now here’s the bad
road: Women began to mate with the males
that were more ‘rugged – masculine – strong – macho, etc’ as they had more
ability to WORK & also, to protect the family from animals & unwanted
males, as they were more impulsive, aggressive, even reckless at times – all
for the good of the woman & family & village. This seemed like a good idea at the time, but
wait – it ended up bad.
Over thousands of
years as this sort of breeding continued women also changed. They retained their feminine, caring nature,
but they lost their ‘aggressive – zealous – gung ho, - fearless’ nature. They became PASSIVE & TIMID while the men
got more AGGRESSIVE & FEARLESS.
And as it went on,
a certain faction of males, as seen in the Myth of Lucifer turning to Satan –
these males rebelled against women – seen as rebelling against Mother God as
that was their religion then - & they said, like Lucifer,
“I WILL NOT SERVE!”
The Christians purport this Myth is re
angels, & that 30% of the angels followed Lucifer, but I suggest it is
about MALES & 30% of human males became possessed by the spirit of the
demonic, & followed this precept, & became those entities which the
Myth says,
“Roamed the world seeking whom they can
devour, forever tempting people to sin so they will end up in Hell – they come
to steal, kill & destroy, he was a liar from the first & cannot be
redeemed.”
This all describes the men who run the
world – the liars, tyrants, exploiters, murderers, & warmongers.
And so, we women & good men are
between a rock & a hard place. It’s almost impossible for females to turn
the world around unless they regain their MASCULINE NATURE, become aggressive
& fearless again, & thereby ousting males. {Why God made me bring female body building
forth} They cannot & must not become
EVIL like the men, but they must become FEARLESS against the demonic – the way
Jesus was against Pharisees, money changers & demons. It will take HUGE COURAGE on women’s part
& what they need is the GOD WITHIN as my New Religion purports, to give
them FAITH in the Power of God within themselves. Faith can move mountains & mountains we
must move.
I believe this New Religion / Order is a template for how our word can
becoe. The world is changed by ideas,
not force. We must present the vaid,
workable ideas, that come to me from the Holy Spirit, that aso come to William
& Pete, & work this out together - & let others learn from this,
get fired up, & act on these principles.
We have to put men back it their place –
at the feet of women, obedient to them.
Women know how to run a family & household & children – men
don’t. Unfortunately they took that
position away from women with their doctor / quack ideas, killing children in
orphanages, the Dr. Spocks of my childhood telling women to leave babes alone
as they bang their heads against the wall & floor.
The RESULT of separating people from the
Mother / maternal / caring has bee the following as Dr. James Prescott explains: suicide, homicide, drug & alcohol
addiction, depression & anxiety, etc.
Replace the Mother with a demonic man at the head of the family &
the world results in this – for all – men & women. We have become a sick society because we are
sickened by male rule.
And then, the society benefits from our
sicknesses by ‘treating’ us with ‘therapy,’ medications, self-medications or street
drugs, negative behaviors, self hate, hate of others & crimes. We read self
help books, meditation courses, a guzillion ways to try to CURE OURSELVES of what’s
been done to us but what we must work on is stop male rule & bring back the
MOTHER – Mother God & women at the helm.
The ailment of society is we need a Mother. {end}
Rasa Von werder


















.jpg)
.jpg)
b.jpg)













Thank you, Rasa. Well-said overall.
ReplyDeleteThe "Ted Turner Amendment" article of mine was written several years ago and it is a bit dated now. I don't remember exactly what I meant by "deputy" when I wrote it, but I think I used that to mean a catchall term for "underling" or "low-level" positions. It was written more of a "transitional form" or journey rather than a destination. And of course, it would never be implemented until Women break the 90% barrier. So far, only two countries (Bolivia and Rwanda) have even broken 50%, but that number will likely grow exponentially in the future.
Your theory does make a lot of sense, especially as to the origins of how men were able to overrun Women and take over in the first place. And it will of course be a slow boat to China, to put it mildly, for Women to reverse it entirely, but it will happen nonetheless, God willing. Women have already crossed the Rubicon in that regard.
Our general visions (or at least the micro-level details of such) of a Matriarchal future, may differ between the three of us, but at least we all agree largely on what the MACRO level should look like. That is the important thing.
Best wishes and keep up the great work :)
Pete
And of course, in any case, regardless of what I want to see happen, as a man, it will most certainly NOT be my call, but that of the Women of the future. And that is fine with me.
ReplyDeleteThanks Pete, this comment will be included in our next book.
ReplyDeleteRasa
You're very welcome, Rasa. Excellent, thanks :)
Delete